Traffic congestion is one of the first and inevitable manifestations of a booming economy and the first and most sustained cause of public opposition to continued growth and development.  Understandably, then, public dissatisfaction with traffic congestion is the leverage anti-growth activists use to justify a vast array of ill-founded “solutions” - most notably, stopping construction of urban loops, building mass transit, and increasing development densities - but effecting such policies could be counterproductive.

Urban loops help ease traffic congestion and . . .

It is not uncommon to see anti-growth advocates and proponents of mass transit teaming up to oppose the construction of urban loops (belt roads) as a way to stop urban sprawl and ease traffic congestion.  The facts are, however, that stopping construction of belt roads has little, if any, effect on urban sprawl and traffic congestion, and could even be counterproductive.  

A UNC-C study^[i] found that cities without belt roads or with only a few miles completed were growing faster than cities with belt roads and that belt roads actually reduce overall traffic and slow its growth rate by providing a way for employment to locate away from the present city street system that would be further overloaded if the employment located there. 

                                                      . . . public transit does not; . . .       

According to the UNC-C study², public transit has no significant impact on congestion; the only factor influencing congestion being jobs.  Only five percent of American workers take mass transit to work, and the number has been dropping.  While the use of personal vehicles has increased more than 85 percent since 1970, the use of mass transit has dropped three percent.³ 

The simple fact is that light rail and other forms of mass transit cannot meet the ability of roads to move passengers.  light rail lines carry 88 percent less volume than a single freeway lane couplet and 50 percent less volume than a single arterial lane couplet.⁴ 

Availability of light-rail does not reduce automobile use.  Each of the four cities that built light rail in the 1980s - Buffalo, Portland, Sacramento, and San Diego - by 1990 had experienced a decline in the percentage of workers using public transit to get to work.⁵  What’s more, the actual number of riders on light rail fails to meet pre-construction forecasts by 65 percent.⁶  The majority of light-rail riders transfer from buses, not automobiles.⁷

                                  . . . increasing population density makes traffic worse, . . .

The UNC-C study⁸ found that increased population density, rather than reducing traffic congestion, actually leads to increased freeway traffic density, not less traffic as is commonly asserted in the planning literature.

Urban areas with higher levels of traffic congestion have higher population densities.⁹ Transit-oriented dense development increases traffic congestion.  New employment centers attract from six to 100 times as many automobile commuters as transit commuters; therefore, the higher concentration of employment and residences will bring an increase in automobile trips to the area.¹⁰  

                                                 . . . and increases public service costs.  

Contrary to popular perception, public service costs tend to be lower where population densities are lower.^{11 12}

We have already seen that mass transit does not ease, but in fact, can exacerbate traffic congestion.  Additionally, commute times, commuter safety, energy efficiency, public service costs, and open space all suffer in densely populated, compact, transit oriented comunities.                                                                    

Commute times for light rail are more than double those for automobile.  The average light rail commute time is 45 minutes, but only 21 minutes by automobile.¹³

Rail transit is less safe than automobile travel.  The number of fatalities per 100 million passenger miles in the from 1990-1997 was significantly higher for commuter rail (1.310) and light rail (1.317) than for automobile and trucks (0.745).¹⁴  

Mass transit is less energy efficient than automobile use.  Energy consumption per passenger mile for automobiles (3467 BTU) is less than that for transit buses (4650 BTU), rapid rail (3790 BTU), and light rail (3919 BTU).¹⁵

A grand jury in Orange County, California , investigating the claims of proponents of light rail, examined the 12 urban light rail systems most recently built in the .  The grand jury found¹⁶, among other things, that: (1) light rail has a negligible impact on traffic congestion because it attracts few automobile drivers from their cars; (2) even the most cost-effective light rail systems have required subsidies of $5000 or more per new ride (drivers moved from cars to the transit system); (3) light rail does not spur development; rather, development along light rail corridors is spurred by tax subsidies; and (4) light rail does not improve commuter travel times, energy conservation, or commuter safety.