The Human Response to Traffic Congestion Bob Lehman MES FCIP An important facet of human behaviour that is found

across all societies, economic structures and technologies limits the total time spend on travel in a day to approximately 70 minutes. This time seems to be the same whether the travel is by foot obtain water from a well once a day, to work by bicycle in Karachi or by car in North America. People, in the broadest possible sense, have an innate budget for travel time that is predictable within a given population. The research to date shows that there is both a typical average commuting time as well as a typical distribution of commuting times among the general population throughout the urban centres of North America. It appears that within a given population the propensity of all of the individuals to travel a specific time to work falls into a similar pattern and results in a similar average travel time. Both the average travel time and the distribution of travel times among the population is typical only when the urban system has developed to the point where automobile travel choices have achieved a balance with the capacity of the transportation system, so that capacity has been challenged and location decisions are made that are directly affected by traffic congestion. This doesnt mean that every individual has the same budget but rather, in a large enough group the propensity or willingness to accept travel times can be predicted. Studies that track travel times in first world city-regions show a remarkably similar distribution of travel times for commuting to work. This curve has a median of 25 minutes, which is very useful as a general indicator of the effectiveness of the transportation network in an urban area. On average then, an individual commuting to work will spend 50 of their 70 minute travel budget on a two-way commute. The U.S census has tracked journey to work times since 1980 and despite the enormous growth in the major urban centres, a huge increase in automobiles per person as well as trips per person, there was no change in the average journey to work travel time between 1980 and 2010. How can this be, you ask, when traffic congestion is cited as the number one urban problem. The Response to Congestion is Organic Travel times have not changed because people adapt to meet their needs- think of it as an evolutionary or organic process. Demand for road and transit facilities is a function of human behavior and thus is organic in its response to change. All users of a transportation network individually balance convenience and cost. In theory, if supply is equal to demand, the network will reach capacity in the morning and evening commuting trips the peak period of travel. When faced with congestion users will first alter their behaviour to use the network when it takes less time to travel. Flexible working hours, carpooling and teleworking are individual and institutional responses to road congestion. Travel habits in response to congestion in most North American cities have resulted in morning and evening commuting peak periods now extending beyond three hours. Goods carriers have responded by avoiding peak periods and as a consequence bringing traffic flows to

capacity levels in some corridors between morning and evening peaks. With a system at capacity at all reasonable hours the only mechanisms available to maintain commuting times are to add new road capacity and/or increase transit ridership. Adding additional road capacity within existing urban areas in North America is literally not possible without unacceptable financial and social costs. Convincing the public to use public transit has not yet been successful because other more attractive options are available that are consistent with the North American lifestyle and expectations. What is left people wont get out of their cars, they wont travel longer than a 25 minute commute, they wont live close enough to work to walk or bicycle. Good, you say, people will now be forced to live the Smart Growth Way. Hold on just a minute, before we take away choice, we should realize that there are other choices available to the public, call them Ed and Edna they can move, and they might have moved already. In planning terms the options available to Ed and Edna involve a decentralization of residential locations, accompanied by the decentralization of employment centers. It is because decentralized places of work and residential communities are available that average commuting times have not increased in North American cities over the past three decades, despite very substantial growth in population and car ownership. Commuting patterns in most American city-regions have gone from uni-centric to radial in the past three decades, as new employment and residential centres are built adjacent to major roads. The Choices and the Response When the system as a whole cannot meet the expectations of the users either the expectations change or the users leave the system. Examples of changed expectations would be commuting to work by transit rather than by car, or living in denser communities. In North American terms there are only very isolated instances of expectations changing as many options and alternative locations exist for employment and residential locations, within transportation networks that can continue to meet typical expectations. Well why cant we get at least Ed onto a bus, LRT or subway. Response to increasing traffic congestion in North American urban areas has been to relocate to lower density communities with better automobile access and shorter travel times, rather than to locate closer to a public transit terminal in more densely developed areas. This tendency has been well documented and is mirrored by the practical response of employers to traffic congestion, for whom access is an equally important factor in location decisions. In a society with individual freedom of choice of place of residence and business, the affluence to exercise the choice, and with many choices available, transit-supportive forms of development and a transit-oriented culture are very slow to evolve and are unlikely to be a significant portion of the market for some time. Put another away, if people have to travel longer than they are willing to travel, they will move to reduce the travel time. Similarly employers, if they find that their employees are affected by travel time or the cost of transportation of raw materials or finished goods are affected by congestion will similarly move, the consequence of which is to reduce the commuting times to within the average or standard distribution.

EXHIBIT 1 UNITED STATES JOUNRNEY TO WORK TRAVEL TIMES 1980/1990

30%

25%

1980 AVERAGE = 21.7 min 1990 AVERAGE = 22.4 min

20%

PERCENT

15%

1980

10%

1990
5%

0% 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120

Source: U.S. Census

TIME

April 23, 2001

The Toronto Context In the context of the city-region of Toronto, which has a current population of 6 million, the constraints posed by the travel-time dilemma will directly affect the future urban form. Current government plans for the Greater Toronto Area are based on a concentration of residential and employment densities at highly accessible nodes and along major road and transit corridors. Current plans envisage an urban structure accommodating 7.4 million people by 2031. However these plans have assumed that the level of transit usage will increase from approximately a 10% share of travel across the wider region to a 33% share. However the values inherent in the nodes and corridors concept are not shared to a sufficient degree by the general population to make the plan feasible. The nodes and corridors concept requires that a significant proportion of the population live at densities higher than currently found and that approximately one-third of the population be willing to commute using public transit. Neither circumstance is supported by trends over the past decade in Toronto, by experience in other North American jurisdictions, or by the academic literature. Transit improvements that simply capture the same percentage ridership of the anticipated growth will be a success. It is anticipated that the public response to increasing automobile congestion in the Greater Toronto Area over the next decade will be a slowing of growth rates, and the stabilization of population and employment levels well below the current forecasts. The growth anticipated for the Greater Toronto Area will disperse to a series of communities within a 100 to 200 kilometer distance, all of which currently have underused

infrastructure, are located close to major freeways, and have a substantial land base available for development. In many ways this is an optimistic view of the future in that the new urban form would continue to sustain central Ontario as the economic heart of the country, but with a much more efficient use of public infrastructure.

2021 Travel Times from Do