Congestion, Highways, and Transit

Some critics of transit, and especially rail, argue that “reducing congestion” is a main reason for building rail transit. When they see that congestion isn’t reduced, or isn’t reduced noticeably, they then attack transit as wasteful. (They ignore building new roads as a failed strategy for reducing congestion.)

The real justifications for rail transit are:

1. to give individuals the choice of a pleasant ride instead of a nerve-wracking drive;
2. to give developers an incentive for transit- and pedestrian-friendly development;
3. to add substantial capacity to the transportation system—thereby facilitating economic development—with minimum use of land and minimum environmental damage.

While road congestion certainly has an economic cost, it can also be seen as indicative of a strong economy; conversely, a devastating recession would reduce congestion. The other ways to reduce congestion are: (a) severe congestion pricing on roads; (b) massive commitment to transit and transit-friendly development. The latter is probably essential before the former could be politically doable.

Conclusion: it is a classic “straw man” argument to say that eliminating or dramatically reducing congestion is a (or the) main justification for introducing rail transit. Some transit critics use this argument to get their readers to ignore transit’s real benefits.

—Ross B. Capon,
NARP Executive Director