No, I’m not drunk blogging or April Fool’s day blogging or anything. I have a point! Stick with me.
Many people say the way to solve congestion is to build more roads. I assure you this is not the case, and I can try to illustrate it by comparing roads to p-patches. If you aren’t familiar with them, p-patches are little neighborhood community gardens, where gardeners can rent a plot of land on an annual basis for a small fee and grow crops or flowers or whatever they like. There are dozens of sites spread across the city currently, and the fees for the gardens are fairly low, between $34 and $67 per year for between 100 and 400 square feet of gardening space.
A lot of people want to use P-Patches, but the supply is fairly low. The fee is far below the “market clearing” price for that amount of gardening space: the price would need to be much higher for the number of people willing to pay the fee to be equal to the amount of p-patch places available. Because of this, the wait for p-patches can be several years, especially in dense neighborhoods like Belltown or Capitol Hill. If a private business or individual were running p-patches, the price of a plot of land might be several hundred or even thousand dollars per year (rent for a 400 sq ft apartment is several hundred dollars a month), or there might be strict restrictions on what sort of gardening can be done by whom. A quick glance at the community gardens available in San Francisco shows that private gardens have often short waiting lists but very high fees ($3000 a year), have strict residency requirements (you must live in Alice Griffith Housing Development), or other restrictions. San Francisco’s public gardens generally have extraordinary wait times (2-3 years) or are located far away from population centers (Fort Mason). Basically, if something’s price is much lower than the demand, there are still ways to make you pay, in the case of Seattle’s p-patches you pay with your time.
Roads work much the same way. The SR 520 bridge is free to drive across, but a lot of people would like to drive across it at 8 in the morning. Because the supply of road capacity is lower than the demand for the road capacity, commuters are made to pay with their time to drive across the bridge. Now, you could decide to add more bridge-lanes, much like you’d want to add more P-Patches. But often if you add a new p-patch, new people might decide they want one. There are no patches at all on First Hill; if you put a p-patch there, some people living in that neighborhood would likely decide they want to use it. If you put a new patch next to an existing one in another neighborhood, new people would want to use it, possibly because they think the new waits are shorter or because they are shorter (‘I might not live here in three years, but I will live here next year’) and possibly just because it’s there. This is called “induced demand”. If you built a new bridge across Lake Washington, new people would drive across it in addition to the people driving cross the existing 520 bridge. Partly because wait times seem or are in fact lower, and partly because now you can’t live where you want to or work where you want to (‘I’d never have taken that job at the UW but now there’s an easy way to get there from Juanita so…’). You’d really need a lot of p-patches before wait times went away, maybe several times what is currently available. Similarly you’d need a lot of highway capacity before you’d have no congestion on the bridge, at least several times what is currently there.
There are, of course, obvious differences between p-patches and roads. You need transportation of some sort to get to work and make money. You don’t need p-patches at all, really. Few people move to be near p-patches, but a lot of people might move to be near transportation options. But ultimately, the two are alike in the fact that neither has a price that matches what people are actually willing to pay, and so users are charged with their time. Also, there’s no money to expand either enough to make wait times go away by increasing supply. And so we wait.



This is your worst post yet, Andrew.
What? I think it’s a decent, if hair-brained, attempt to example how supply and demand work when the supply is fixed.
I like this one quite a bit. I think it’s quite apt.
I can follow the logic but the time scale is off. With the P-Patch it’s all or nothing. Rates might be really low to sublet over the fall and winter but not too many people planting winter wheat in Seattle. With 520, many people have the option of shifting the time of day in which they travel. Others have a drive around option that is time competitive with 520. This would be your induced demand.
Most folks have a price they are willing to pay (time) and when that’s exceeded they change their commute pattern (go in earlier or drive around). When you build more lanes people still have the same price point that they are willing to pay. What you do is shrink the period of congestion but far less than what the added capacity would seem to warrant. This is because people see the “capcity” as a speed limit commute. The capacity you’ve actually added peak commute capacity where the cars are only moving at 15-20mph so the increase is about a 1/3rd of what you might expect. Actually in all likelyhood it’ll be even less since adding lanes on the bridge would also require upgrades to every other choke point. It’s like having syncronized traffic signals. Throw in one that’s out of sync and you lose most of the benefit from the others. The small gain (at a big price) gets almost instantly taken up by just a few less people “driving around”.
FWIW I’ll rent out 400 sqft plots for $1000 a year. It’s a hop skip and a jump up the hill from the Bel-Red 130th street Link station. Just think TOD and organic farming! … Oh wait, that station doesn’t open until 2021, never mind :=(
Bernie, people can’t change the time of day they go to work. If they could, they would already. Sure, some individuals can, but they can’t predict what *other* people will do on the same day.
Everyone can go in earlier, even 15 minutes can make a big difference at the margins of the peak commute. With the UW you’ve got a fair number of students who can make class section choices based on peak commute or rearrange study/research time. People coming in to shop certainly have flexibility. Independent tradesmen as well. We had a carpenter coming over from Seattle who made sure he didn’t in effect work extra hours for free by sitting in traffic. Given the nature of the high tech work on the eastside this work force probably has the most flexibility. Folks coming in to games can often knock off an hour early and shift commutes (or maybe you miss an inning). Scheduled procedures at UW Medical and Children’s all have some flexibility. It doesn’t take everyone, if only 20% can shift their schedule by an hour it makes a huge difference. The fact is people already have shifted (based on how they value their time) and if you add capacity some are going to shift back closer to center and some drive arounds are going to start using the bridge. That’s why added capacity only shortens the “rush hour” and in the end not by very much.
With 100,000+ using the bridge everyday individual schedules balance out. Unless of course there’s a major demand like a ball game. The result of those is pretty well know and people account for it (or sit in traffic).
Except that everyone has shifted their schedules around and the bridge is still backed up from Redmond to Seattle until after 8 PM. Somehow, something has got to be on offer for life in Redmond for at least some folks who work at that office park.
Bernie, if it were possible, it would be happening already. Every single person who crosses that bridge is looking for a way to avoid the congestion, and they can’t.
Fundamentally, the times of peak congestion change from day to day, but scheduling must take place for everyone’s time well before you know where that congestion will lie.
Sometimes the bridge is backed up until 9. Sometimes it’s clear at 5. There’s little predictability.
Parking is the same exact thing. Anything that has value and can be used is subject to market forces.
Andrew, were you perhaps referring to Tom Vanderbilt’s theory for latent demand when you wrote this? (Traffic, a good read) If so, then I would suggest comparing roads to something more people actually use (and know about), ie; Crowds at Disney Parks, overhead bins on airplanes, open check-stands at the grocery store. All of these would be good examples of latent demand. For instance, if Disney were to double the size of it’s parks and add more rides to reduce crowding, it may in fact increase patronage due to an increase in capacity. A similar statement can be made of many other everyday services. But using an example representing a small percentage of people simply confuses the rest.
Just a thought.
I think this particular post does us a double benefit. It makes people consider p-patches, and it helps people better understand congestion!
And driving across 520 often resembles watching grass grow ;=)
Exactly! I like p-patches and I have to go across 520 every day.
I like your Disney Land comment on expanding capacity
I enjoyed your post. The others need to lighten up – it’s a blog for fucksake.
Doug MacDonald illustrated the issue well in December 2006 with rice and a funnel.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003500083_macdonald29m0.html
Traffic congestion helps illustrate two lessons from Econ 101: the law of demand and the tragedy of the commons. In the first, the quantity demanded of a good is in inverse relation to its price. In the second, a common property resource is often consumed past the point of efficiency. In history, this has happened to water, seals, buffalo, sea otter, and fish.
WSDOT has graphs showing the relation between highway speed and traffic volume. The curve bends back on itself at 45 mph. as additional vehicles enter the “freeway”, they impose slower and less reliable travel times on all other users.
The pea patch is an example, as are lane space on limited access freeways and parking on curb space in transportation, of market failure in the public sector due to poor pricing. Perhaps bike lockers are another. Lockers and pea patches are both cases where a subsidized good is provided to a narrow group of consumers.
We price lane space the way the Soviets priced bread and queues (congestion) result.
The public sector has recently used more efficient pricing to move toward solutions in several crisises: water, waste water, solid waste, and electricity.
Good point about already paying for 520 in time. EVERYONE I know tries to avoid 520 during rush hour if at all possible. The latent demand for that bridge is crazy…