Although encouraging vehicular chaos seems at odds with the ideas presented in the price of anarchy study, both strategies downplay the role of the individual driver in favor of improved outcomes for everyone. They also suggest a larger transportation niche for bicycles and pedestrians. As the Obama administration prepares to invest in the biggest public works project since the construction of the interstate highway system, the notion that fewer, more inclusive roads yield better results is especially timely.

Faster Streets with Less Parking
New strategies in parking management could also improve urban traffic flow, remarks Patrick Siegman, a principal with Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates in San Francisco, a transportation-planning firm. In a misguided effort to reduce congestion, planners in the 1950s required developers to provide a minimum number of free parking spaces—a strategy that “completely ignored” basic economics, Siegman says, referring to how lower prices
increase demand.

Now limited urban space and concerns about global warming are inspiring city planners to eliminate these requirements. In San Francisco, for example, developers must restrict parking to a maximum of 7 percent of a building’s square footage, a negligible amount. Although downtown employment has increased, traffic congestion is actually declining, Seigard says. With fewer free spaces to park, drivers seem to be switching modes, relying more on mass transit, cycling and just plain walking.

Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Detours by Design".

7 Comments

1. 1. eco-steve 05:00 PM 2/3/09

   This strategy should present a few headaches to people who write the software behind GPS systems.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. mfcvenice 01:08 PM 2/5/09

   Think about this article as you view the video 'This is imposible' on Youtube. Tear down the signs!

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. thoraya 08:33 PM 2/10/09

   As an American whose gone Dutch, I wonder how these type of theories would apply to taxation. I can't help but conclude (counter intuitively) these past 10 years that I am more wealthy as an individual now by paying double percentage points in taxes.
   
   Example (in keeping with the subject of the article): Partially due to my extra input in the nation's budget we have in the Netherlands a greatly superior transit infrastructure. The roads are better kept, public transport is relatively excellent and everything can be reached by walkways and bicycle paths. This gives me many choices beyond my expensive car. Therefore while I remain greatly mobile my net travel expenses are less because I can choose the most cost effective form of transportation for any given trip.
   
   Don't even get me started on health care...
   
   In no way do I mean this comment as a political statement. I am truly curious from a scientific standpoint. Too often the discussion of taxation is clouded in a semi-religious ideology as apposed to imperial truth.
   
   I'd love to see a good study on optimum taxation rates and government budgeting. Maybe then Washington DC could use that as a guideline to fix her potholes.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. dircery 10:19 PM 2/10/09

   When I first moved to Tucson, AZ from the SF Bay area, I thought to myself that this place could really use an east-west freeway. Tucson has basically 1 freeway going north south on the western edge of town. As part of the project to widen the freeway they shut down all of the on-off ramps in town. Since then any north south commutes have gotten noticeably faster. And after reading this article I wonder if it would be better for them to build a Tucson bypass and shut down the freeway all together in town.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. hawkeye in reply to thoraya 11:30 PM 6/15/10

   There has been some work done in the recent past (early 1980s). It's not entirely free of ideology (right wing in this case), but if you read it with your ideology filter turned on, you'll find that it reaches some valid conclusions.
   
   I'm referring to the debate over the earlier work of Arthur Laffer and the "Laffer Curve". The problem with it, as was the case with the earlier Keynesian economics, is that the people in charge of implementing it are unable or unwilling to understand the conditions under which it is appropriate, and when it is not, and that it MUST be adjusted as conditions change.
   
   We are thus always stuck with policies that initially work well, but which cannot be adjusted when conditions change, as they always do, because political constituencies that benefit from the system as is will resist any change.
   
   Come to think of it, your comparison of traffic regulation with taxation policy seems to be "right on". Those constituencies resisting changes in tax/economic policy would analogous to the "selfish drivers" mentioned in the article.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. Marc Lévesque 06:26 PM 9/7/10

   @mfcvenice
   
   Video "this is impossible"
   
   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3n_mgFA47WQ
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. halebobbdotcom in reply to thoraya 05:23 AM 2/5/11

   Socialism works great for people who agree to it.
   But no political system can function long via force and coercion.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this