Urban Sprawl And The Myth Of The Killer Commute

Atlanta's infamous Downtown Connector

This morning, OTR took advantage of the opportunity to vote early in the Georgia primary election. His trek to the polls wasn't particularly exciting with one exception: the Metro Atlanta TPLOST question. There are 5.3 million people in this area and most of them seem to be going from one place to another most of the time. As a result there is a perception that Atlanta has a horrendous traffic problem and it is strangling the place's economic future. Enter the TPLOST question: Will Atlanta voters support  a one cent sales tax to be collected over ten years and devoted to a list of projects designed to resolve the worst transportation issues? The plan has quite a mix of ingredients, but the "soup" isn't attracting broad support. Aside from the usual distrust of local officials carrying through with the plan, some see it as a jobs package while others raise the question of what constitutes a meaningful solution to Atlanta's current and future travel needs. Some would suggest our TPLOST advocates really aren't asking the right questions. The field of urban studies is after all a very inexact science. On the other hand, we do have some understanding of how cities work and how the human species adjusts to urban traffic challenges.

Charlie Gardner examines urban settings and their populations in his blog, Old Urbanist. His latest post addresses commuting times. Atlanta's TPLOST advocates have been using the topic as a major selling point. Surprise, surprise! Are all those horror stories we hear about urban commuting accurate? Does Atlanta have a killer commute? And do those commutes spell death for urban growth and prosperity? Gardner writes that there is a surprising "similarity between mean commuting times among large metro areas, regardless of their population." It appears that thirty minutes or thereabout defines the limit. And after thirty minutes?

The conventional explanation for this phenomenon, as one 1997 study puts it, is that "individuals and firms mutually co-locate in response to congestion costs, and thus reshape those costs."  Implicit in this "tradeoff" theory is that, for most people, commutes beyond a certain length of time are undesirable despite any other advantages that might be gained from the location (e.g. housing cost, school quality, taxation level, crime), or else we should see commute lengths increase at a faster rate relative to population.

Yes, cities may have their limits when it comes to commuting, but the human response doesn't necessarily spell the end to prosperity. Urban studies junkies can read Gardner's post here. Comments are a "must read." Interesting stuff. Really.

Photo: Joeff Davis/Creative Loafing Atlanta