Whoops! How Planners and Engineers Badly Overestimate Car Traffic

How much car traffic will a new building generate? Engineers and planners are constantly trying to divine the answer to this question in the belief that it will tell them the “right” number of parking spaces to build, or how to adjust streets to accommodate more cars.

This is the bible for planning infrastructure around new developments. Is it wildly wrong? Image: Access Magazine
This is the bible for planning infrastructure around new developments. Is it wildly wrong? Image: Access Magazine

The standard reference to guide these decisions is the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute for Transportation Engineers. But the manual has come under fire for overestimating the traffic produced by mixed-use developments. A team of transportation engineers aligned with the Congress for the New Urbanism has been working on a fix for that.

Meanwhile, a new study by University of California professor Adam Millard-Ball takes the critique of ITE a lot further. In a new article for Access Magazine, Millard-Ball argues persuasively that ITE is overestimating traffic not just on mixed-use projects, but on all developments — and not by a little.

This has been the case for a long time, he says, and it’s only gotten worse as driving levels have declined across the country in recent years. Millard-Ball calculates that the ITE method of predicting trips based on development would have forecast an increase of 90 million trips during an eight-year periods in the 2000s. The actual increase? Just 2 million trips, as reported in the National Household Travel Survey.

Robert Steuteville at Network blog Better Cities & Towns explains the significance of Millard-Ball’s research:

For those who are keeping track, that’s a discrepancy of 4,500 percent. As US travel habits change, the ITE data keeps pointing to ever-increasing traffic, as developers pay impact fees and transportation planners anticipate more congestion.

Use of the ITE manual has a profound affect on new development–opposition often centers around traffic generation. But the bigger impact is on overbuilt roads and the construction of too much parking. Not only is this wasteful, but also it diminishes sense of place and walkability, which in turn affect quality of life and economic development. The design of the road itself can result in more cars on the road. Safety is affected–streets that are too large encourage speeding, which boosts the severity of collisions and ultimately injuries and deaths.

Millard-Ball explains that ITE estimates are likely weighted toward suburban, automobile-oriented developments and big, controversial projects on key sites. ITE numbers also assume that projects will be successful, whereas in the real world many are not. This data, in other words, is based on measuring sites that have more traffic than typical sites.

Moreover, many developments don’t generate new traffic–they just shuffle it around. A new courthouse will not increase the number of people in the county judicial system, Millard-Ball explains. Schools generate surprisingly little new traffic compared to what ITE suggests. A new supermarket may not increase actual shopping for food, but shift customers from one location to another instead.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Streets.mn shares a graph showing long-term trends in American transit ridership. And Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space reports a depressing statistic: the average transit rider spends 40 minutes a day waiting for a connection. 

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

How Better Traffic Models Can Lead to More Mixed-Use Development

|
Here’s another obscure but significant obstacle to building walkable places in America: the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ shoddy traffic generation models for mixed-use development. The model used by traffic engineers around the country to measure “trip generation” at new developments consistently overestimates the amount of motor vehicle traffic produced by mixed-use projects, according to the […]

How Many Trips Are ‘Captured’ By More Diverse Urban Land Use?

|
Current methods of predicting the traffic-calming effects of mixed-use development are "woefully lacking" and risk underestimating the transportation benefits of more compact, diverse land use, according to a new report from the Transportation Research Board (TRB). An example of mixed-use development in San Francisco. (Photo: Arch. Record) The TRB report is the first to examine […]

Change Is Afoot on the Country’s Most Important Street Design Committee

|
Michael Andersen blogs for The Green Lane Project, a PeopleForBikes program that helps U.S. cities build better bike lanes to create low-stress streets. One year after some progressive civil engineers around the country feared a crackdown against new-fangled street and signal designs, the opposite seems to be taking place. The obscure but powerful National Committee on […]

‘No Road That We Built in Texas Paid For Itself’

|
Over the past two days at the Congress for the New Urbanism Project for Transportation Reform conference, attendees have called for reform at local, regional, and national levels. In a panel debate about the future of transportation funding and the role of regional planning through MPOs, several speakers argued that the foundation of transportation and […]

Caltrans Endorses the NACTO Urban Street Design Guide

|
It wasn’t a total surprise, but exciting nevertheless for bicycle advocates gathered at the NACTO “Cities for Cycling” Road Show in Oakland last night. Caltrans Director Malcolm Dougherty announced that the agency will endorse the use of the National Association of City Transportation Officials Urban Street Design Guide, giving California cities the state DOT’s blessing to install modern […]