Todd Litman's blog

Conventional transportation planning tends to exaggerate congestion costs and roadway expansion benefits, and undervalues other transportation solutions such as improving alternative modes, pricing reforms and smart growth policies.

Planners are futurists, but with less pretension and jargon. Our work requires predicting how current trends are likely to affect future conditions and activities, and how communities should prepare. For example, let's predict self-driving cars.

Many people believe that cities are dangerous due to exaggerated fears of urban crime. Cities are actually far safer and healthier than suburban and rural locations, and smart growth policies can further enhance their safety and health advantages.

Critics claim that smart growth policies are ineffective at reducing vehicle travel and achieving intended to objectives. This column critiques their arguments.

Changing demands justify policies and programs that encourage people too choose efficient travel options and smart growth locations. Are these coercive?

Planners must anticipate how people would respond to new options, such as better walking, cycling and public transit services. This requires imagination.

Many people assume incorrectly that motorists pay their share of roadway costs through fuel taxes. Not so. Fairness would require much higher motor vehicle user fees to finance roadways.

The "Urban Mobility Report" produces widely-cited congestion cost estimates. It is biased in various ways that exaggerate congestion costs and roadway expansion benefits. Few users of these cost estimates seem aware of these problems.

Transportation system users rate inaffordability as a top concern, but conventional planning ignores this issue. Increasing transport affordability requires changing planning practices to favor more affordable modes and more accessible development.

Governments need money to finance transportation system improvements, but revenues from traditional sources are flat. This is leading to debate over how best to generate new funds. There are many possible options, some better than others, because in addition to raising revenue, they support other strategic objectives. Politicians will be tempted to choose the easiest funding options. It is up to planners to point out the best options, taking into account all impacts.