MAPPING TRAFFIC MITIGATION ACTIONS TO OBJECTIVE

Four different objectives for traffic management are discussed. They are: (1) to make better use of existing investments, whether or not traffic is reduced; (2) to manage the rate at which congestion increases; (3) to prevent congestion from worsening; and (4) to reduce traffic from current levels, while permitting growth to continue. An additional objective that sometimes underlies traffic management programs, and may even be the most important objective in some of them, is also discussed. This is the symbolic value of traffic management, i.e., to give evidence that something is being done about the traffic problem. It is argued that some of these objectives are more easily attained than others, making it important to base traffic management discussion on an explicit agreement on what the objectives are in each case. It is also argued that traffic management programs may be less effective than need be because they are underfunded. In conclusion, it is pointed out that while this discussion has assumed that traffic management is an end in itself, an argument can be made that this focus on traffic and congestion misses the point. More important questions may be: How can we design communities that are livable, healthy, flexible, robust? What roles does transportation have to play in such communities? Do the changes in land use and economic development of the last two decades, as well as those anticipated for coming years, call for different kinds of transportation infrastructure and service than we have been providing, and if so, what are they? Do we need to rethink our institutions and intergovernmental arrangements in order to accommodate emerging transportation, communications, and land use patterns, lifestyles, methods of finance? What kinds of organizations and decision processes would meet emerging needs?