When I was living in Boston the first time, in 1993, I had a conversation with my cousin, a longtime resident, about the then just-starting Big Dig project, putting the Central Artery highways underground (and increasing their capacity). Boston has terrible traffic (and terrible drivers -- I have never been closer to a stress-induced stroke than trying to drive around the Hub in rush hour) and I told my cousin, Jeff, that the Big Dig was a good thing, since it would certainly reduce congestion in the city.
When I was living in Boston the first time, in 1993, I had a conversation with my cousin, a longtime resident, about the then just-starting Big Dig project, putting the Central Artery highways underground (and increasing their capacity). Boston has terrible traffic (and terrible drivers -- I have never been closer to a stress-induced stroke than trying to drive around the Hub in rush hour) and I told my cousin, Jeff, that the Big Dig was a good thing, since it would certainly reduce congestion in the city.
"For a while," Jeff said. "But pretty soon everyone will realize that there's less traffic, and they'll start driving into the city instead of taking the T or the commuter rail. Then it'll be even worse."
In other words, it's long been received wisdom in traffic planning circles that more roads, or wider roads, were a temporary stopgap for stop-and-go.
Now a couple of researchers have modeled why this might be the case. Their program sets up a typical hub-and-spoke model, like a downtown with suburbs, and then adds time to any journey that passes through the downtown. Result? Adding a few roads decreases time on the road, but there's a threshhold effect. Above a certain number, and trip time increases.
I stole this from New Scientist, by the way. And full disclosure: I didn't so much read the research article as look at it. As Barbie once said, "math is hard!"
This conclusion isn't interesting only for itself. It also points out a schism between the way Europeans and US researchers think about traffic. I'm stereotyping here, but in general US planners and thinkers take a wholly pragmatic approach to congestion planning: meters, wider roads, toll roads, and eventually arguments over whether suburbs should just have their own damn downtowns to keep those people off the roads (and this, parenthetically [as you can probably tell from the parentheses] is why Los Angeles is so troubling to planners: nobody works downtown, so where the hell is everyone going that there's so much traffic on the 405?). Best example of this pragmatic approach is the annual mobility report the Texas Transportation Institute puts out. Great data, very wonky.
Europeans, on the other hand, go all complex and chaotic on the problem. They model hubs and spokes. They turn to fluid dynamics and wave propagation to explain why clogs on the road can propagate backward, causing unexplained slowdowns miles upstream from a problem that's long been towed away or bulldozed into a ravine.
Am I generalizing? Sure. I had a tour of the Santa Fe Institute some years back -- it's in the US -- and saw some work going on there trying to use complexity theory to understand traffic. But first of all, it's just a blog, and so what, you're expecting supported theories? But also, neither approach seems to work all that well in clearing up the freeway between the San Fernando Valley and the Los Angeles basin.
What are we all missing?

Trump Administration Could Effectively End Housing Voucher Program
Federal officials are eyeing major cuts to the Section 8 program that helps millions of low-income households pay rent.

Planetizen Federal Action Tracker
A weekly monitor of how Trump’s orders and actions are impacting planners and planning in America.

Ken Jennings Launches Transit Web Series
The Jeopardy champ wants you to ride public transit.

Rebuilding Smarter: How LA County Is Guiding Fire-Ravaged Communities Toward Resilience
Los Angeles County is leading a coordinated effort to help fire-impacted communities rebuild with resilience by providing recovery resources, promoting fire-wise design, and aligning reconstruction with broader sustainability and climate goals.

When Borders Blur: Regional Collaboration in Action
As regional challenges outgrow city boundaries, “When Borders Blur” explores how cross-jurisdictional collaboration can drive smarter, more resilient urban planning, sharing real-world lessons from thriving partnerships across North America.

Philadelphia Is Expanding its Network of Roundabouts
Roundabouts are widely shown to decrease traffic speed, reduce congestion, and improve efficiency.
Urban Design for Planners 1: Software Tools
This six-course series explores essential urban design concepts using open source software and equips planners with the tools they need to participate fully in the urban design process.
Planning for Universal Design
Learn the tools for implementing Universal Design in planning regulations.
Ada County Highway District
Clanton & Associates, Inc.
Jessamine County Fiscal Court
Institute for Housing and Urban Development Studies (IHS)
City of Grandview
Harvard GSD Executive Education
Toledo-Lucas County Plan Commissions
Salt Lake City
NYU Wagner Graduate School of Public Service
