By Megan Link
Highway expansion projects rarely deliver the time-saving benefits that policymakers promise. Adding more lanes generally leads to increased demand, more congestion, and higher emissions. A new study finds that economically, these projects usually fall short by about 17% of their projected benefits, and costs are significantly higher when land use is factored into the equation. Due to the historical inefficiencies and limited effectiveness of highway projects in achieving their economic goals, prioritizing transit could lead to greater sustainability and efficiency. While transit projects also can be costly, they often provide more sustainable and long-term travel solutions when compared to highways.
Researchers estimate that urban roadways currently take up about $4.1 trillion worth of urban land, or the equivalent size of West Virginia. Using a cost-benefit analysis, the study assessed how a 10% increase in roadway capacity would save drivers time compared to the costs of land, external effects, and government spending. They find the costs of these highway expansions exceed the benefits by 17%, without accounting for land value. When including land value, the costs of highway expansions for drivers and truckers outweigh the benefits by a factor of three. Downtown roads tend to consume more land overall, they use less land per capita than suburbs, which use more, less costly land.
To see any benefits from highway expansions, travel speeds would need to increase. They find that “speeds would have to increase by 3% for a 10% increase in urban roadway investments to have economic benefits that exceed the cost.” When accounting for consumer time and money spent, the “increased speed to meet the economic benefit would need to be closer to 50%.” In a time of a pedestrian fatality crisis due to the design of our roads, increasing traffic speeds is a deadly means to reach an economic end.
Meanwhile, reducing roadway lanes could offer big benefits. “A 10% reduction in urban roadway from removing, narrowing, or downgrading roadways resulted in an estimated net benefit of $27.8 billion per year.”
Transit projects, although a larger up-front cost, can create longer-term, sustainable alternatives to highway projects. New York University’s Eric Goldwyn discusses the barriers to more cost-effective transit projects in the U.S. There are still political factors that influence transit projects, where changes in funding, political priorities, and third-party agreements can lead to increased costs and timelines. He suggests several ways to maximize the benefits of transit projects for riders and transit agencies.
- Transit agencies need political champions who can fight for funding and help overcome obstacles, where outside pressure can lead to transit projects adding costly, unrelated add-ons to secure funding. Goldwyn states, “It is impossible to maintain clear project goals from the outset of planning when the final project budget is determined last.”
- They also need clear agreements with third parties to better coordinate construction and design. Often, schedules are delayed due to local permit disagreements.
- Looking to countries with national guidelines, like Italy, will help reduce costs and create a structure for project-design best practices. A lack of design standards and guidelines in the U.S. leads to major differences in funding and actual needs of transit project design.
Highway expansions, despite their promised economic benefits, often have negative impacts on communities and surrounding land. In contrast, prioritizing cost savings in transit projects and optimizing land use to better meet community needs can lead to more economically viable and sustainable transportation solutions.
Photo Credit: Joey Kyber via Pexels, unmodified. License.