The media makes a big deal each year about the TTI's Urban Mobility report - especially the hours and gallons of fuel wasted in traffic. They do propose some sensible low cost measures designed to improve traffic flow - e.g., better signal timing, entrance ramp metering.
But they pay their usual lip service to mass transit, using passenger miles, which many transit experts know is not really a valid measure of transit's effectiveness or reach.
In general they're focused solely on _mobility_ without consideration of _accessibility._ In the authors' assumptions, a trip of 2 miles on mass transit is of far less value than a trip of 20 miles by car. They see the ability to drive farther distances at a higher rate of speed as a good thing. They fail to make the connection between land use patterns, the ability to select non-automotive transportation, and per capita VMT. The Surface Transportation Policy Project's Congestion Burden Index improves on the Urban Mobility Report by factoring in the ability of the residents of an urban area to avoid congestion by using transit, walking, and biking. Thus, the Washington, DC area fares far better in the measure of the burden of that region's congestion on _all_ its residents, and not just solo drivers.
Quote
