Writing

Odd-Even Driving for Colorado
By Mike Gilligan, June 21, 2007

It is fair to say that many Coloradoans perceive an increase in traffic congestion that has occurred gradually over the last few decades. A recent survey of Denver residents indicates that congestion is perceived as the city’s second worst problem after homelessness (Migoya, 2007). The Colorado State Patrol and local law-enforcement agencies have instituted programs such as *CHP to curb aggressive driving and road rage which are multiplied and exacerbated by overcrowded roadways. Comparisons to the driving conditions of bygone years and current times have become commonplace in the dialogs of the state’s long-time residents. Although the perception may seem like it is colored by those who might romanticize the past, actual data do support these assessments. According to the US Census Bureau, Coloradoans spent 24.3 minutes each day commuting to their places of business in 2000 (Census, 2000). Doubled for roundtrips and extended over the course of a typical working year, these minutes add up to over 200 hours. A comparison of data gathered from state and local transportation agencies suggests that the problem has grown worse since the last census.

Figure 1. Growing congestion on Colorado’s highways is quantifiable
using data from the Colorado Department of Transportation. Comparison
numbers represent average traffic at specific locations.

Policymakers are not unaware of this worsening state of affairs. As Colorado prepares to welcome 1.5 million additional residents by 2015, planning – some good and some not as good – is underway (Office of Demography, 2006). For example, a multi-modal rail system in the most populous and congested area of the state will be vastly expanded in coming years. Meanwhile, the state is vying for over $200 million in federal funds to widen Highway 36 between Boulder and Denver. While this latter plan may alleviate congestion for some time after its completion, it does nothing to alter the overall behaviors of commuters. If anything, such a business-as-usual approach will serve only to spur on the trend toward more of the single-occupant-vehicle commuting that is now so prevalent.

Although the problem my may be most easily perceived in the urban corridor, all Coloradoans stand to gain from policy innovation that limits congestion and demand for oil-based fuels. The brown cloud that is sometimes visible only over the Metro Denver area should not give communities outside this area the false sense of security with regards to air quality. Without intervention, congestion will continue to escalate throughout the state roughly in proportion to the growing population. Further, as members of a world community, any efforts to relieve congestion and reduce emissions will be as beneficial to our planet as inaction would be detrimental. Such a plan could be used by other states and countries after proof of viability is established in Colorado.

Coloradoans, many of whom are conscious of quality-of-life issues, generally approve of policies that reduce congestion and other environmental detriments when they have such options. The Census Bureau ranks the Denver Metro Area 9 th among U.S. cities for bicycle commuting (BLR, 2007) topping the national average by a factor of four and a half, and usage of existing light rail has dramatically exceeded expectations. However, even with all of these options in play, the state’s congestion woes have grown and are predicted to continue on a worsening trend roughly correlating to population growth.

Every effort must be made to afford socially and environmentally conscious commuters the opportunity to select options that most closely suit their preferences and circumstances. Transit-oriented development, carpool lanes and increased mass-transit ubiquity are a few of the components of the state’s plans to deal with intensifying congestion issues. However, a truly comprehensive and effective effort must explore all viable options to maximize results. Innovation must augment conventional solutions in improving and maintaining livability in Colorado’s communities.

One such option should be to implement a program that strives to thin out traffic during peak hours by encouraging commuters to drive less often. Some of the World’s largest population centers have taken such measures - or are contemplating taking them soon - with good results, but mixed reviews from their citizenries.

 

Around the World

Mexico City is widely known not only for its traffic congestion, but for air quality that poses great health risks to its residents. It is not surprising then that that national capital would be the first to implement legislation that limits driving. The program dubbed “Hoy No Circula” (Translation: No Driving Today) places mandatory restrictions on all privately owned vehicles regardless of the place of registration. In times of relatively good air conditions, all Mexico City drivers may only drive their vehicles on four out of every five weekdays. Which day is forbidden is determined by the last digit of a vehicle’s license plate. Because newer vehicles are less polluting than older ones, this is the only limitation placed on those vehicles.

Those who drive cars with emissions that are more polluting face much tighter restrictions when an air quality index reaches levels that are unacceptable. On the first day of such a period of high pollution, which are many, vehicles with hologram window decals that indicate a highly polluting vehicle may not be driven; on the second consecutive day, more vehicles come under the No Circula restrictions. On the third, and all subsequent days of extreme pollution, none of the older, more polluting vehicles may be driven until the ban is lifted. According to the official Web site of Mexico City, the restrictions are strictly enforced and the fines for non-compliance are considerable ( Mexico City, 2007).

One of the first things that a critical observer might notice is that Hoy No Circula places a heavy disadvantage on those of modest means. While it is true that older cars do tend to pollute more, people who are not able to afford newer models carry the brunt of the program’s restrictions. Middle and upper-class drivers with late model cars never face more than one non-consecutive day per week of finding alternate transportation. Also, the program is mandatory and although it offers disincentives in the form of substantial fines, it offers no incentives for those who might want to make extra sacrifices to keep the city more livable.

In 2003, London began its own version of a congestion-relief program: Congestion Charging. Seven hundred closed-circuit video cameras monitor 203 entrances and exits for a 21 square kilometer high-congestion zone in the central part of the city. Between 7:00am and 6:00pm, images of the license plates of the vehicles that travel into and out of this area fed into an automatic plate recognition system which can identify the owner. A motorist must pay a standard charge of £8 (that’s almost 16 US dollars) to drive in the high-congestion zone. After a grace period in which a person could avoid additional fines by paying £10 expires at midnight the following night, penalties become severe. Residents of the targeted area may register for exemptions.

The program has met with marked success in achieving its goal of noticeably reducing traffic in the effected area. Several other locations in England are considering implementing similar programs and initial opposition from Londoners has dwindled as they have become accustomed to the policy. However, advocates for personal privacy and the economically disadvantaged still voice misgivings (SPY.ORG.UK, 2007). Of course the rather exorbitant fee prices out the poor while not posing a major obstacle to more wealthy people. In a free society, governmental monitoring of the movement of private citizens is seen as an infringement on civil liberties by some. When considering congestion-relief measures, the enormous start-up costs of at least several hundred cameras and the plate-recognition system would certainly be a factor given geographically large congestion areas like those in Colorado. Also, like the program in Mexico’s capital city, participation is mandatory. Stockholm began a similar policy in 2006.

Currently, it seems likely that New York will become the first major US population center to put serious anti-congestion measures in practice. On Earth Day, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced an environmental plan consisting of twenty-seven initiatives. The most controversial was the planned Congestion Pricing.

“The basic idea behind congestion pricing is simple: make motorists pay to use the busiest streets. Under the Mayor's proposal, an invisible line would be drawn around Manhattan from Eighty-sixth Street south to the Battery. Vehicles crossing this line on weekdays between 6 A.M. and 6 P.M. would be charged a fee - eight dollars for cars, twenty-one dollars for trucks. (Those travelling [sic] only within the congestion zone would pay half price, while taxis and livery cabs would be exempt.) The fees would be assessed electronically and could be paid either with a toll pass or over the phone or the Internet (Kolbert, 2007).”

In her May 7th article in the New Yorker, Elizabeth Kolbert goes on to explain that most of the resistance is based on egalitarian concerns. She elaborates that it is currently more viable for working-class bridge and tunnel commuters to pay about $76 per month than to purchase a monthly transit pass. Bloomberg acknowledges that $8 per day would add up quickly for commuters. “And that is precisely the point,” writes Kolbert, “ Congestion pricing works only to the extent that it makes other choices - changing the hours of one's daily drive or, better yet, using mass transit - more attractive” (Kolbert, 2007). The plan’s is pending approval by New York State’s legislature.

A Viable Plan for Colorado

Every region that has a congestion problem has a character all its own and Colorado is no exception. While mainly centered in Metro Denver, the state’s congestion trouble spots are geographically far flung. Natives and transplants alike have traditionally adored the environment for the easy lifestyle and beauty it affords. In terms of intensity, the average Coloradoan may not experience the trials of life that are encountered daily by the residents of the World’s major megalopolitan areas, but is less tolerant of environmental detriments like congestion and air pollution. As voters the state’s inhabitants have chosen policymakers that show substantial support for measures to move forward on energy-independence and sustainability issues. It is no wonder that cutting-edge institutions like the National Renewable Energies Laboratory, the Rocky Mountain Institute, Colorado State University’s Energies and Energy Conservation Laboratory, and many more thrive. Prominent policymakers including Congressman Udall, Governor Ritter and Mayor Hickenlooper cooperate to make Colorado an important center for new energy technologies by participating in U.S. Senator Ken Salazar’s annual Renewable Energies Conference which is open to the public. In short, Coloradoans are sensitive about the environment and ready, willing and able to act on the worsening congestion issue.

Figure 3. A comparison of Denver traffic hotspots from 1999 to 2006.

One other characteristic that defines the identity of Coloradoans is the strong desire for individual freedom from government regulation. Although a strong case could be made that motorists should be required to pay for the congestion and environmental damage caused by single-occupant commuters, as they are in London and will soon be in New York, Colorado voters would be more likely to approve of a congestion-reduction plan wherein participation is voluntary. Compassion for those less fortunate is an attribute that Coloradoans should be proud of. As evidenced by the previously mentioned poll (Migoya, 2007), where Denverites ranked congestion as the second worst problem after homelessness, there is a great psychographic concern for people who suffer economically. The un-egalitarian aspects of the London and proposed New York policies that are cited by critics would find at least as much resistance in Colorado.

How might a geographically enormous and diverse state like Colorado create congestion-relief policy that would achieve some of the best of the previously discussed plans, while omitting provisions that would make the whole package unpalatable to voters?

Odd-Even Driving Days

Figure 4. An illustration of what a voluntary Odd-Even
participant’s might look like.

An innovative and voluntary Odd-Even driving day plan would be part of a comprehensive strategy to reduce congestion in Colorado. Below are key provisions of the proposed Odd-Even policy.

Perhaps the most important aspect of Odd-Even is that the working class will not be forced to incur impossible expenses to take part. Although many of the incentives will have the most appeal to the lower economic stratum, people of all means will have the opportunity - not the legal obligation – to contribute to the betterment of Colorado’s environment. Additionally, wealthy persons who choose not to participate, but for self-interested reasons would like to see a decline in peak-hour traffic, could contribute to the nonprofit organization that provides the incentives for participants, thereby creating a voluntary and symbiotic wealth-redistribution system. Of course the wealthy will have all options open; they could choose to participate themselves, not contribute to the nonprofit or ignore the program altogether.

Voluntary participation is also a key to the future success of Odd-Even in Colorado. There are many legitimate circumstances under which a person might be unable to take part. A parent who must drive a child to daycare would still enjoy the less congested roads and cleaner air that the program would help to create even though he must choose to drive unrestricted by calendar days. Again, such a person might choose to bolster program participation by making a deductible contribution to the Odd-Even nonprofit.

For those who can and wish to participate by registering their car as Odd-Even would be usually able to drive their vehicles during all but 132 of a typical month’s 730 hours – less than 80% of all hours will be restricted.

Figure 5. An example of what a calendar would look like for a person who opts in.

The weekend, holiday and evening hours of unrestricted driving are intended to make program registration more feasible for the greatest amount of potential participants. Since a great majority of congestion and environmental damage is caused by daily commuting (especially single-occupant-vehicle commuting), participants should feel free to use their Odd-Even car for personal and family activities after restricted hours expire at 6:00pm and on weekends and holidays.

As is obvious by now, incentives for opting in are a major factor in regard to the future success of the Odd-Even program. A critical mass of participants must be reached before noticeable improvements in congestion and air quality will occur. State Senator Jennifer Veiga of Denver comments in an e-mail:

“You may wish to consider the feasibility of passing legislation calling for tax credits or financial incentives given the difficulty in getting those passed.  Other options might be access to HOV lanes or other non-financial incentives.  Otherwise the project looked interesting” (Personal Communication, June 20, 2007)

It was because of the Senator’s welcome advice that HOV/HOT access was added to the list of proposed incentives. The political practicality and expediency of removing tax credits from the list of incentives clearly is worth consideration. However, those who opt in will be contributing to the well-being of Colorado’s health, infrastructure, environment, economy and quality of life. In light of these sacrifices, some proportionate remuneration from the state’s treasury seems fair and appropriate.

Aside from the desire to take part in a program that improves our environment and the appeal of living in Colorado, the greatest incentives might be generated by the proposed nonprofit clearinghouse of donated funds and, possibly, in-kind gifts. As previously discussed, tax deductible contributions would be attractive to all sectors of the population whether they participate or not.

Along with the carrots must come some sticks. In an informal internet poll circulated mainly among students in Regis University’s Masters of Nonprofit Management program, a large percentage of respondents favored rather lenient penalties for operating and Odd-Even vehicle during restricted hours. Twenty-six percent indicated that such a fine should be less than $25. An amount that will pose a strong deterrent for non-compliance, yet remain proportionate to the offence must be determined before implementation. One possible approach is to make the fine identical to that of operating a vehicle with expired tags, which is a similar offence.

Figure 6. Opinions regarding enforcement.

Possible abuses of the system should be anticipated and addressed proactively. The affidavit of primary-use signed at the time of Odd-Even plate issuance will deter those who might be thinking of registering a second vehicle that they own, but do not drive on a daily basis, e.g. a derelict vehicle or a weekend show car. If allowed, such an abuse would result in the participant receiving most of the programs incentives, while not reducing congestion. Each individual must only be able to register one vehicle under the program, or a maximum of two for a household of two or more.

In order to afford some flexibility to the voluntary participants, at least 3 non-transferable, holographic, one-time-use window decals will be issued per year for every Odd-Even vehicle. These can be used when unanticipated events force participants to drive on their restricted days. Additional decals can be made available for a set price calculated to discourage overuse, but allow for life’s unpredictable circumstances.

Of course the viability of the Odd-Even policy depends upon wide-spread buy-in among Coloradoans. The previously mentioned poll respondents, 63% of whom describe themselves as politically liberal, indicated some popular support. Sixty-four percent of those polled said that they would be either “somewhat supportive,” or “strongly supportive,” of the proposed Odd-Even legislation. Seven of eighty-four opted in to receive additional information as it becomes available, indicating a possible activist base to advocate and promote the proposed policy. Perhaps those who indicated strong opposition to the legislation did not fully understand the 100% voluntary nature of the program. Some evidence of this misunderstanding may be inferred by four of the thirty respondents who said that they would be strongly, or somewhat opposed to the legislation, also indicated that they would participate in the program.

 

Figure 7. The mostly liberal respondents of an informal survey
tend to be supportive of the Odd-Even proposal.

In addition to addressing current and near-future issues, the Odd-Even policy will create a gradual change in the way Coloradoans think about commuting. As the oil industry reaches peak worldwide production and worldwide demand continues to rise, motorists will be priced off the road by high fuel prices. The most optimistic forecasts predict that maximum production will occur sometime in the 2040’s while other informed sources range their estimates between now and 2015. Few doubt that this peak in production is coming. Meanwhile, atmospheric scientists have reached a consensus that our dependence on fossil fuels is a major contributor to global temperature change. While the resulting economic and environmental crises will be global in scale - even the most fervent efforts by concerned Coloradoans will do little to mollify planetary effects – taking measures to secure our own future is necessary now. In a world where cheap oil suddenly becomes inaccessible for the first time since the industrial age began, communities and regions that have a head start toward a paradigm shift away from oil consumption will have a decided advantage over those that have been conducting business as usual.

The other desirable side effects of Odd-Even and similar congestion-relief plans are too many to be thoroughly covered in a study of this scope. More exercise for better health, less social isolation for better communities, less filling up for better gas prices, less money spent on commuting for better savings accounts. Although the benefits of the proposed Odd-Even policy in conjunction with continued improvement and expansion of transportation alternatives and transit-oriented development are numerous, the lessening of the congestion that many Coloradoans encounter on a daily basis and a noticeable improvement in the quality of air conditions should be strong enough reasons for Colorado to adopt the Odd-Even congestion-relief policy. The plan will create a more livable, sustainable and productive Colorado, while having no negative effect on those of us who do not wish to, or cannot participate. The state will be seen worldwide as a place that creates proactive, innovative, socially responsible solutions to an extremely pressing issue of the 21 st century, and a place where residents and policymakers lead the way on environmental stewardship. The consequences of conducting business as usual will be the lack of preparedness for dramatic changes in the dynamic of world oil supply and demand, as well as the continuation of the worsening trend in congestion and related environmental problems.

The costs of complacency will be tremendous and for Odd-Even to yield the highest possible benefits, implementation must take place as soon as possible. As of the time of this writing, the Colorado General Assembly will meet again in less than seven months. The time to take action is now to ensure that a bill to create the Odd-Even plan will be deliberated when our lawmakers meet in January of 2008.

References:

BLR, (2007, June 15). 10 Cities Where the Most Employees Bike or Walk to Work.
Retrieved June 20, 2007, from BLR Human Resources Web site:
http://hr.blr.com/news.aspx?id=76065

U.S. Census Bureau, (2000). Colorado QuickFacts. Retrieved June 19, 2007, from U.S. Census Bureau Web site: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08000.html

Mexico City, (2007). Programa hoy no circula. Retrieved June 12, 2007, from Ciudad de Mexico Web site: http://www.mexicocity.com.mx/nocircula.html

Migoya, David, Citizen survey puts homelessness on top of list for 1st time. (2007,
January 25). Denver Post, p. Denver & The West.

Kolbert, Elizabeth (2007, May y). Don't drive, he said. The New Yorker, Vol. 83, Issue 11, pp. 23-24.

Office of Demography, (2006, August). Population Totals for Colorado. Retrieved
June 20, 2007, from Colorado Official Website Web site:
http://dola.colorado.gov/dlg/demog/population/forecasts/substate5yr.pdf

SPY.ORG.UK, (2007). London congestion charge CCTV privacy concerns. Retrieved June 20, 2007, from UK Public CCTV Regulation Campaign Web site:
http://www.spy.org.uk/cgi-bin/cclondon.pl