Are Traffic Studies “Junk Science” That Don’t Belong in Court?

Kristina M. Currans and Kenneth A. Stahl

Journal of the American Planning Association, 2024, vol. 90, issue 1, 77-85

Abstract: Jurisdictions rely heavily on traffic impact analyses (TIAs) to predict the traffic impacts of projects and calibrate appropriate mitigations. But TIAs are also litigation tools: Jurisdictions use them to satisfy courts that their land use decisions are supported by substantial evidence, or evidence that is credible and reliable. The problem, as we discuss in this Viewpoint, is that TIAs are not consistently credible and reliable. We explore some common criticisms—and provide a brief overview of a growing literature—regarding underlying vehicle estimation methods in practice that demonstrates the ways in which TIAs are widely flawed. Historically, courts have not expected much from TIAs, but our analysis shows a tipping point in which courts may begin to question whether conventional TIA methods constitute substantial evidence, suggesting an important need to innovate and adopt new data and methods in practice.

Date: 2024
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01944363.2022.2136735 (text/html)
Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:90:y:2024:i:1:p:77-85

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/rjpa20

DOI: 10.1080/01944363.2022.2136735

Access Statistics for this article

Journal of the American Planning Association is currently edited by Sandi Rosenbloom

More articles in Journal of the American Planning Association from Taylor & Francis Journals
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Chris Longhurst ().