lexusk8

By Jennifer C. Kerr, Associated Press, 9/30/2003

WASHINGTON -- If it seems like more of your time is spent stuck in traffic, you may be right. In cities large and small, the daily struggle with bumper-to-bumper traffic is getting worse.

The average rush-hour driver wasted more than two full days -- about 51 hours -- sitting in traffic in 2001, according to an annual report released Tuesday by the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University. That's an increase of four hours in the last five years.

The price tag: $69.5 billion in wasted time and gas, said the study, which looked at 75 urban areas.

"Congestion extends to more time of the day, more roads, affects more of the travel and creates more extra travel time than in the past," the study said.

The report found that the average rush-hour driver in Los Angeles spent about 90 hours waiting in traffic in 2001, far more than anywhere else.

The San Francisco-Oakland area was next at 68 hours, followed by Denver (64), Miami (63) and Chicago and Phoenix, which tied for fifth (61).

Tim Lomax, the study's co-author, said public transportation, traffic signals on freeway entrance ramps and other congestion-busting measures have kept a bad situation from getting even worse. For example, traffic signal coordination aimed at smoothing the flow of cars, trucks and buses saved commuters 16 million hours, the report said.

The study found some areas of the country where gridlock eased. The average delay dropped for commuters in San Antonio, Texas; Fresno, Calif.; and Pensacola, Fla.

Still, more improvements are needed, the report said. Among the recommendations: more roads to handle increased demand, additional bus and car pool lanes, and adjusted work hours for commuters.

In response to criticism about its earlier studies, the institute for the first time factored in improvements that cities are making, such as traffic light coordination and ramp metering, as well as the benefits of public transportation, Lomax said.

Data from the Federal Highway Administration and information from various state and local agencies was analyzed by the researchers to come up with the rankings.

Rank City Hours*
1. Los Angeles 90
2. San Francisco-Oakland 68
3. Denver 64
4. Miami 63
5. Chicago 61
6. Phoenix 61
7. San Jose, Calif. 60
8. Boston 58
9. Washington, D.C. 58
10. Portland, Ore. 58
11. Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood, Fla. 57
12. Seattle-Everett 56
13. Atlanta 55
14. San Bernardino-Riverside, Calif. 55
15. Houston 55
16. Detroit 54
17. Minneapolis/St.Paul 53
18. San Diego 51
19. Las Vegas 51
20. Dallas-Fort Worth 51

* Number of hours in congestion per year

Source: Texas Transportation Institute

NRG

LA is really that bad?
i guess everyone has it easier..

jimmit

I dont think we have anything to complain about yet. Take a look at other countries and you'll think what we have is nothing. Look at this picture I took in KL in Malaysia. Trust me we have no traffic compared to countries like Malaysia, Singapore, Thailand and of course India.

jimmit

The other side

jimmit

More on that jam

squarehat

I saw an interesting show last night on the Discovery Times Channel about traffic congestion. They showed a place in S. California where they started allowing single-occupant cars in the carpool lane if they paid a toll. This money was then used to create more carpool lanes on other roads. The economist they interviewed claimed that they could guarantee that traffic would flow at least the speed limit in these lanes, which he dubbed "Lexus Lanes" for the fact that the more affluent were more likely to pay a toll to speed up their commute on the same road. My undergraduate degree is in economics, so I could understand from where he was coming with "congestion pricing."
The economist mentioned that this H.O.T. lane (High Occupancy/Toll) program is expanding to 8 other cities. He claims that it's a win-win situation--the affluent pay for convenience, and subsidize construction of lanes that buses may use, so mass transit becomes more efficient and more attractive. Sounds Pareto-efficient to me

jimmit

Night time rush hour. Even though it felt like that jam never moved.....mmmm jam

jimmit

Good old India traffic

jimmit

The thing is traffic is basically inevitable and finding alternitives is the key. High traffic countries or areas not only need a good highway system but also efficient public transportation. Singapore may have traffic unseen by most americans but the thing is that their public transportation is unbelievable. You pay to ride and they get you there faster than by car or bus and a nice AC ride in a smooth train. Making extra HOT lanes is a great idea and seemed to be working pretty nicely in Miami but the innercity areas could use a good underground train system. This country is just so big, you need a car but driving 2 blocks down or even a couple miles down the street could save on pollution and traffic by using public transportation.


Last pic of India

ATSOU

L.A. is really bad 10 years ago when I first moved here, the traffic was ok......now, it's really nasty I can't imagine what the traffic is going to be like 10 years away from now.

NRG

yes, its call the 91 freeway toll. That freeway blows tho. has the worst traffic in this state. but the toll always moves fast, while im stuck in the normal lanes at 20mph. hah

ATSOU

60 POMONA FWY is of the worst FWY too (I live next to it )

MrJohnTan

What puzzles me is how parts of the 405 or even the 5 has traffic outside of rush hour? Such as 9pm on a saturday night? Oh, the joys of living in socal.

NRG

405 = 4 0r 5 hours of traffic