The U.S. is choking on its traffic and it’s going to get worse

[cpzilliacus]

Washington Post: The U.S. is choking on its traffic and it's going to get worse

The United States is choking on its traffic, with the average driver losing 42 hours a year in the bumper-to-bumper grind and a drain on the economy costing $160 billion, according to a new report.

The report to be released Wednesday shows that traffic delays in most parts of the country have bounced back to pre-recession levels. That undermines the hope that three trends – telecommuting, the movement of people back to cities and a decline in millennials seeking driver's licenses – might provide an antidote to congestion.

And with the U.S. population projected to grow by 70 million in the next three decades, there is little chance that the transportation network can keep pace with that growth or alleviate the current crush. In other words, it's going to get worse.

"If you look at corridors like the Capital Beltway, it's going to be hard to figure out how you scale up to make it accommodate another million people, 20 or 25 percent more travel demand,"  said Tim Lomax, co-author of a joint report by the Texas A&M Transportation Institute and the traffic monitoring firm Inrix. "We need to figure out how to use our existing capacity smarter."

The report arrives five days after the U.S. Transportation Department said that Americans drove a record 1.54 trillion miles in the first half of this year, topping the 1.5 trillion miles driven in 2007.

[jeffandnicole]

The worst part was when driving demands were down, the non-auto groups (bicyclists groups, mass transit advocates) took advantage of the situation to promote their interests. Many transportation departments then catered to them.

Now that traffic is back up due to predictions that were incredibly wrong (gas prices would never go down among the ones CP pointed out from the article), we have a loose network of bicycle paths that have nothing to do with commuting habits in the suburbs, bicycle lanes that, many times, removed a lane of traffic on city streets, and few additions to the mass transit network.  All of this is going to gridlock our streets and quickly increase congestion on the highways. 

The anti-car crowd has done more to pollute our air and cause congestion more than any other group out there.  And they turn a blind eye to what they've done.

(Edited to change lose to loose)

[PHLBOS]

The anti-car crowd has done more to pollute our air and cause congestion more than any other group out there.  And they turn a blind eye to what they've done.

Amen!

[cpzilliacus]

I do not mind funding bike and pedestrian improvements, and even subsidizing mass transit to some extent out of highway user taxes. 

What I do mind is extravagant claims that such projects will provide any highway traffic congestion relief, for they seldom (if ever) do. 

I also mind transit authorities that are so addled by the unions that represent their employees that care and feeding of the transit workforce comes ahead of providing good service to transit patrons.

[cpzilliacus]

The anti-car crowd has done more to pollute our air and cause congestion more than any other group out there.  And they turn a blind eye to what they've done.

What you hear from such groups is absolutely not about air quality, nor is it about congestion relief or even carbon dioxide emission reduction.  It is about punishing people for making a rational decision to use a private automobile to get around.

[Pete from Boston]

When will the bike/ped advocates realize our obese population is not going to be bullied into a healthy, active lifestyle?

[TXtoNJ]

The worst part was when driving demands were down, the non-auto groups (bicyclists groups, mass transit advocates) took advantage of the situation to promote their interests. Many transportation departments then catered to them.

Now that traffic is back up due to predictions that were incredibly wrong (gas prices would never go down among the ones CP pointed out from the article), we have a loose network of bicycle paths that have nothing to do with commuting habits in the suburbs, bicycle lanes that, many times, removed a lane of traffic on city streets, and few additions to the mass transit network.  All of this is going to gridlock our streets and quickly increase congestion on the highways. 

The anti-car crowd has done more to pollute our air and cause congestion more than any other group out there.  And they turn a blind eye to what they've done.

(Edited to change lose to loose)

I think this is a bit of a misstatement - most major transit projects that are currently being implemented had their genesis before 2008, when traffic leveled off. These projects take a lot of time.

Bike projects were also more about quality of life than mobility, and were almost always sold as such.

[froggie]

Bike projects were also more about quality of life than mobility, and were almost always sold as such.

It should also be noted that, in many cities and even some suburban areas (depending on the state), there was public demand for such projects that went far beyond the "bicycle lobby" or the "anti-car crowd".

[cpzilliacus]

Bike projects were also more about quality of life than mobility, and were almost always sold as such.

It should also be noted that, in many cities and even some suburban areas (depending on the state), there was public demand for such projects that went far beyond the "bicycle lobby" or the "anti-car crowd".

Does not (to me) matter much who is favoring them, and I personally favor their construction (and am still angry about the failure of Maryland and Montgomery County and Prince George's County (and I believe that most of the blame should go to the M-NCP&PC staffs for not pushing this much harder) to build a complete and contiguous ICC trail).  But such projects are (except in rare cases) not about highway traffic congestion relief.

Congestion relief can be achieved in a few ways:

(1) Economic recession works very well to reduce traffic (and thus congestion);

(2) Building new capacity does help (the Woodrow Wilson Bridge being an example);

(3) HOV lanes in the right travel markets can help to increase person-moving capacity; and

(4) Existing (and especially new) highway capacity should be priced correctly to reduce or eliminate congestion.

Bike and pedestrian trails, rail transit and "transit-oriented" land use are absent from my congestion relief list.

[jeffandnicole]

The worst part was when driving demands were down, the non-auto groups (bicyclists groups, mass transit advocates) took advantage of the situation to promote their interests. Many transportation departments then catered to them.

Now that traffic is back up due to predictions that were incredibly wrong (gas prices would never go down among the ones CP pointed out from the article), we have a loose network of bicycle paths that have nothing to do with commuting habits in the suburbs, bicycle lanes that, many times, removed a lane of traffic on city streets, and few additions to the mass transit network.  All of this is going to gridlock our streets and quickly increase congestion on the highways. 

The anti-car crowd has done more to pollute our air and cause congestion more than any other group out there.  And they turn a blind eye to what they've done.

(Edited to change lose to loose)

I think this is a bit of a misstatement - most major transit projects that are currently being implemented had their genesis before 2008, when traffic leveled off. These projects take a lot of time.

I totally agree with you.  There's a few projects that are in the works, but most of what you see today was implemented a long time ago.

However, money used for studies and such are part of transit projects, and would have been removed from road/highway projects. 

[roadman65]

I honestly think that developers need to pay for road widenings when their developments add to the already congested roadways.  Just now we have our beloved Governor Dick Scott of Florida allow a break to a company to open a mall in Pasco County which will add a lot more autos to the already over congested FL 56.  There should be no breaks for anyone. 

Developers need to pay for the mess they create and not us, the drivers in time we lose in getting to work, aggravation from the added stops, and most of all the extra $$ we now have to give the oil companies for the added fuel we consume.

Also this blocking of  crossing between adjoining shopping centers from being connected has to stop.  We have two strip malls on Orange Blossom Trail  next to each other with not only a driveway not connecting them, but a white fence in between preventing even pedestrians from crossing between the two plazas.   If you live in Deerfield subdivision and you want to patronize Wal Mart, you must enter the busy Orange Blossom Trail and wait for two traffic signals, when if the two malls connected by road, you would not need to enter a busy highway nor even stop for one traffic signal.

The last one I mentioned is not only a rant of mine, but also adds more traffic to OBT which causes through traffic to suffer as well.  By the two shopping center owners putting up the fence and lack of driveways for selfish reasons, they are adding danger to many motorists each day who travel the Orange Blossom Trail.

[The Ghostbuster]

If you ask me, they need to implement congestion pricing on a much wider basis. There is only so much road space to go around. Or they should implement some of the suggestions the Reason Foundation has suggested: www.reason.org. I think they have some good suggestions to congestion reduction.

[cpzilliacus]

If you ask me, they need to implement congestion pricing on a much wider basis. There is only so much road space to go around. Or they should implement some of the suggestions the Reason Foundation has suggested: www.reason.org. I think they have some good suggestions to congestion reduction.

The Reason Foundation has long been in favor of such ways to fund highways.

I am not in favor of such pricing on parts of the network that are currently untolled and only rarely congested (mostly rural areas, some urban too).

But in urban congested areas, I think it's a great idea - but the resulting revenue cannot be dedicated to dysfunctional transit agencies, which is what many advocates (but not Reason) of road pricing really want - that's great for the employees of the transit agencies, not so good for the people paying the congestion taxes or tolls.

[AlexandriaVA]

According to the logic of some on this thread, the Metrorail system has done nothing to aid the overall transportation system of the DC area. Obviously that's a ludicrous and incorrect conclusion. The issue is having a robust network, where you allow the relevant mode to do whatever it does best.

A single 8-car Metro train can carry several hundred people from a given point in the suburbs to the central business district in a matter of minutes. Save for paving over the entire inner parts of DC (which early planning documents sort-of suggested) that could never be replicated cars, particularly when you factor in the time and space needed to park cars and such. It's simply a matter of geometry more than anything else.

However, I don't think that anyone seriously claims that Metrorail would ever be competitive for trips to non-core destinations or during off-peak hours (hence the lower or non-existing levels of service in those contexts).

I don't think that anyone claims that mass transit is a panacea for road congestion. Even in Germany, which has a very robust public transport network, over half of all trips are still by car - the data shows a high % of trips by foot, which I figure is a function of the fact that in many German cities you can perform all or most of your errands on foot near your residence, versus the US which generally favors a more stark separation of uses (i.e. residential vs. commercial zones).

[vdeane]

However, I don't think that anyone seriously claims that Metrorail would ever be competitive for trips to non-core destinations or during off-peak hours (hence the lower or non-existing levels of service in those contexts).

I don't think that anyone claims that mass transit is a panacea for road congestion. Even in Germany, which has a very robust public transport network, over half of all trips are still by car - the data shows a high % of trips by foot, which I figure is a function of the fact that in many German cities you can perform all or most of your errands on foot near your residence, versus the US which generally favors a more stark separation of uses (i.e. residential vs. commercial zones).

Wasn't DC's metrorail system originally proposed as a replacement for the freeways they didn't build?

[AlexandriaVA]

However, I don't think that anyone seriously claims that Metrorail would ever be competitive for trips to non-core destinations or during off-peak hours (hence the lower or non-existing levels of service in those contexts).

I don't think that anyone claims that mass transit is a panacea for road congestion. Even in Germany, which has a very robust public transport network, over half of all trips are still by car - the data shows a high % of trips by foot, which I figure is a function of the fact that in many German cities you can perform all or most of your errands on foot near your residence, versus the US which generally favors a more stark separation of uses (i.e. residential vs. commercial zones).

Wasn't DC's metrorail system originally proposed as a replacement for the freeways they didn't build?

http://www.roadstothefuture.com/DC_Area_Map_XL.jpg

Partly. As you can see on the map, part of the master highway plan was implemented. The heaviest segments of the system however, western Red Line and Virginia Orange/Silver line wouldn't have seen any difference, as there was no planned freeway from downtown to Bethesda (western Red Line) and I-66 was indeed built. (Virginia Orange/Silver line)

In fact, taking a quick glance, the only major portion not built was the Center Leg Freeway (I-95 and I-708 through the city). The 708 alignment is now the Red Line, I believe.

[vdeane]

But whether a given segment of freeway was built or not was determined wholly by whether or not it already had been built when DC decided to build the metro (which was indeed paid for by the money that would have went to those interstates).

Note that a good chunk of I-66 was not built, and that by saying that the I-70S alignment is now the red line confirms that the metro was indeed intended to replace the unbuilt freeways.

[AlexandriaVA]

But whether a given segment of freeway was built or not was determined wholly by whether or not it already had been built when DC decided to build the metro (which was indeed paid for by the money that would have went to those interstates).

Note that a good chunk of I-66 was not built, and that by saying that the I-70S alignment is now the red line confirms that the metro was indeed intended to replace the unbuilt freeways.

Unfortunately, I think they got the priorities backwards. Metrorail routes should have been planned for the busiest routes (either busiest at the time or predicted future busiest) and then freeways put in place to fill in the gaps. This is because of the efficiency of rail transit in providing peak-hours transportation.

[froggie]

But whether a given segment of freeway was built or not was determined wholly by whether or not it already had been built when DC decided to build the metro (which was indeed paid for by the money that would have went to those interstates).

Not entirely true, as was the case with I-66 inside the Beltway.

And to say "when DC decided to build the metro" is a HUGE misnomer, as Metro is effectively a 3-state compact (DC, Maryland, and Virginia).

[1995hoo]

But whether a given segment of freeway was built or not was determined wholly by whether or not it already had been built when DC decided to build the metro (which was indeed paid for by the money that would have went to those interstates).

Not entirely true, as was the case with I-66 inside the Beltway.

And to say "when DC decided to build the metro" is a HUGE misnomer, as Metro is effectively a 3-state compact (DC, Maryland, and Virginia).

It goes beyond the two states and the territory, too, because the local governments are involved (the counties and the City of Alexandria) and had an important day in the lines' routing. Arlington did a great job of anticipating what the subway could do and ponied up extra money to bury a good chunk of the K Route beneath Fairfax Drive and Wilson Boulevard instead of running that portion down I-66. Fairfax County, on the other hand, dithered forever about where to put its segment of that same route–at one point, the Orange Line might have run to Tysons Corner, but ultimately the Board of Supervisors opted for the I-66 route that opened in June 1986. (Talk about a major missed opportunity by Fairfax County! I would not care to live in the Orange Line corridor in Arlington, but that's because that sort of urban lifestyle does not appeal to me. For those who like that sort of thing and don't want to deal with DC's high taxes and corrupt single-party government, it might be ideal.)

I think it's reasonable to say the DC Metrorail is, first and foremost, a commuting system and that while some people are able to use it as a limited way to get around beyond commuting, it will never be able to match New York or London as a "primary" way to get around because those cities' systems grew up as the area did, whereas in the DC area you have to graft mass transit onto an area that already grew up.

[TXtoNJ]

it will never be able to match New York or London as a "primary" way to get around because those cities' systems grew up as the area did, whereas in the DC area you have to graft mass transit onto an area that already grew up.

I don't know if I agree with that. The central London area was well built up before the 1860s, and NYC/Brooklyn were very urbanized before the Els were built. I think the distinction is that when those systems were built, rails were by far the supreme method of rapid transportation over land. By the time the DC metro was built, freeways were at least comparable to rails as far as speed, and superior as far as convenience outside of a few corridors.

[Bruce]

Non-car modes deserve proportional representation across the board, but it need to be flexible depending on the situation. Urban areas obviously should lean heavily towards mass transit, cycling and walking; rural areas should lean heavily on roads with some skeletal transit in/between large enough towns; and suburban needs are a mix of both, though leaning more towards the urban side. You can't reduce traffic simply by building more roads (especially in urban areas) without considering other forms, which may be more cost-efficient and may carry more commuters.

The anti-(non-roads) attitude I find here and in newspaper comments (they're so bad it's hilarious) is really off-putting.

I feel really unwelcome in these kinds of threads, you know...

[nexus73]

Non-car modes deserve proportional representation across the board, but it need to be flexible depending on the situation. Urban areas obviously should lean heavily towards mass transit, cycling and walking; rural areas should lean heavily on roads with some skeletal transit in/between large enough towns; and suburban needs are a mix of both, though leaning more towards the urban side. You can't reduce traffic simply by building more roads (especially in urban areas) without considering other forms, which may be more cost-efficient and may carry more commuters.

The anti-(non-roads) attitude I find here and in newspaper comments (they're so bad it's hilarious) is really off-putting.

I feel really unwelcome in these kinds of threads, you know...

Actually I agree with you. Now for a funny videogame reference that goes way back before you were even thought of.  Intellivision used to have a game called Utopia and each turn you were scored with a max of 100 being possible.  It turned out if you built enough forts to keep out rebels and filled the rest of the squares with factories that you could kill off the entire population of one of the islands and get a perfect score, so that leads me to a humorous thought about congestion.  Just turn an entire city into a ginormous highway and once all the people are gone the congestion disappears....LOL!

Polish solutions for Polish problems :-)

Rick

[english si]

I don't know if I agree with that. The central London area was well built up before the 1860s,

Yes it was, but an awful lot of London was built with rail transport in mind. A lot of that is as the train companies made their profits by buying lots of land near their stations and developing them. Compare This 1923 map with M25 overlaid (and see all the stations in the middle of nowhere outside the then urban area) with this ~1960 map. Notice how the roads marked as under construction on the '23 map have relatively sparse development when you look at them in the 60s - there's a couple of places where the road has spawned development, but mostly they have avoided development off the side roads, but all those 'middle of nowhere' stations have spawned development.

[D-Dey65]

I honestly think that developers need to pay for road widenings when their developments add to the already congested roadways.  Just now we have our beloved Governor Dick Scott of Florida allow a break to a company to open a mall in Pasco County which will add a lot more autos to the already over congested FL 56.  There should be no breaks for anyone.

Instead of wasting money on that, they should spend it on extending FL 56 to US 301, like they wanted to do in the first place. Giving money to companies that want to build shopping malls won't lead to the completion of FL 56.