What do you consider to be "bad traffic"

[AlexandriaVA]

And do you experience, per your definition, bad traffic. Please answer in terms of freeways and local roads.

Freeways: Cars carry an average speed of <20 MPH during rush hour. If the mass of cars continues to move, then it is just volume and not really all that bad.
Local roads: Takes more than two light cycles to clear a red light.

I generally don't experience "bad traffic" because I strategically picked a reverse commute and shop during off-peak hours. Generally if I am stuck in traffic on a routine day, it is because there was an accident.

[SD Mapman]

The hick definition of bad traffic:

Freeway: Continually having to pass people.

Local road: Having to wait at a stop sign.

I've never had to plan a commute to avoid traffic.

[AlexandriaVA]

The hick definition of bad traffic:

Freeway: Continually having to pass people.

Local road: Having to wait at a stop sign.

I've never had to plan a commute to avoid traffic.

I'm glad your examples are very different from mine, because it shows the issue if two people discuss traffic (e.g. when moving somewhere new or taking a road trip)....means very different things to different people.

[JJBers]

And do you experience, per your definition, bad traffic. Please answer in terms of freeways and local roads.

Freeways: Cars carry an average speed of <20 MPH during rush hour. If the mass of cars continues to move, then it is just volume and not really all that bad.
Local roads: Takes more than two light cycles to clear a red light.

I generally don't experience "bad traffic" because I strategically picked a reverse commute and shop during off-peak hours. Generally if I am stuck in traffic on a routine day, it is because there was an accident.

I don't have a problem with local roads...

[xcellntbuy]

Having come from 17 years of living in south Florida, the entire counties of Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach.

[Eth]

Well, in terms of my commute, "bad traffic" is "there aren't any seats left on the MARTA train, so I have to stand". 

But on a serious note, when I am driving (which is much more enjoyable when I only do it when I want to instead of having to):

Freeway: being in Atlanta, the threshold for "bad traffic" is pretty high. It's not really bad traffic unless you have to come to a complete stop at some point.

Local roads: if I have to sit through multiple light cycles, that's bad. If I have to stay stopped at a green light due to a backup from the next light, that's also bad.

[cl94]

Heh, I'm used to New York City traffic, so my threshold is pretty high. On an expressway, I need to be moving less than 10 mph. Even up in Albany (where I have lived most of my life), moving is considered to be a good sign. Surface roads, it's a backup of several blocks (as in stopped or barely-moving traffic).

Compare that to people from Buffalo, who think moving under the speed limit on an expressway is "bad traffic".

[noelbotevera]

Hmm, I've gone to places like DC, Philadelphia, NYC, and some others, so my threshold is through the sky.

Freeways/Expressways/Highways (or, any limited access road): If I've been in a standstill for 10-15+ minutes, and decide to try an alternate route to avoid traffic (unfortunately in terms of Philadelphia, there's no alternate route from the west). Another definition Ihave (for more suburban areas) is if it takes more than ten minutes to move a mile.

Local Roads: Waiting for multiple traffic light cycles, and taking more than 15-20 minutes to a mile. If traffic is extremely bad, I'll probably just find the nearest train station (if I'm in a city) and just take a train in.

[epzik8]

I-95 in Northern Virginia!

[jakeroot]

I wouldn't consider stop/go to be bad, because it's the norm in my area at many spots during rush hour. "Bad traffic" to me means anything orange/red on Waze in an area where traffic normally flows quite well.

[1995hoo]

I-95 in Northern Virginia!

Heh. When I saw this thread yesterday,  I thought about replying "the Inner Loop this morning" after the latest three-hour backup following a fatal crash. (Makes me glad the first thing I do in the morning, even before getting out of bed, is to listen to the traffic report on WTOP. We were going to drive yesterday but took the train instead. We don't use the Beltway in the morning, but we would have hit bailout traffic.)



I don't really have any single firm definition of "heavy traffic." It's kind of a "know it when I see it" thing. I also try to distinguish between "the usual" traffic that's there every day (even if some people not from around here would consider it heavy) versus the "crap, something's wrong today" kind of traffic that makes you take notice that it's worse than usual.

One factor that comes to mind regardless of the type of road is what the traffic reporters in Raleigh used to (may still) call "stop-and-roll" traffic, where traffic is so slow that you move your car forward using the clutch and the brake rather than the accelerator and the brake. I'd consider that "heavy traffic."

Another, not applicable on the highway for obvious reasons, is when multiple intersections in a row fall victim to box-blockers.

[jemacedo9]

I also equate a difference between "normal bad" and "abnormal bad"  For example, The Schuylkill Expwy in SE PA/Philly, there will always been areas that are stop-and-go...which is bad, but "normal bad"; it's expected, you know it's coming, and there isn't anything that is going to fix it anytime soon.  It's still bad...but expected.

Actually...that's all of the Philly-area expwys, come to think of it.

[jeffandnicole]

My commute is 42 miles each way; 38 miles of that on 55/65 mph highways.  Normally, the commute can be done in about 50 - 60 minutes. Bad traffic for me starts when that commute takes over 75 minutes, and it's absolutely bad at 90 minutes (btw, my record for that commute is 35 minutes (occurred once in my 19 years of commuting), which meant I averaged 71 mph for the entire commute...a very impressive feat if I do say so myself!)

For other 'bad traffic' examples, it would generally have to be considered if I'm on a road that I should normally be free-flowing on and it's jammed, that's bad.  Or on a road that I expect some jammed traffic on (let's say, 1 mile), but it's overly jammed (let's say, 5 miles), then that's bad traffic.

NJDOT did some sort of survey a number of years back to gauge what people consider to be jammed. They provided several examples.  People mostly were ok with the lighter congestion examples, but would often pinpoint the more congested scenarios as jammed traffic.  NJDOT pointed out later that every scenario given was actually considered jammed traffic, and the survey pretty much showed what people are generally able to live with without getting upset about it.

[SP Cook]

"Bad traffic" is like "bad schools" or "dirty water".  A basic failure of government to do its J O B .

On interstates and the like, traffic should flow at or above the SL, even at "rush hour" in the absence of a wreck or the like.  If it does not, government has not built enough lanes, enough alternate routes, or provided enough comunal transit. 

On city or surban streets, traffic should flow at or above the SL, even at "rush hour" and the waiting cross traffic should be cleared in each light cycle.  If it does not, government has not built enough lanes, enough exits from the expressway, or enough roads.

[roadman65]

I think bad traffic is when developers are allowed to go amuck with sprawl before the roads of the area can handle the extra traffic.  I know some may blame the environmentalists for being too careful in allowing the studies to be completed promptly, but the fact remains the politicians know that they cannot push up the final date of PD&E studies, so they should tell the developers to wait until the roadways are up to par before they even break ground.

Florida is the best example for that and so was NJ back in the 70's and 80's.  You think that FL would learn from NJ mistakes or other states who has sprawl that led to traffic nightmares, however our state (especially our Good for Sh*** governor) is not even looking to see the mistakes of overdeveloping.  Just let the businesses build and deal later and us people should just count traffic as normal when proactive planning could have prevented it all.

[fillup420]

I-77 north of Charlotte, NC. Traffic will sometimes be at a standstill at 1 PM. Now granted, most of it is due to the shitty construction taking place, but its still bad traffic nonetheless.

[The Nature Boy]

"Bad traffic" is like "bad schools" or "dirty water".  A basic failure of government to do its J O B .

On interstates and the like, traffic should flow at or above the SL, even at "rush hour" in the absence of a wreck or the like.  If it does not, government has not built enough lanes, enough alternate routes, or provided enough comunal transit. 

On city or surban streets, traffic should flow at or above the SL, even at "rush hour" and the waiting cross traffic should be cleared in each light cycle.  If it does not, government has not built enough lanes, enough exits from the expressway, or enough roads.

I'm willing to forgive the government for this. Sometimes areas explode in population and you can't properly construct lanes to keep up with growth.

[tribar]

To me, bad traffic on a freeway is when you repeatedly have to come to a complete stop. Basically I only consider it bad if it shows as dark red on Google Maps.

On local roads, if I have to wait more than two cycles at a light or if you can't advance on green due to traffic.

[Brandon]

And do you experience, per your definition, bad traffic. Please answer in terms of freeways and local roads.

Freeways: Cars carry an average speed of <20 MPH during rush hour. If the mass of cars continues to move, then it is just volume and not really all that bad.
Local roads: Takes more than two light cycles to clear a red light.

I generally don't experience "bad traffic" because I strategically picked a reverse commute and shop during off-peak hours. Generally if I am stuck in traffic on a routine day, it is because there was an accident.

Bad traffic?  How does a twenty plus mile backup due to a lane drop do ya?

I-55 used to back up, and I'm not kidding, from what used to be a lane drop one mile before Weber Road (Exit 263) at MP 264 to at least Cicero Avenue (Exit 286) on a daily basis until IDOT finally added a lane for the extra mile to the exit.  Those were the good days.  The bad days would see it back up to the Ryan (I-90/94, Exit 292) or the Drive (US-41, MP 294).  The Stevenson still isn't a picnic with perpetual delays approaching Cicero Avenue in both directions.

The we have a constant back up that persists throughout the day.

I-290, Eisenhower Expressway, has a few back ups that seem to persist throughout the day.  1. From North Avenue (Exit 13) through to the Tri-State Tollway (I-294) exit ramp (Exit 15).  2. Through the Avenues, from Mannheim Road (US-12/20/45, Exit 17) to Austin Boulevard (Exit 23) due in part to the exit ramps in the Avenues and the left exits at Harlem and Austin.  Sometimes, if you get lucky, back up #2 is split into two parts.  But that's just false hope.

Prepare to be late for your flight, ha ha ha!!!

The Kennedy Expressway (I-90/94) can be one continual back up from the Circle Interchange (I-94 Exit 51 I-H) all the way through the Montrose Junction (where I-94 splits off onto the Edens) and into O'Hare on I-190.  The reverse is slightly prettier, but not by much.

And that's just the start for bad traffic.  Just wait for a major rain storm or a few inches of snow, and you'll be sitting for quite some time to come.  And heaven forbid there be an accident.  It may be on your side, but if not, then you've got a wonderous gapers' delay.

[AlexandriaVA]

Speed limit or higher at rush hour means that the road is overbuilt. If you assume rush hour is 4 hours per day (I know, every market is different...do your own math if you please), that's 20 hours out of 168 for the week. In any line of business, that's way over capacity. Traffic congestion is a signal for people to "consume" the highway at "cheaper" times.

[intelati49]

For me, I discount morning, noon, and night rush. Then I make my opinions based outside of those times. The only horrible interstate I have personally driven on is US65 before it was expanded to six lanes (Springfield, MO). Pushing 60K, and it was bumper to bumper at 35mph (SL65) for five miles. (I avoided it like the plague during the six lane construction after that "harrowing experience")

For nonfreeflow, yeah two or three cycles for offpeak daytime driving (9-11:30, 1:30-4, 6:7:30 other times are either excused or never have any problems). Two if it turns yellow as I sneak past for my second light...

I sometimes feel like we have it easy hear in Missouri (Past the KC [I-435] Southern Loop and STL) We actually have enough road for the people we have.

[vdeane]

For me, < 40 mph on the freeway (< 60 mph on the Thruway) or having traffic back up multiple lights or having to wait through more than one light cycle on a surface street.

Traffic congestion is a signal for people to "consume" the highway at "cheaper" times.

Not really an option for most people.  Most employers don't offer flex time.

[jeffandnicole]

"Bad traffic" is like "bad schools" or "dirty water".  A basic failure of government to do its J O B .

On interstates and the like, traffic should flow at or above the SL, even at "rush hour" in the absence of a wreck or the like.  If it does not, government has not built enough lanes, enough alternate routes, or provided enough comunal transit. 

On city or surban streets, traffic should flow at or above the SL, even at "rush hour" and the waiting cross traffic should be cleared in each light cycle.  If it does not, government has not built enough lanes, enough exits from the expressway, or enough roads.

Maybe we should blame the citizens for not paying enough in taxes so that the government can build without restriction.  Or blame the citizens for buying houses in the suburbs that don't have the road capacity.  But, wait, we *can* blame the government for allowing those houses to be built.  But the citizens wanted the suburban life, so maybe it's their fault anyway after all. 

[kalvado]

Speed limit or higher at rush hour means that the road is overbuilt. If you assume rush hour is 4 hours per day (I know, every market is different...do your own math if you please), that's 20 hours out of 168 for the week. In any line of business, that's way over capacity. Traffic congestion is a signal for people to "consume" the highway at "cheaper" times.

If you have a dollar left before you cash your next paycheck, you're overpaid
If you are not waking up from hunger, you're overfed...

[AlexandriaVA]

Speed limit or higher at rush hour means that the road is overbuilt. If you assume rush hour is 4 hours per day (I know, every market is different...do your own math if you please), that's 20 hours out of 168 for the week. In any line of business, that's way over capacity. Traffic congestion is a signal for people to "consume" the highway at "cheaper" times.

If you have a dollar left before you cash your next paycheck, you're overpaid
If you are not waking up from hunger, you're overfed...

Highways take money to build and money to maintain, we all know that. You want to build the minimum highway size needed to be sufficient (not perfect), because that money could be used elsewhere for other stuff.