AARoads Forum

National Boards => General Highway Talk => Topic started by: webny99 on October 23, 2017, 10:09:57 PM

Title: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: webny99 on October 23, 2017, 10:09:57 PM
Do you think rush hour, in the traditional sense, is becoming less noticeable/significant over time?

There are several factors working towards this end, including more working from home, more flexible contracts, and an ageing population.

An off-shoot of this topic: which days seem to have the worst rush hour traffic?
Here's my estimate for my area, best to worst: Friday, Monday, Wednesday, Tuesday, Thursday.
Maybe I just get bad luck. But Thursdays seem extra bad for some reason :rolleyes:
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: Otto Yamamoto on October 23, 2017, 10:52:10 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 23, 2017, 10:09:57 PM
Do you think rush hour, in the traditional sense, is becoming less noticeable/significant over time?

There are several factors working towards this end, including more working from home, more flexible contracts, and an ageing population.

An off-shoot of this topic: which days seem to have the worst rush hour traffic?
Here's my estimate for my area, best to worst: Friday, Monday, Wednesday, Tuesday, Thursday.
Maybe I just get bad luck. But Thursdays seem extra bad for some reason :rolleyes:
Not on the Lexington Ave line.

P00I

Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: US 89 on October 23, 2017, 11:12:22 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 23, 2017, 10:09:57 PM
An off-shoot of this topic: which days seem to have the worst rush hour traffic?
Here's my estimate for my area, best to worst: Friday, Monday, Wednesday, Tuesday, Thursday.
Maybe I just get bad luck. But Thursdays seem extra bad for some reason :rolleyes:

For the Salt Lake City area, I would guess, from best to worst:
Friday, Monday, Thursday, Wednesday, Tuesday.

On the weekends, the roads are very light in the morning but fill up after about 10am to levels similar to a 3pm drive on a weekday. They stay like that for the entire afternoon.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: TheHighwayMan3561 on October 24, 2017, 03:54:38 AM
Depends on your city. For the Twin Cities Friday is the easiest day to go inbound in the morning, but it's also the worst day to be going outbound in the afternoon especially if you're trying to go northward.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: sparker on October 24, 2017, 04:37:29 AM
In the greater Bay Area, rush hour is not only persisting, it's actually expanding; whereas four years ago you'd find some freeways (such as I-880) to be cleared out in both directions by about 9:30 a.m, with congestion building up again about 3 p.m. -- now you're lucky not to run into residual traffic as late as 10:30-11 a.m. -- and the afternoon equivalent seems to build up about 2:30 p.m. these days.  The latter has been a greater Los Angeles phenomenon for decades, as the larger warehouse/distribution/fulfillment centers invariably have a shift change at 2:30 p.m. (3 daily shifts for around-the-clock operation); while the Bay area doesn't feature the massive distribution facilities found in SoCal (although the Valley region centered around Stockton appears to be on its way toward this status), the trend of more and more firms toward employee "flex time" is likely contributing to the midday congestion increase.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: jakeroot on October 24, 2017, 04:48:20 AM
Rush hour traffic, in both Seattle and Vancouver, doesn't seem to be getting worse as fast as it used to (it's already about as bad as it can get), but that's mostly due to both cities investing heavily in public transit, which is absorbing much of the growth (transplants not buying cars, it would seem).

For example, the express lanes on the 405 north of Bellevue, WA carry way more traffic than any of the general purpose lanes, but that's mostly due to carpooling and buses. So, technically, more "people" are using the road than before, but traffic isn't any worse than five years ago (although arguably worse than 10 or 15 years ago).

In Vancouver, the whole concept of "Vancouverism" lends itself to persistently poor traffic, but that's due to a philosophy that favors alternative modes of transportation over personal vehicles, so traffic is just always there. Vancouver's traffic has always been complete shit, and has beaten LA to become the worst traffic spot in North America on several occasions. Like Seattle (although, really the other way around, since Vancouver has always been into public transportation), much of the city's growth is absorbed by public transportation/walking/cycling, so traffic doesn't seem to get worse. But, those modes of transportation are popular because of how bad the traffic already is.

If you've spent time in either city, your tolerance for traffic is so high, it's hard to comprehend how it could get worse. So, to answer the original question: yes, it's becoming less noticeable, but only figuratively. It's still really bad.

In either city, the only lightly-travelled days are bank holidays. Every day of the week has traffic, morning and evening (although less on Sunday).

---

tl;dr: traffic is probably getting worse, but it's already so bad I don't really notice.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 24, 2017, 06:20:25 AM
Quote from: webny99 on October 23, 2017, 10:09:57 PM
Do you think rush hour, in the traditional sense, is becoming less noticeable/significant over time?

There are several factors working towards this end, including more working from home, more flexible contracts, and an ageing population.

An off-shoot of this topic: which days seem to have the worst rush hour traffic?
Here's my estimate for my area, best to worst: Friday, Monday, Wednesday, Tuesday, Thursday.
Maybe I just get bad luck. But Thursdays seem extra bad for some reason :rolleyes:

Like Sparker said, I'm finding rush hour to be expanding, not declining.

As far as the worst day, actually, I don't see any true pattern.  If anything, Wednesdays can be the worse, because it's before long weekends (starting Thursday) and after long weekends (ending Tuesday).  Fridays are the worst when there's a holiday Monday with getaway traffic.   Tuesdays can be pretty slow as well, especially in the morning for some reason.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: ET21 on October 24, 2017, 08:56:28 AM
Chicago is just bad, even over the weekends. But if I had to rank days from worst to best: Friday, Thursday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Monday least for me. Those who take the Kennedy might say every single day
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: vdeane on October 24, 2017, 12:55:56 PM
It's hardly declining in the Capital District.  If anything, I'd say it's getting worse.  Our bad days are Thursday and Friday, especially on three day weekends.  Being where I-90 and I-87 meet, we get all the tourist traffic.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: ekt8750 on October 24, 2017, 02:57:40 PM
Not in the Philly region. There are days where the major Interstates in the region are just plain undrivable. All it takes is one accident or one clown not driving fast enough or poorly merging and that freeway could be jammed for miles. Yeah part of it is due to subpar freeways but the sheer volume on the roads is crazy.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: CtrlAltDel on October 24, 2017, 02:58:07 PM
Not entirely on topic, but this is a chart that I made of the average travel times for every hour of every day of the week, as calculated by Google Maps for a trip beginning at the Hillside Strangler traveling eastbound on I-290 to the Circle Interchange, then north on I-90 / I-94, continuing onto north I-94 at the split, and ending when the Edens Spur meets I-294.

(So, it's a bit of an insane thing to actually drive, but I think it provides a good understanding of how Chicago-area traffic works overall.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi67.tinypic.com%2F2luf1x2.png&hash=e4ea76a78bebaec63a3b5d69ace420dfa055c003)

As you can see, morning traffic peaks on Wednesday, and the afternoon traffic peaks on Friday. Weekends have less traffic, with both peaks "merging" at a point earlier in the afternoon.

Back on topic: I used to be able to reliably get on I-290 East at Saint Charles Road and make it to the I-294 ramps without sitting in traffic from say, 11:00 am to 2:00 pm. This has not been the case for about a year now. That slowdown now bridges the gap between the morning and afternoon rush on most weekdays, even Mondays.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: PHLBOS on October 24, 2017, 03:33:06 PM
Quote from: ekt8750 on October 24, 2017, 02:57:40 PMNot in the Philly region. There are days where the major Interstates in the region are just plain undrivable. All it takes is one accident or one clown not driving fast enough or poorly merging and that freeway could be jammed for miles. Yeah part of it is due to subpar freeways but the sheer volume on the roads is crazy.
Similar can be said for much of the Greater Boston area.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: txstateends on October 24, 2017, 03:49:07 PM
I'm afraid rush hour commutes in north TX are getting longer.  More and more people are moving to the area, and the metro area is fairly spread out, so people get up and get going earlier, then take longer to get home in the evening.  Traditional reverse commute pace seems to be taking longer now, with the growth in suburban job center areas seeing a bigger draw in traffic than what it used to look like.  Also, Saturdays have seen traffic growth to the point of looking like rush hours during the week do.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: 02 Park Ave on October 24, 2017, 03:55:33 PM
There is a radio station in Vancouver B.C. (CHMJ on 730 kHz) which broadcasts traffic reports comtinuously 24 hours a day.  Ferries are included in the traffic reporting.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: kkt on October 24, 2017, 03:58:14 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on October 24, 2017, 02:58:07 PM
Not entirely on topic, but this is a chart that I made of the average travel times for every hour of every day of the week, as calculated by Google Maps for a trip beginning at the Hillside Strangler traveling eastbound on I-290 to the Circle Interchange, then north on I-90 / I-94, continuing onto north I-94 at the split, and ending when the Edens Spur meets I-294.

(So, it's a bit of an insane thing to actually drive, but I think it provides a good understanding of how Chicago-area traffic works overall.)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi67.tinypic.com%2F2luf1x2.png&hash=e4ea76a78bebaec63a3b5d69ace420dfa055c003)

As you can see, morning traffic peaks on Wednesday, and the afternoon traffic peaks on Friday. Weekends have less traffic, with both peaks "merging" at a point earlier in the afternoon.

Back on topic: I used to be able to reliably get on I-290 East at Saint Charles Road and make it to the I-294 ramps without sitting in traffic from say, 11:00 am to 2:00 pm. This has not been the case for about a year now. That slowdown now bridges the gap between the morning and afternoon rush on most weekdays, even Mondays.

Nice chart.  Kinda like an EKG of a really really sick person.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: Roadgeekteen on October 24, 2017, 04:42:06 PM
no no no no
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: Truvelo on October 24, 2017, 04:46:04 PM
As others have already mentioned, rush hour isn't so much declining as traffic during other times is increasing. This makes traffic levels more constant throughout the day and makes the peaks less distinct. Weekends are also getting busier. As little as a decade ago you could drive into a large city on Sunday and not expect any delays. Now it's getting like any other day of the week. I feel this is partly due to flexible working hours but also those choosing to drive during the weekend because roads are quieter so when everyone else has the same idea it defeats the object.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: tradephoric on October 24, 2017, 05:04:45 PM
Here are 15 minute counts for a traffic signal along a NB/SB corridor (green line=SB; red line=NB).  In this case everybody is going SB during the AM rush and NB during the PM rush.  On the weekends traffic is just as heavy in the middle of the day but there are no rush hours. 

(https://i.imgur.com/y0qTmqm.jpg)

Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: Roadgeekteen on October 24, 2017, 05:12:34 PM
Quote from: Truvelo on October 24, 2017, 04:46:04 PM
As others have already mentioned, rush hour isn't so much declining as traffic during other times is increasing. This makes traffic levels more constant throughout the day and makes the peaks less distinct. Weekends are also getting busier. As little as a decade ago you could drive into a large city on Sunday and not expect any delays. Now it's getting like any other day of the week. I feel this is partly due to flexible working hours but also those choosing to drive during the weekend because roads are quieter so when everyone else has the same idea it defeats the object.
Boston is known for this.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: SectorZ on October 24, 2017, 06:40:11 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on October 24, 2017, 05:12:34 PM
Quote from: Truvelo on October 24, 2017, 04:46:04 PM
As others have already mentioned, rush hour isn't so much declining as traffic during other times is increasing. This makes traffic levels more constant throughout the day and makes the peaks less distinct. Weekends are also getting busier. As little as a decade ago you could drive into a large city on Sunday and not expect any delays. Now it's getting like any other day of the week. I feel this is partly due to flexible working hours but also those choosing to drive during the weekend because roads are quieter so when everyone else has the same idea it defeats the object.
Boston is known for this.

And getting worse. I-93, from either direction, into Boston, is a complete shitshow most of Saturday and Sunday at this point. South of Boston it doesn't clear much at all during the week mid-day like it used to. 95/128 north of Boston is awful as well on weekend afternoons.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: bing101 on October 24, 2017, 09:32:14 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 24, 2017, 04:37:29 AM
In the greater Bay Area, rush hour is not only persisting, it's actually expanding; whereas four years ago you'd find some freeways (such as I-880) to be cleared out in both directions by about 9:30 a.m, with congestion building up again about 3 p.m. -- now you're lucky not to run into residual traffic as late as 10:30-11 a.m. -- and the afternoon equivalent seems to build up about 2:30 p.m. these days.  The latter has been a greater Los Angeles phenomenon for decades, as the larger warehouse/distribution/fulfillment centers invariably have a shift change at 2:30 p.m. (3 daily shifts for around-the-clock operation); while the Bay area doesn't feature the massive distribution facilities found in SoCal (although the Valley region centered around Stockton appears to be on its way toward this status), the trend of more and more firms toward employee "flex time" is likely contributing to the midday congestion increase.

In Solano County we are impacted by both Sacramento traffic and Bay Area Traffic on I-80 this is partially due to the fact that housing in Sacramento City Proper, and San Francisco proper are in short supply + expensive. Also housing in Solano County according to one of the articles is considered affordable by Sacramento and Bay Area standards this is why I-80 Solano county can sometimes be jammed in both directions in Fairfield, Vacaville and Vallejo. Yes Solano County is the Commuter county for both Sacramento Valley and Bay Area. Also Economic interests are at play for both Sacramento and Bay Area for housing and branch facilities and other stuff at play here.
https://solanoedc.org/data-center/city-and-county-profiles/county-profile/

http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/homeless/article180526446.html (http://www.sacbee.com/news/local/homeless/article180526446.html)

http://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-home-sells-million-over-asking-2017-10 (http://www.businessinsider.com/san-francisco-home-sells-million-over-asking-2017-10)
http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/22/bay-area-housing-theres-hardly-anything-on-the-market-yet-sales-rose-in-august-and-prices-kept-climbing/ (http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/09/22/bay-area-housing-theres-hardly-anything-on-the-market-yet-sales-rose-in-august-and-prices-kept-climbing/)

http://www.timesheraldonline.com/article/NH/20170929/NEWS/170929728 (http://www.timesheraldonline.com/article/NH/20170929/NEWS/170929728)

Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: tradephoric on October 24, 2017, 10:17:21 PM
Here is what traffic is like driving the main thoroughfare of Detroit on a Saturday afternoon.  It's quicker to take Woodward downtown than hopping on the freeway (at least until you hit the Davison).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRWyx0NtpSQ&t=50s

Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: PHLBOS on October 25, 2017, 09:36:46 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on October 24, 2017, 05:12:34 PM
Quote from: Truvelo on October 24, 2017, 04:46:04 PM
As others have already mentioned, rush hour isn't so much declining as traffic during other times is increasing. This makes traffic levels more constant throughout the day and makes the peaks less distinct. Weekends are also getting busier. As little as a decade ago you could drive into a large city on Sunday and not expect any delays. Now it's getting like any other day of the week. I feel this is partly due to flexible working hours but also those choosing to drive during the weekend because roads are quieter so when everyone else has the same idea it defeats the object.
Boston is known for this.
Longer rush hours (& in both directions) has been a thing in the Greater Boston area for quite some time (at least 2 to 3 decades).

Quote from: SectorZ on October 24, 2017, 06:40:11 PMAnd getting worse. I-93, from either direction, into Boston, is a complete shitshow most of Saturday and Sunday at this point. South of Boston it doesn't clear much at all during the week mid-day like it used to. 95/128 north of Boston is awful as well on weekend afternoons.
Much of that can be blamed on increased development over the years/decades (which increases overall driving); even residential development (i.e. condos/townhomes constructed adjacent to the highways) which knows no peak period/schedule.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 25, 2017, 09:50:18 AM
Quote from: Truvelo on October 24, 2017, 04:46:04 PM
As others have already mentioned, rush hour isn't so much declining as traffic during other times is increasing. This makes traffic levels more constant throughout the day and makes the peaks less distinct. Weekends are also getting busier. As little as a decade ago you could drive into a large city on Sunday and not expect any delays. Now it's getting like any other day of the week. I feel this is partly due to flexible working hours but also those choosing to drive during the weekend because roads are quieter so when everyone else has the same idea it defeats the object.

I blame this on the fact that there's so much to do anymore.  You have zillions of non profits (some of them somewhat questionable) that have events.  Tourism is way up as well.

And with this additional traffic, you have a lot of people that don't know where they're going.  They tend to drive slower, as they are looking for where they need to go.  At the particularly notorious 295/76/42 interchange near me, which is under construction, weekday traffic knows what's going on and they know what where they need to be. On weekends, people are much more slower: you can see them looking around hoping they're in the correct lane.  And the area bottlenecks up even though traffic volumes are probably half of what they are during the week.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: sparker on October 25, 2017, 04:57:20 PM
This very morning my earlier contention that the Bay Area rush hour had been expanding into midday was, at least anecdotally, confirmed.  I was trying to get to northern Santa Clara on CA 87 and then US 101 to pick something up from a vendor; when I got to the 101 NB onramp it, and the freeway all the way to the horizon, was at a standstill: at 11:15 a.m.!  And apparently whatever caused this backup wasn't an incident (at least according to the every-10-minute traffic report on KCBS radio) but simply congestion stretching all the way to Palo Alto!  Luckily, I was able to exit and take a parallel street to my destination.  Sometimes on previous trips over the same routing NB 101 was slow -- but this was the first time in a while that I'd seen it at a dead stop!  SB was slow but doable back down to 87 about a half-hour later on the return trip -- but NB was still completely backed up. 

And tomorrow I have to go to Alameda at about 7-8 a.m. -- certainly not looking forward to that little jaunt up I-880!
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: jakeroot on October 25, 2017, 10:25:36 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 25, 2017, 10:12:43 PM
Another side-topic here;

Are there any areas or suburbs that would be worse to commute to than downtown?

From the south end of the Seattle metro, it usually takes longer to get to Bellevue than Seattle. This is mostly due to a lack of roads between the south end and Bellevue (very hilly), and the main road (the 405) being very busy most of the day. WSDOT plans to add express lanes in the next decade, so that should help speed things up.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: US 89 on October 25, 2017, 10:44:50 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 25, 2017, 10:25:36 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 25, 2017, 10:12:43 PM
Another side-topic here;

Are there any areas or suburbs that would be worse to commute to than downtown?

From the south end of the Seattle metro, it usually takes longer to get to Bellevue than Seattle. This is mostly due to a lack of roads between the south end and Bellevue (very hilly), and the main road (the 405) being very busy most of the day. WSDOT plans to add express lanes in the next decade, so that should help speed things up.

Isn't rush hour backwards on the WA 520 bridge over Lake Washington because of Microsoft headquarters?

(BTW, this is my 500th post, so I'm now a US Highway).
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: jakeroot on October 26, 2017, 12:49:25 AM
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 25, 2017, 10:44:50 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 25, 2017, 10:25:36 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 25, 2017, 10:12:43 PM
Another side-topic here;

Are there any areas or suburbs that would be worse to commute to than downtown?

From the south end of the Seattle metro, it usually takes longer to get to Bellevue than Seattle. This is mostly due to a lack of roads between the south end and Bellevue (very hilly), and the main road (the 405) being very busy most of the day. WSDOT plans to add express lanes in the next decade, so that should help speed things up.

Isn't rush hour backwards on the WA 520 bridge over Lake Washington because of Microsoft headquarters?

Between the 5 and the 405, traffic is generally heavy heading west (towards Seattle), but it's not catastrophic like other area freeways (vastly improved since the new bridge opened). East of the 405, the 520 can be busy heading into Redmond (towards the Microsoft campus) but it's usually not too bad. A lot of Microsoft employees (mostly the "low level" types) take some form of public transit to work.

Quote from: roadguy2 on October 25, 2017, 10:44:50 PM
(BTW, this is my 500th post, so I'm now a US Highway).

Very nice! I remember the feeling of ranking up when I was a n00b. It's like the site is patting you on the back, and thanking you for contributing. But, enjoy the feeling while it lasts, because it takes longer and longer to rank up over time.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 26, 2017, 08:12:13 AM
Quote from: webny99 on October 25, 2017, 10:12:43 PM
Another side-topic here;

Are there any areas or suburbs that would be worse to commute to than downtown?

I personally think commuting to Henrietta (from any origin except south of the thruway) would be worse than going to downtown Rochester. Way more congestion, especially on I-590 and I-390.

I-295 in NJ is all suburb-to-suburb commuting, with traffic delays of over 10 miles quite normal, varying between interchanges 23 & 40.   Approaching US 1 (Exit 67) congestion is normally expected also, with no downtown within 30 miles.


Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: Brandon on October 26, 2017, 11:13:25 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 24, 2017, 10:17:21 PM
Here is what traffic is like driving the main thoroughfare of Detroit on a Saturday afternoon.  It's quicker to take Woodward downtown than hopping on the freeway (at least until you hit the Davison).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRWyx0NtpSQ&t=50s

Damn, I love MDOT's signaling along the boulevards.  :bigass:

Other states should take note and repeat.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: jakeroot on October 26, 2017, 02:41:31 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 26, 2017, 11:13:25 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 24, 2017, 10:17:21 PM
Here is what traffic is like driving the main thoroughfare of Detroit on a Saturday afternoon.  It's quicker to take Woodward downtown than hopping on the freeway (at least until you hit the Davison).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRWyx0NtpSQ&t=50s

Damn, I love MDOT's signaling along the boulevards.

Other states should take note and repeat.

I would love to see MDOT-style boulevards in my neck of the woods, but there's never enough ROW to accommodate the required width.

An MDOT-style boulevard would be lovely along this stretch of Hwy 161 in Pierce County, Washington (a very important N/S arterial), but there's absolutely no way to squeeze it in: https://goo.gl/7XtaeQ

They would be wise to eliminate left turns at intersections, replace them with U-turn points, and remove the vast amount of split phased cross streets, but I don't see that happening soon.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: sparker on October 26, 2017, 04:29:40 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 25, 2017, 10:12:43 PM
Another side-topic here;

Are there any areas or suburbs that would be worse to commute to than downtown?

I personally think commuting to Henrietta (from any origin except south of the thruway) would be worse than going to downtown Rochester. Way more congestion, especially on I-590 and I-390.

These days, Orange County in general vis-à-vis downtown L.A.  Both are work-related commute destinations (particularly, within OC, the triangle of I-5/I-405/CA 55) and from recent experience are functionally identical to one another in terms of congestion and commute times.  And in OC, the attractant "downtown" is spread all over that large triangle, with virtually every exit from every freeway jammed in the mornings and late afternoons.  And -- don't forget -- the OC toll road system has "injected" one of their arms (CA 261) directly into the midst of the congested area as a (purportedly) more efficient way to connect the OC business center with the marginally more affordable "Inland Empire" housing.  Whether this area (primarily Irvine but containing parts of several other adjacent cities) could still be classified as a "suburb" may be a debatable point; while spread out over 20-something square miles, it does share many features with classic downtown areas:  corporate HQ's and "campuses", high-rise housing, a multitude of hotels and restaurants, and other amenities normally associated with city centers (and damn few gas stations!).  While greater L.A. is itself famously diffused, central OC, at least for the last 15 years or so, has served as an "alternate downtown" to an extent not seen previously.   
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: US 89 on October 26, 2017, 06:08:05 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 26, 2017, 11:13:25 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 24, 2017, 10:17:21 PM
Here is what traffic is like driving the main thoroughfare of Detroit on a Saturday afternoon.  It's quicker to take Woodward downtown than hopping on the freeway (at least until you hit the Davison).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRWyx0NtpSQ&t=50s

Damn, I love MDOT's signaling along the boulevards.  :bigass:

Other states should take note and repeat.

I love that boulevard concept in general. And not having to stop at 94 of 104 total lights...wow.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: hotdogPi on October 26, 2017, 06:12:53 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 26, 2017, 06:08:05 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 26, 2017, 11:13:25 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 24, 2017, 10:17:21 PM
Here is what traffic is like driving the main thoroughfare of Detroit on a Saturday afternoon.  It's quicker to take Woodward downtown than hopping on the freeway (at least until you hit the Davison).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRWyx0NtpSQ&t=50s

Damn, I love MDOT's signaling along the boulevards.  :bigass:

Other states should take note and repeat.

I love that boulevard concept in general. And not having to stop at 94 of 104 total lights...wow.

93. The light at 7:27 (video time, not driving time) was red, and they counted it as green.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: kkt on October 26, 2017, 07:35:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 26, 2017, 02:41:31 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 26, 2017, 11:13:25 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 24, 2017, 10:17:21 PM
Here is what traffic is like driving the main thoroughfare of Detroit on a Saturday afternoon.  It's quicker to take Woodward downtown than hopping on the freeway (at least until you hit the Davison).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRWyx0NtpSQ&t=50s

Damn, I love MDOT's signaling along the boulevards.

Other states should take note and repeat.

It would be lovely, but I think the cross streets have to be evenly spaced for the timed signals to work out.

Quote
I would love to see MDOT-style boulevards in my neck of the woods, but there's never enough ROW to accommodate the required width.

An MDOT-style boulevard would be lovely along this stretch of Hwy 161 in Pierce County, Washington (a very important N/S arterial), but there's absolutely no way to squeeze it in: https://goo.gl/7XtaeQ

Yes, as you say not enough ROW and cross-streets are unevenly spaced as well.  I hope for a parallel freeway bypassing Puyallup, South Hill, and Graham, but not holding my breath.  As is so often the case, no one thinks about setting aside right of way for a freeway/boulevard until it's no longer cheap and easy.


Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 26, 2017, 08:46:49 PM
Quote from: roadguy2 on October 26, 2017, 06:08:05 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 26, 2017, 11:13:25 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 24, 2017, 10:17:21 PM
Here is what traffic is like driving the main thoroughfare of Detroit on a Saturday afternoon.  It's quicker to take Woodward downtown than hopping on the freeway (at least until you hit the Davison).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRWyx0NtpSQ&t=50s

Damn, I love MDOT's signaling along the boulevards.  :bigass:

Other states should take note and repeat.

I love that boulevard concept in general. And not having to stop at 94 of 104 total lights...wow.

That is impressive.  However, consider this: That averages to be one traffic light every 1/4 mile.  That's a lot of traffic lights to constantly pay attention to.  If someone driving straight thru at whatever speed this person was driving at for 26 miles, then it's wonderful.  But I'm sure very few are driving that entire stretch.  For someone that turns onto the road at any point during that stretch, how does that affect their ability to get thru the lights?
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: Roadgeekteen on October 26, 2017, 09:37:55 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 26, 2017, 09:04:37 PM
^ The average driver should, in theory, miss the first light after they turn onto the road. Then the "flow" or thru traffic should catch up to them just after that next light turns green, and then they should be in sync for the rest of their journey. That's in a perfect world though. I'm not sure how it actually plays out on the road mentioned.
That would on straight roads with good drivers and no stores or pedestrians?
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: 02 Park Ave on October 26, 2017, 10:37:46 PM
I've driven the entire length of the Grand Concourse in The Bronx without ever stopping because of benefitting from the synchronized signals.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: tradephoric on October 27, 2017, 12:52:33 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 26, 2017, 08:46:49 PM
That is impressive.  However, consider this: That averages to be one traffic light every 1/4 mile.  That's a lot of traffic lights to constantly pay attention to.  If someone driving straight thru at whatever speed this person was driving at for 26 miles, then it's wonderful.  But I'm sure very few are driving that entire stretch.  For someone that turns onto the road at any point during that stretch, how does that affect their ability to get thru the lights?

I'll take Woodward whenever I'm heading down to Detroit.  Driving it in the middle of the day is one thing, but something different entirely late at night.  Cruising down a nearly deserted 8-lane boulevard and hitting an endless string of green lights... each light triggering green just as you approach it... it's almost mesmerizing.  After 30 minutes of this you realize you haven't tapped the breaks or let your foot off the gas...it's just enjoyable.  Woodward is a straight shot from Detroit and for me it's faster than taking the Lodge or I-75.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: Otto Yamamoto on October 27, 2017, 12:58:30 AM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 26, 2017, 10:37:46 PM
I've driven the entire length of the Grand Concourse in The Bronx without ever stopping because of benefitting from the synchronized signals.
I've done likewise on 2/3 Aves in Manhattan

P00I

Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: Brandon on October 27, 2017, 05:46:40 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 26, 2017, 08:46:49 PM
That is impressive.  However, consider this: That averages to be one traffic light every 1/4 mile.  That's a lot of traffic lights to constantly pay attention to.  If someone driving straight thru at whatever speed this person was driving at for 26 miles, then it's wonderful.  But I'm sure very few are driving that entire stretch.  For someone that turns onto the road at any point during that stretch, how does that affect their ability to get thru the lights?

The signals on the boulevards are timed so that one can cruise through at the speed limit (or near it) without stopping.  The limit on thee boulevards is typically 45 mph, and the signals are timed for it.  The locals all know this, and usually are on them between 40 and 50 mph so that they'll make the signals.

If you turn onto the road at any point, you'll get the first signal red, followed by a bunch of greens.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: jeffandnicole on October 27, 2017, 08:15:40 AM
Quote from: Brandon on October 27, 2017, 05:46:40 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 26, 2017, 08:46:49 PM
That is impressive.  However, consider this: That averages to be one traffic light every 1/4 mile.  That's a lot of traffic lights to constantly pay attention to.  If someone driving straight thru at whatever speed this person was driving at for 26 miles, then it's wonderful.  But I'm sure very few are driving that entire stretch.  For someone that turns onto the road at any point during that stretch, how does that affect their ability to get thru the lights?

The signals on the boulevards are timed so that one can cruise through at the speed limit (or near it) without stopping.  The limit on thee boulevards is typically 45 mph, and the signals are timed for it.  The locals all know this, and usually are on them between 40 and 50 mph so that they'll make the signals.

If you turn onto the road at any point, you'll get the first signal red, followed by a bunch of greens.

In regards to how many people actually drive this full stretch: If you watch the video, no later than about 20 seconds into the video the other nearby cars at the beginning of the video have turned off the Blvd.  As cars come on, cars come off.  It didn't take long for the cars that entered the blvd to exit it.  It's great for those that are on it that they may not have to stop at many lights, but hardly anyone is going more than a few miles, much less 26 miles.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: kalvado on October 27, 2017, 08:29:43 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 27, 2017, 08:15:40 AM

In regards to how many people actually drive this full stretch: If you watch the video, no later than about 20 seconds into the video the other nearby cars at the beginning of the video have turned off the Blvd.  As cars come on, cars come off.  It didn't take long for the cars that entered the blvd to exit it.  It's great for those that are on it that they may not have to stop at many lights, but hardly anyone is going more than a few miles, much less 26 miles.
A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money..
If "a few miles" means 5 miles, at 1/4 mile spacing that is 20 lights in total. Assuming average of 30 seconds per light, that is 10 minutes added to the trip - and some acceleration/deceleration on top of that. So 7 minute trip (5 miles at 45 MPH) could extend to 17 or 20 minutes if lights were not timed...
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: dgolub on October 27, 2017, 08:54:54 AM
Quote from: Otto Yamamoto on October 23, 2017, 10:52:10 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 23, 2017, 10:09:57 PM
Do you think rush hour, in the traditional sense, is becoming less noticeable/significant over time?

There are several factors working towards this end, including more working from home, more flexible contracts, and an ageing population.

An off-shoot of this topic: which days seem to have the worst rush hour traffic?
Here's my estimate for my area, best to worst: Friday, Monday, Wednesday, Tuesday, Thursday.
Maybe I just get bad luck. But Thursdays seem extra bad for some reason :rolleyes:
Not on the Lexington Ave line.

P00I

Ditto for probably any NYC subway line.  The level of crowding is atrocious at this point.  While it's worst at rush hour, it's pretty bad around the clock, even on weekends.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: paulthemapguy on October 28, 2017, 12:05:51 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 24, 2017, 04:37:29 AM
In the greater Bay Area, rush hour is not only persisting, it's actually expanding; whereas four years ago you'd find some freeways (such as I-880) to be cleared out in both directions by about 9:30 a.m, with congestion building up again about 3 p.m. -- now you're lucky not to run into residual traffic as late as 10:30-11 a.m. -- and the afternoon equivalent seems to build up about 2:30 p.m. these days.  The latter has been a greater Los Angeles phenomenon for decades, as the larger warehouse/distribution/fulfillment centers invariably have a shift change at 2:30 p.m. (3 daily shifts for around-the-clock operation); while the Bay area doesn't feature the massive distribution facilities found in SoCal (although the Valley region centered around Stockton appears to be on its way toward this status), the trend of more and more firms toward employee "flex time" is likely contributing to the midday congestion increase.

I was actually explaining to my girlfriend about San Francisco's housing bubble--it's making Bay Area traffic much worse.  Because of the insane cost of real estate, it is financially impossible for anyone with a middle-class or lower-class job to live in San Francisco or the Silicon Valley.  That means that the people providing all of the services other than those provided by rich people have to come from farther away, forcing high commute times for anyone who isn't obscenely wealthy, which is to say, the overwhelming majority of people.  If the closest a hotel maid can live to a fancy San Francisco hotel is Brentwood, she now has to commute all the way from Brentwood each day to get to work.  As the cost of living increases in the urban core, the cost of living also increases in the immediate vicinity, causing a ripple effect that pushes the lower and middle classes farther away.  And commute distances will just continue to increase...
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: sparker on October 28, 2017, 04:59:36 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on October 28, 2017, 12:05:51 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 24, 2017, 04:37:29 AM
In the greater Bay Area, rush hour is not only persisting, it's actually expanding; whereas four years ago you'd find some freeways (such as I-880) to be cleared out in both directions by about 9:30 a.m, with congestion building up again about 3 p.m. -- now you're lucky not to run into residual traffic as late as 10:30-11 a.m. -- and the afternoon equivalent seems to build up about 2:30 p.m. these days.  The latter has been a greater Los Angeles phenomenon for decades, as the larger warehouse/distribution/fulfillment centers invariably have a shift change at 2:30 p.m. (3 daily shifts for around-the-clock operation); while the Bay area doesn't feature the massive distribution facilities found in SoCal (although the Valley region centered around Stockton appears to be on its way toward this status), the trend of more and more firms toward employee "flex time" is likely contributing to the midday congestion increase.

I was actually explaining to my girlfriend about San Francisco's housing bubble--it's making Bay Area traffic much worse.  Because of the insane cost of real estate, it is financially impossible for anyone with a middle-class or lower-class job to live in San Francisco or the Silicon Valley.  That means that the people providing all of the services other than those provided by rich people have to come from farther away, forcing high commute times for anyone who isn't obscenely wealthy, which is to say, the overwhelming majority of people.  If the closest a hotel maid can live to a fancy San Francisco hotel is Brentwood, she now has to commute all the way from Brentwood each day to get to work.  As the cost of living increases in the urban core, the cost of living also increases in the immediate vicinity, causing a ripple effect that pushes the lower and middle classes farther away.  And commute distances will just continue to increase...

Funny you should mention Brentwood.  When I was driving from SJ to Alameda (and return) the other day, I saw multiple billboards on I-880 advertising Brentwood developments as the closest-in under $500K new housing stock to be had in the area.  Now, from experience, I'd probably put Fairfield/Cordelia in much that same price category -- but that requires the "gauntlet" of either the I-80 or I-680 bridges to get to that area (sometimes it's not so much the toll as the time!), while Brentwood is a "straight shot" out CA 4 and somewhat less so (but still doable) via I-580 and Vasco Road.  It's interesting in that Discovery Bay, actually east of Brentwood (and actually closer to Stockton than even Walnut Creek) was developed first as a "second home" community with amenities tied to the San Joaquin Delta (boat docks, parks, and with some water channels right up to one's back yard) -- geared toward recreational use; the average housing stock there dates from the early-to-mid '80's.  But it still features a large number of homes (not those with their own docks, which are naturally pricier) in the $300-400K category for about 2K sf (my GF's cousins in Stockton were looking at some of these a few months ago).  Brentwood, technically, is "infill" between Discovery Bay and Antioch; most of the current development is going on just west of the east end of the CA 4 freeway extension.  But the fact is that there's an eastern "arc" around the Bay Area that essentially delineates the $500K/home E/W dividing line.  And everything immediately east of that arc is quickly being gobbled up by new arrivals or Bay residents looking to get out of apartments or condos.  Again from past experience, I'd expect Brentwood's median price to hit at least $650-700K by 2022 if not sooner.  That'll drive the sub-$75K/year workers farther east to the I-5 or CA 99 corridor housing areas (Lathrop, Ripon, etc.) -- which eventually will have the effect of extending the rush hour earlier and later (maybe 4:30 am and 8 p.m!).
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: sparker on October 31, 2017, 06:33:09 PM
S.F.-based KCBS (AM 740) radio in my home region has been discussing this very issue over the past week, with the consensus being that on many of the area freeways (I-80, I-580, I-880, and US 101 being singled out) the congestion has indeed spread to midday, with the resultant backup starting around 5-5:30 a.m. and continuing until at least 7:30-8 p.m. M-F.  I would concur, as just in the past couple of weeks I've had the need to utilize many of these (and other) freeways, and have seen a consistent pattern of a couple of miles of relatively free (45-50 mph and up) travel interspersed with stop-and-go segments on at least I-880 and I-580; I've pretty much given up on US 101 from CA 87 north to Palo Alto during daytime hours during the week (and my alternate, Central Expressway, is seeing increasingly more of the overflow).  And Sunday we went south on US 101 to visit friends in Hollister (late afternoon SB); the NB direction was congested to stop-and-go level from CA 85 all the way down to CA 25, where we got off 101.  It cleared out by the time we returned between 8 and 9 p.m., with only a slight glitch because of a "fender-bender" in Morgan Hill.  So even weekends aren't immune from the problems -- in this case, likely folks returning from weekend jaunts to both the Monterey Peninsula and Gilroy (it's garlic-harvest time around there).  Just another week in Northern California's Traffic Central!   
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: bing101 on November 02, 2017, 12:44:51 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2017, 06:33:09 PM
S.F.-based KCBS (AM 740) radio in my home region has been discussing this very issue over the past week, with the consensus being that on many of the area freeways (I-80, I-580, I-880, and US 101 being singled out) the congestion has indeed spread to midday, with the resultant backup starting around 5-5:30 a.m. and continuing until at least 7:30-8 p.m. M-F.  I would concur, as just in the past couple of weeks I've had the need to utilize many of these (and other) freeways, and have seen a consistent pattern of a couple of miles of relatively free (45-50 mph and up) travel interspersed with stop-and-go segments on at least I-880 and I-580; I've pretty much given up on US 101 from CA 87 north to Palo Alto during daytime hours during the week (and my alternate, Central Expressway, is seeing increasingly more of the overflow).  And Sunday we went south on US 101 to visit friends in Hollister (late afternoon SB); the NB direction was congested to stop-and-go level from CA 85 all the way down to CA 25, where we got off 101.  It cleared out by the time we returned between 8 and 9 p.m., with only a slight glitch because of a "fender-bender" in Morgan Hill.  So even weekends aren't immune from the problems -- in this case, likely folks returning from weekend jaunts to both the Monterey Peninsula and Gilroy (it's garlic-harvest time around there).  Just another week in Northern California's Traffic Central!   

Try Solano County on the weekends we sometimes have I-80 jammed on both directions due to tour buses from San Francisco and Sacramento using I-80 either to go to Napa or Bay Area Tour buses going to Sacramento, Lake Tahoe, Reno and Downtown Davis for various events in those areas. Or Sacramento area buses using I-80 west to San Francisco.  I even heard of I-205 mentioned as a bay area freeway too in some reports even though its technically in the San Joaquin Valley.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: bing101 on November 02, 2017, 12:51:28 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 25, 2017, 10:12:43 PM
Another side-topic here;

Are there any areas or suburbs that would be worse to commute to than downtown?

I personally think commuting to Henrietta (from any origin except south of the thruway) would be worse than going to downtown Rochester. Way more congestion, especially on I-590 and I-390.

CA-12 Suisun City eastbound from cordelia interchange its the place where lots of people exit from Sacramento and San Francisco but the commuters have to encounter at grade intersections from a busy freeway interchange in the county near Jelly Belly factory but its also where some of Solano County's housing is located for  Sacramento Valley and Bay Area commuters.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: sparker on November 02, 2017, 04:15:53 PM
Quote from: bing101 on November 02, 2017, 12:44:51 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2017, 06:33:09 PM
S.F.-based KCBS (AM 740) radio in my home region has been discussing this very issue over the past week, with the consensus being that on many of the area freeways (I-80, I-580, I-880, and US 101 being singled out) the congestion has indeed spread to midday, with the resultant backup starting around 5-5:30 a.m. and continuing until at least 7:30-8 p.m. M-F.  I would concur, as just in the past couple of weeks I've had the need to utilize many of these (and other) freeways, and have seen a consistent pattern of a couple of miles of relatively free (45-50 mph and up) travel interspersed with stop-and-go segments on at least I-880 and I-580; I've pretty much given up on US 101 from CA 87 north to Palo Alto during daytime hours during the week (and my alternate, Central Expressway, is seeing increasingly more of the overflow).  And Sunday we went south on US 101 to visit friends in Hollister (late afternoon SB); the NB direction was congested to stop-and-go level from CA 85 all the way down to CA 25, where we got off 101.  It cleared out by the time we returned between 8 and 9 p.m., with only a slight glitch because of a "fender-bender" in Morgan Hill.  So even weekends aren't immune from the problems -- in this case, likely folks returning from weekend jaunts to both the Monterey Peninsula and Gilroy (it's garlic-harvest time around there).  Just another week in Northern California's Traffic Central!   

Try Solano County on the weekends we sometimes have I-80 jammed on both directions due to tour buses from San Francisco and Sacramento using I-80 either to go to Napa or Bay Area Tour buses going to Sacramento, Lake Tahoe, Reno and Downtown Davis for various events in those areas. Or Sacramento area buses using I-80 west to San Francisco.  I even heard of I-205 mentioned as a bay area freeway too in some reports even though its technically in the San Joaquin Valley.

Wow -- I think this is the first time I've heard of congestion attributed to large amounts of tour buses going back & forth along a stretch of highway!  I know there must be some Napa Valley tour lines originating in the Sacramento area -- but it would be something of a stretch to imagine that those would in and of themselves result in congestion (unless a number of them were caravanning at slow speeds and "hogging" one of the lanes -- which I have personally witnessed over Donner Summit).  Nevertheless, I do agree with Bing's assessment of the overall increase of traffic along I-80 in Solano County; quite a bit of housing has been built around the perimeter of Travis AFB, and one could safely assume that the pricing of such is considerably less than the Bay Area median.  And areas like Vacaville can do, as mentioned previously, "double duty" as exurbs of both the Bay and Sacramento.  Except for the Yolo Bypass (and whatever zoning regulations that come into play), there's little to prevent Fairfield from merging with Vacaville (around the south side of the hills), and eventually Vacaville merging with Dixon (which is also experiencing heavy growth), and then on to the edges of Davis (which might be a bit reluctant to massively increase its own housing stock due to the influence of UCD).  I'm guessing -- with a bit of a heavy heart -- that one will be able to see housing stock adjacent to or near any point along I-80 from Davis to west of Vacaville by 2030 at the latest.  As an adjunct to such development, the Amtrak Capitol Corridor service along the UP line to the south might establish a station stop at Dixon or even Elmira to serve the commuting population (that'd help the situation -- but if history is correct, only marginally).     
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: bing101 on November 02, 2017, 11:10:11 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 02, 2017, 04:15:53 PM
Quote from: bing101 on November 02, 2017, 12:44:51 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2017, 06:33:09 PM
S.F.-based KCBS (AM 740) radio in my home region has been discussing this very issue over the past week, with the consensus being that on many of the area freeways (I-80, I-580, I-880, and US 101 being singled out) the congestion has indeed spread to midday, with the resultant backup starting around 5-5:30 a.m. and continuing until at least 7:30-8 p.m. M-F.  I would concur, as just in the past couple of weeks I've had the need to utilize many of these (and other) freeways, and have seen a consistent pattern of a couple of miles of relatively free (45-50 mph and up) travel interspersed with stop-and-go segments on at least I-880 and I-580; I've pretty much given up on US 101 from CA 87 north to Palo Alto during daytime hours during the week (and my alternate, Central Expressway, is seeing increasingly more of the overflow).  And Sunday we went south on US 101 to visit friends in Hollister (late afternoon SB); the NB direction was congested to stop-and-go level from CA 85 all the way down to CA 25, where we got off 101.  It cleared out by the time we returned between 8 and 9 p.m., with only a slight glitch because of a "fender-bender" in Morgan Hill.  So even weekends aren't immune from the problems -- in this case, likely folks returning from weekend jaunts to both the Monterey Peninsula and Gilroy (it's garlic-harvest time around there).  Just another week in Northern California's Traffic Central!   

Try Solano County on the weekends we sometimes have I-80 jammed on both directions due to tour buses from San Francisco and Sacramento using I-80 either to go to Napa or Bay Area Tour buses going to Sacramento, Lake Tahoe, Reno and Downtown Davis for various events in those areas. Or Sacramento area buses using I-80 west to San Francisco.  I even heard of I-205 mentioned as a bay area freeway too in some reports even though its technically in the San Joaquin Valley.

Wow -- I think this is the first time I've heard of congestion attributed to large amounts of tour buses going back & forth along a stretch of highway!  I know there must be some Napa Valley tour lines originating in the Sacramento area -- but it would be something of a stretch to imagine that those would in and of themselves result in congestion (unless a number of them were caravanning at slow speeds and "hogging" one of the lanes -- which I have personally witnessed over Donner Summit).  Nevertheless, I do agree with Bing's assessment of the overall increase of traffic along I-80 in Solano County; quite a bit of housing has been built around the perimeter of Travis AFB, and one could safely assume that the pricing of such is considerably less than the Bay Area median.  And areas like Vacaville can do, as mentioned previously, "double duty" as exurbs of both the Bay and Sacramento.  Except for the Yolo Bypass (and whatever zoning regulations that come into play), there's little to prevent Fairfield from merging with Vacaville (around the south side of the hills), and eventually Vacaville merging with Dixon (which is also experiencing heavy growth), and then on to the edges of Davis (which might be a bit reluctant to massively increase its own housing stock due to the influence of UCD).  I'm guessing -- with a bit of a heavy heart -- that one will be able to see housing stock adjacent to or near any point along I-80 from Davis to west of Vacaville by 2030 at the latest.  As an adjunct to such development, the Amtrak Capitol Corridor service along the UP line to the south might establish a station stop at Dixon or even Elmira to serve the commuting population (that'd help the situation -- but if history is correct, only marginally).   

Well really its not just tour buses as the scapegoat but I see lots of tour buses and trucks in Solano County due to I-80 being a major interstate for both Sacramento and San Francisco two distinct census designations though. It's a factor but not the only ones though.  But there has to be places in other parts of the country where they have similar conditions to Solano county, CA though where they have to provide "affordable housing" to two or more distinct designated census areas though because the centers are expensive though.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: sparker on November 02, 2017, 11:51:53 PM
Quote from: bing101 on November 02, 2017, 11:10:11 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 02, 2017, 04:15:53 PM
Quote from: bing101 on November 02, 2017, 12:44:51 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2017, 06:33:09 PM
S.F.-based KCBS (AM 740) radio in my home region has been discussing this very issue over the past week, with the consensus being that on many of the area freeways (I-80, I-580, I-880, and US 101 being singled out) the congestion has indeed spread to midday, with the resultant backup starting around 5-5:30 a.m. and continuing until at least 7:30-8 p.m. M-F.  I would concur, as just in the past couple of weeks I've had the need to utilize many of these (and other) freeways, and have seen a consistent pattern of a couple of miles of relatively free (45-50 mph and up) travel interspersed with stop-and-go segments on at least I-880 and I-580; I've pretty much given up on US 101 from CA 87 north to Palo Alto during daytime hours during the week (and my alternate, Central Expressway, is seeing increasingly more of the overflow).  And Sunday we went south on US 101 to visit friends in Hollister (late afternoon SB); the NB direction was congested to stop-and-go level from CA 85 all the way down to CA 25, where we got off 101.  It cleared out by the time we returned between 8 and 9 p.m., with only a slight glitch because of a "fender-bender" in Morgan Hill.  So even weekends aren't immune from the problems -- in this case, likely folks returning from weekend jaunts to both the Monterey Peninsula and Gilroy (it's garlic-harvest time around there).  Just another week in Northern California's Traffic Central!   

Try Solano County on the weekends we sometimes have I-80 jammed on both directions due to tour buses from San Francisco and Sacramento using I-80 either to go to Napa or Bay Area Tour buses going to Sacramento, Lake Tahoe, Reno and Downtown Davis for various events in those areas. Or Sacramento area buses using I-80 west to San Francisco.  I even heard of I-205 mentioned as a bay area freeway too in some reports even though its technically in the San Joaquin Valley.

Wow -- I think this is the first time I've heard of congestion attributed to large amounts of tour buses going back & forth along a stretch of highway!  I know there must be some Napa Valley tour lines originating in the Sacramento area -- but it would be something of a stretch to imagine that those would in and of themselves result in congestion (unless a number of them were caravanning at slow speeds and "hogging" one of the lanes -- which I have personally witnessed over Donner Summit).  Nevertheless, I do agree with Bing's assessment of the overall increase of traffic along I-80 in Solano County; quite a bit of housing has been built around the perimeter of Travis AFB, and one could safely assume that the pricing of such is considerably less than the Bay Area median.  And areas like Vacaville can do, as mentioned previously, "double duty" as exurbs of both the Bay and Sacramento.  Except for the Yolo Bypass (and whatever zoning regulations that come into play), there's little to prevent Fairfield from merging with Vacaville (around the south side of the hills), and eventually Vacaville merging with Dixon (which is also experiencing heavy growth), and then on to the edges of Davis (which might be a bit reluctant to massively increase its own housing stock due to the influence of UCD).  I'm guessing -- with a bit of a heavy heart -- that one will be able to see housing stock adjacent to or near any point along I-80 from Davis to west of Vacaville by 2030 at the latest.  As an adjunct to such development, the Amtrak Capitol Corridor service along the UP line to the south might establish a station stop at Dixon or even Elmira to serve the commuting population (that'd help the situation -- but if history is correct, only marginally).   

Well really its not just tour buses as the scapegoat but I see lots of tour buses and trucks in Solano County due to I-80 being a major interstate for both Sacramento and San Francisco two distinct census designations though. It's a factor but not the only ones though.  But there has to be places in other parts of the country where they have similar conditions to Solano county, CA though where they have to provide "affordable housing" to two or more distinct designated census areas though because the centers are expensive though.

Temecula down in Riverside County came of age in the '90's as an affordable exurb to both San Diego and greater L.A. (specifically the "Inland Empire"), particularly after I-15 was completed between there and Escondido.  However, its emergence as a tourist destination as the heart of SoCal's "wine country" resulted in very rapid gentrification; its place as an affordable midpoint was assumed by the adjoining city of Murietta to the immediate north (at the 15/215 split); while housing prices there are certainly not cheap by any means, they are considerably less than closer-in (to L.A.) cities like Corona or Chino Hills, so it still attracts commuters seeking relatively reasonably-priced homes -- and is still growing (to the northeast, toward Hemet).  In SoCal, that's the closest area that I can think of that would rival Solano County as a housing adjunct to two separate metro areas.  BTW, development of the area just to the south of Temecula -- toward San Diego -- would be difficult because of the terrain (rocky hills comprising the ridge connecting the coastal range to the Palomar range to the east). 
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: bing101 on November 03, 2017, 01:25:33 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 02, 2017, 11:51:53 PM
Quote from: bing101 on November 02, 2017, 11:10:11 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 02, 2017, 04:15:53 PM
Quote from: bing101 on November 02, 2017, 12:44:51 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 31, 2017, 06:33:09 PM
S.F.-based KCBS (AM 740) radio in my home region has been discussing this very issue over the past week, with the consensus being that on many of the area freeways (I-80, I-580, I-880, and US 101 being singled out) the congestion has indeed spread to midday, with the resultant backup starting around 5-5:30 a.m. and continuing until at least 7:30-8 p.m. M-F.  I would concur, as just in the past couple of weeks I've had the need to utilize many of these (and other) freeways, and have seen a consistent pattern of a couple of miles of relatively free (45-50 mph and up) travel interspersed with stop-and-go segments on at least I-880 and I-580; I've pretty much given up on US 101 from CA 87 north to Palo Alto during daytime hours during the week (and my alternate, Central Expressway, is seeing increasingly more of the overflow).  And Sunday we went south on US 101 to visit friends in Hollister (late afternoon SB); the NB direction was congested to stop-and-go level from CA 85 all the way down to CA 25, where we got off 101.  It cleared out by the time we returned between 8 and 9 p.m., with only a slight glitch because of a "fender-bender" in Morgan Hill.  So even weekends aren't immune from the problems -- in this case, likely folks returning from weekend jaunts to both the Monterey Peninsula and Gilroy (it's garlic-harvest time around there).  Just another week in Northern California's Traffic Central!   

Try Solano County on the weekends we sometimes have I-80 jammed on both directions due to tour buses from San Francisco and Sacramento using I-80 either to go to Napa or Bay Area Tour buses going to Sacramento, Lake Tahoe, Reno and Downtown Davis for various events in those areas. Or Sacramento area buses using I-80 west to San Francisco.  I even heard of I-205 mentioned as a bay area freeway too in some reports even though its technically in the San Joaquin Valley.

Wow -- I think this is the first time I've heard of congestion attributed to large amounts of tour buses going back & forth along a stretch of highway!  I know there must be some Napa Valley tour lines originating in the Sacramento area -- but it would be something of a stretch to imagine that those would in and of themselves result in congestion (unless a number of them were caravanning at slow speeds and "hogging" one of the lanes -- which I have personally witnessed over Donner Summit).  Nevertheless, I do agree with Bing's assessment of the overall increase of traffic along I-80 in Solano County; quite a bit of housing has been built around the perimeter of Travis AFB, and one could safely assume that the pricing of such is considerably less than the Bay Area median.  And areas like Vacaville can do, as mentioned previously, "double duty" as exurbs of both the Bay and Sacramento.  Except for the Yolo Bypass (and whatever zoning regulations that come into play), there's little to prevent Fairfield from merging with Vacaville (around the south side of the hills), and eventually Vacaville merging with Dixon (which is also experiencing heavy growth), and then on to the edges of Davis (which might be a bit reluctant to massively increase its own housing stock due to the influence of UCD).  I'm guessing -- with a bit of a heavy heart -- that one will be able to see housing stock adjacent to or near any point along I-80 from Davis to west of Vacaville by 2030 at the latest.  As an adjunct to such development, the Amtrak Capitol Corridor service along the UP line to the south might establish a station stop at Dixon or even Elmira to serve the commuting population (that'd help the situation -- but if history is correct, only marginally).   

Well really its not just tour buses as the scapegoat but I see lots of tour buses and trucks in Solano County due to I-80 being a major interstate for both Sacramento and San Francisco two distinct census designations though. It's a factor but not the only ones though.  But there has to be places in other parts of the country where they have similar conditions to Solano county, CA though where they have to provide "affordable housing" to two or more distinct designated census areas though because the centers are expensive though.

Temecula down in Riverside County came of age in the '90's as an affordable exurb to both San Diego and greater L.A. (specifically the "Inland Empire"), particularly after I-15 was completed between there and Escondido.  However, its emergence as a tourist destination as the heart of SoCal's "wine country" resulted in very rapid gentrification; its place as an affordable midpoint was assumed by the adjoining city of Murietta to the immediate north (at the 15/215 split); while housing prices there are certainly not cheap by any means, they are considerably less than closer-in (to L.A.) cities like Corona or Chino Hills, so it still attracts commuters seeking relatively reasonably-priced homes -- and is still growing (to the northeast, toward Hemet).  In SoCal, that's the closest area that I can think of that would rival Solano County as a housing adjunct to two separate metro areas.  BTW, development of the area just to the south of Temecula -- toward San Diego -- would be difficult because of the terrain (rocky hills comprising the ridge connecting the coastal range to the Palomar range to the east).

Wow I heard of Temecula before and that's been mentioned where people make gas stops before people in SoCal head out to the Casinos in the area like Morongo and others. Never knew that it has a similar situation to Fairfield, Suisun city and Vacaville where they have to provide housing to two distinct census statistical areas.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: sparker on November 03, 2017, 04:22:46 PM
The better-known casinos are out on I-10; Morongo is a couple of exits prior to the CA 111/Palm Springs exit (EB), while the others are in and around Palm Springs and farther east between Indio and Coachella.  Temecula is south on I-15; there is a casino south of there along CA 79, and yet another east of I-15 on CA 76.  But the build-out of the City of Temecula occurred prior to the casino's establishment; there were isolated Native American tribal regions scattered around the region, and the casinos were sited at the most accessible locations within those regions.  The last time I drove on I-15 through Temecula (circa 2014) the freeway, fully 10 lanes wide in the section shared with CA 79, was congested in both directions (this was about 4 p.m); this is a normal weekday occurrence, as there are cross-streams of traffic to both Temecula and adjoining Murrieta, with some traffic originating in San Diego County heading toward residences in Murrieta, and traffic originating in greater L.A. intended for Temecula, to the south.  And it's likely to worsen as more housing is built in the outlying areas to the north and east of these cities.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: bing101 on November 04, 2017, 12:49:41 PM
Quote from: webny99 on October 25, 2017, 10:12:43 PM
Another side-topic here;

Are there any areas or suburbs that would be worse to commute to than downtown?

I personally think commuting to Henrietta (from any origin except south of the thruway) would be worse than going to downtown Rochester. Way more congestion, especially on I-590 and I-390.

I-80 halfway from Vacaville and UC Davis does get jammed on both directions mainly because lots of Sacramento and Bay Area people go to Dixon,CA for gas stops before reaching their intended places on either side.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: Desert Man on November 05, 2017, 03:46:49 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 03, 2017, 04:22:46 PM
The better-known casinos are out on I-10; Morongo is a couple of exits prior to the CA 111/Palm Springs exit (EB), while the others are in and around Palm Springs and farther east between Indio and Coachella.  Temecula is south on I-15; there is a casino south of there along CA 79, and yet another east of I-15 on CA 76.  But the build-out of the City of Temecula occurred prior to the casino's establishment; there were isolated Native American tribal regions scattered around the region, and the casinos were sited at the most accessible locations within those regions.  The last time I drove on I-15 through Temecula (circa 2014) the freeway, fully 10 lanes wide in the section shared with CA 79, was congested in both directions (this was about 4 p.m); this is a normal weekday occurrence, as there are cross-streams of traffic to both Temecula and adjoining Murrieta, with some traffic originating in San Diego County heading toward residences in Murrieta, and traffic originating in greater L.A. intended for Temecula, to the south.  And it's likely to worsen as more housing is built in the outlying areas to the north and east of these cities.

When L.A. and the OC are increasingly pedestrian, bicycling and bus oriented (these are the most car-centered cities on earth), you really need a car in the further ring (40-90 miles from civic center LA and downtown Anaheim) of suburbia in So CA. The beach cities or 5 miles from the ocean aren't likely to drive 1 mile to or from anywhere, like Santa Barbara or San Diego. But the need to drive or possess an automobile is the greatest in Riverside, San Bernardino, Palm Springs and Victorville. it's common to drive 5, 10 and 20 miles for necessities, and the constant commute to workplace businesses within LA county or the coasts indicate the need for offices closer to newly build homes. 
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: bing101 on November 05, 2017, 07:22:13 PM
Quote from: Desert Man on November 05, 2017, 03:46:49 PM
Quote from: sparker on November 03, 2017, 04:22:46 PM
The better-known casinos are out on I-10; Morongo is a couple of exits prior to the CA 111/Palm Springs exit (EB), while the others are in and around Palm Springs and farther east between Indio and Coachella.  Temecula is south on I-15; there is a casino south of there along CA 79, and yet another east of I-15 on CA 76.  But the build-out of the City of Temecula occurred prior to the casino's establishment; there were isolated Native American tribal regions scattered around the region, and the casinos were sited at the most accessible locations within those regions.  The last time I drove on I-15 through Temecula (circa 2014) the freeway, fully 10 lanes wide in the section shared with CA 79, was congested in both directions (this was about 4 p.m); this is a normal weekday occurrence, as there are cross-streams of traffic to both Temecula and adjoining Murrieta, with some traffic originating in San Diego County heading toward residences in Murrieta, and traffic originating in greater L.A. intended for Temecula, to the south.  And it's likely to worsen as more housing is built in the outlying areas to the north and east of these cities.

When L.A. and the OC are increasingly pedestrian, bicycling and bus oriented (these are the most car-centered cities on earth), you really need a car in the further ring (40-90 miles from civic center LA and downtown Anaheim) of suburbia in So CA. The beach cities or 5 miles from the ocean aren't likely to drive 1 mile to or from anywhere, like Santa Barbara or San Diego. But the need to drive or possess an automobile is the greatest in Riverside, San Bernardino, Palm Springs and Victorville. it's common to drive 5, 10 and 20 miles for necessities, and the constant commute to workplace businesses within LA county or the coasts indicate the need for offices closer to newly build homes.

Well that's also true in Downtown Sacramento and Downtown Davis they are also becoming pedestrian, bike and Public transit friendly like the Bay Area. Well the people who are most dependent on cars would be the place I mentioned earlier in this thread for pretty obvious reasons and I happen to be one of them.

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/editorials/article189432779.html
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: jbnv on November 05, 2017, 08:09:59 PM
It's definitely not going away in Baton Rouge. My daily commute in via I-12 from the east is much better on Monday and Friday than the rest of the week. It can easily take me as long to get from Juban Rd. (exit 12) to Millerville Rd. (exit 6) as it does from my home to Juban. (I basically talked myself out of a job offer with a state office in Capitol Park because the commute would have been torture.)
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: bing101 on December 19, 2017, 04:52:37 PM
I remember Highway 401 or "The 401" has the busiest freeway in Canada though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lvls53xwmE
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: hotdogPi on December 19, 2017, 04:57:28 PM
Quote from: bing101 on December 19, 2017, 04:52:37 PM
I remember Highway 401 or "The 401" has the busiest freeway in Canada though.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lvls53xwmE

That's because it's 18 lanes. You can't have more than a certain number of vehicles per hour per lane (usually about 2200, but it's not quite a hard cap), so to increase AADT, it's mostly about how many lanes there are. Relatively constant amounts of traffic can also help (the limit is per hour, not per day), but I'm not sure how well ON 401 compares to other freeways in this regard.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: slorydn1 on December 20, 2017, 03:48:34 AM
Back in the late 80's and into 1990, it was possible to drive on the expressways in Chicago between 9am and 2pm and not hit a signifigant slow down. I did just that during the fall of 1990 when I worked for a leasing company. If your vehicle had service due (oil change for example) we would come to your house/job or whatever to pick up your car and bring it to the dealership for its service, and drop it back off to you. We had customers all over Chicagoland. After about 2 to 2:30 in the afternoon all bets were off as the toll plazas (especially on the Tri-State) would begin to back up signifcantly, and by 3pm the Ike or Kennedy would be a parking lot.

The friends I still have back home tell me rush hour around Chicago is now pretty much 24-7.

Its funny, because even in my relatively rural town that live in now we have a rush hour, which normally lasts from 6-8 in the morning and 5-7 in the evening. Most of it is caused by MCAS Cherry Point traffic to and from Havelock. It gets really bad on Friday evenings during the summer as it seems like the entire population of City of Raliegh and its suburbs flows down US-70 like a river after a dam failure, all trying to get to the beach.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: Hurricane Rex on December 20, 2017, 03:55:23 AM
My family calls it rush morning, rush afternoon, and the weekend rush because Portland traffic has gotten really bad (but still partially fixable).
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: tradephoric on December 20, 2017, 09:43:48 AM
Quote from: kkt on October 26, 2017, 07:35:00 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on October 26, 2017, 02:41:31 PM
Quote from: Brandon on October 26, 2017, 11:13:25 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 24, 2017, 10:17:21 PM
Here is what traffic is like driving the main thoroughfare of Detroit on a Saturday afternoon.  It's quicker to take Woodward downtown than hopping on the freeway (at least until you hit the Davison).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRWyx0NtpSQ&t=50s

Damn, I love MDOT's signaling along the boulevards.

Other states should take note and repeat.

It would be lovely, but I think the cross streets have to be evenly spaced for the timed signals to work out.

Quote
I would love to see MDOT-style boulevards in my neck of the woods, but there's never enough ROW to accommodate the required width.

An MDOT-style boulevard would be lovely along this stretch of Hwy 161 in Pierce County, Washington (a very important N/S arterial), but there's absolutely no way to squeeze it in: https://goo.gl/7XtaeQ

Yes, as you say not enough ROW and cross-streets are unevenly spaced as well.  I hope for a parallel freeway bypassing Puyallup, South Hill, and Graham, but not holding my breath.  As is so often the case, no one thinks about setting aside right of way for a freeway/boulevard until it's no longer cheap and easy.

Detroit is one region that set aside ROW for future expansion.  Back in 1926 the Rapid Transit Commission proposed a Super-Highway Plan for Greater Detroit that identified 217 miles of roadway in the region that would extend outside of the city.   These Super-Highways would have 204 feet ROWs and by the 1930s you literally had 8-lane boulevards cutting through farmlands 20 miles outside of Detroit.   Although the first "Michigan left"  wasn't officially built until 1967, the concept has existed for some time now.

(https://i.imgur.com/B8mTQSD.jpg)

You don't necessarily need a lot of ROW to fit in a Michigan left.  You can use loons to accommodate "median" turns along a median-less road.  The problem is that boulevards also facilitates superstreet designs, something that is pretty impractical along a standard undivided roadway (short of having loons every 1000 feet apart).  It's not just the main Median U-turns that keep traffic moving, it's all those minor half-mile signals that DON'T stop both directions of travel.  Here are a few examples of Median U-turn intersections that use loons:

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.92691,-86.06611,144m/data=!3m1!1e3
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.65292,-111.98693,19z/data=!3m1!1e3

That daytime drive along Woodward was 20 miles without hitting a red light.  Here is a nighttime drive that doubles that to 40 miles with no red lights....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb2R2fPB1nE
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: jakeroot on December 20, 2017, 03:52:02 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on December 20, 2017, 09:43:48 AM
You don't necessarily need a lot of ROW to fit in a Michigan left.  You can use loons to accommodate "median" turns along a median-less road.  The problem is that boulevards also facilitates superstreet designs, something that is pretty impractical along a standard undivided roadway (short of having loons every 1000 feet apart).  It's not just the main Median U-turns that keep traffic moving, it's all those minor half-mile signals that DON'T stop both directions of travel.  Here are a few examples of Median U-turn intersections that use loons:

Loons are a good middle ground, apart from setting the initial ROW wide enough to accommodate U-turns without building them (Detroit style) (also hindsight is 20/20), but they still require bumps in the ROW that might not exist. WA-161 (mentioned upthread) is a lost cause. There are too many buildings fronting the ROW for any widening to occur, even for loons.

What isn't a lost cause is Canyon Road, a county-maintained road that parallels WA-161 from the 512 freeway to 200th St (a distance of about 5.75 miles). Canyon Road does not yet have the ROW issue. It's also a 4/6-lane road with median U-turns along the entire stretch, but left turns are still accommodated at signals. The problem with the U-turns is that they're all unsignalised single lane setups, incapable of handling a turn previously occupied by, say, a double left. And apart from only a couple intersections, there are no exclusive right turn lanes for those U-turners to divert to. The road could pretty easily be modified to support higher traffic counts, but, as is often the case in my area, almost certainly the ROW fronting the road will be sold to developers, and all hope of doing anything major with U-turns will be lost. Our only hope is PPLT's, and there's only one of those along Canyon (onto Fredrickson Industrial Park Road).
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: mrsman on January 07, 2018, 11:42:37 AM
Quote from: tradephoric on October 24, 2017, 10:17:21 PM
Here is what traffic is like driving the main thoroughfare of Detroit on a Saturday afternoon.  It's quicker to take Woodward downtown than hopping on the freeway (at least until you hit the Davison).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRWyx0NtpSQ&t=50s

As I've said on other threads, Detroit is a model for proper timing of arterials.  And one key way to keep freeway traffic manageable is to have well designed and timed arterials.  Keep the short distance traffic on the arterials so that the freeways can be less congested.

In many other cities, driving arterials is maddeningly slow with the need to stop at almost every signal.  This drives traffic to the expressways and causes rush hours to occur throughout the week, because even at 20 MPH it is still quicker to go out of your way to take the freeway.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: mrsman on January 07, 2018, 11:59:24 AM
My own observations in DC, where I travel primarily along the Metro rail, morning rush hour tends to be easier than afternoon rush hour.  T,W,Th mornings are heaviest with F being lightest by far.  For afternoons F is worst, then Th, Tu and Wed are equivalent, Mon the easiest.  F and M are the preferred telework days here and Th and F evenings tend to see getaway and entertainment traffic (going out for concerts, ballgames) more than M, T, W. 

In reality all rush hours are bad here, but F morning is easiest.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: Hurricane Rex on January 09, 2018, 11:39:03 AM
Quote from: mrsman on January 07, 2018, 11:59:24 AM
My own observations in DC, where I travel primarily along the Metro rail, morning rush hour tends to be easier than afternoon rush hour.  T,W,Th mornings are heaviest with F being lightest by far.  For afternoons F is worst, then Th, Tu and Wed are equivalent, Mon the easiest.  F and M are the preferred telework days here and Th and F evenings tend to see getaway and entertainment traffic (going out for concerts, ballgames) more than M, T, W. 

In reality all rush hours are bad here, but F morning is easiest.

In most areas, morning rush hours are easier than afternoon due to drivers being tired from a heavy day of work among other reasons.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: kkt on January 20, 2018, 11:58:30 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 09, 2018, 11:39:03 AM
Quote from: mrsman on January 07, 2018, 11:59:24 AM
My own observations in DC, where I travel primarily along the Metro rail, morning rush hour tends to be easier than afternoon rush hour.  T,W,Th mornings are heaviest with F being lightest by far.  For afternoons F is worst, then Th, Tu and Wed are equivalent, Mon the easiest.  F and M are the preferred telework days here and Th and F evenings tend to see getaway and entertainment traffic (going out for concerts, ballgames) more than M, T, W. 

In reality all rush hours are bad here, but F morning is easiest.

In most areas, morning rush hours are easier than afternoon due to drivers being tired from a heavy day of work among other reasons.

The people out in the morning rush hour are pretty much just people who have to go to work in the morning.  But the afternoon rush has people who went to work early who just got off, plus people working swing shift on their way to work, plus students and homebodies out doing errands.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: webny99 on January 22, 2018, 11:54:24 AM
Quote from: kkt on January 20, 2018, 11:58:30 PM
Quote from: Hurricane Rex on January 09, 2018, 11:39:03 AM
In most areas, morning rush hours are easier than afternoon due to drivers being tired from a heavy day of work among other reasons.

The people out in the morning rush hour are pretty much just people who have to go to work in the morning.  But the afternoon rush has people who went to work early who just got off, plus people working swing shift on their way to work, plus students and homebodies out doing errands.

Tend to agree with this. It might also be relevant that school traffic does not overlap that much with rush hour traffic.

And there are definitely more people overall on the roads in the afternoon. Roads that are free flowing outbound in the morning can often be slow in both directions in the evening. NY 590 and NY 104 are good examples of this. North and East are always free flowing during the morning rush. Conventional wisdom would then suggest that South and West should be free flowing in the evening. Not so much the case (although neither are "congested" by East Coast standards, they are distinctly busier than their morning counterparts, and a single left lane camper can create miles-long masses moving 50 mph or so).
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: bing101 on November 27, 2018, 01:31:52 PM
https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/best-times-to-miss-austins-notoriously-bad-traffic (https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/best-times-to-miss-austins-notoriously-bad-traffic)


According to this article Rush Hour in Austin,TX is from these hours and they use the MoPac as their reference.


Quote

Using those parameters, it shows Monday morning rush hour is slightly later between 7:15 and 9:15. Then Tuesday through Friday show similar rush hours between 6:45 and 9:15.
Each day seemed to have a different time for a peak price during the rush hour, but the average appeared to be around 8:30. Friday, though, was around 8:00 a.m.
During the afternoon Monday northbound rush hour started slightly later between 4 and 6:40. Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday stayed fairly similar showing rush hour times between 3:45 and 6:50. Friday starts earlier and ends earlier. It goes from 2:45 to 6:15.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: KEK Inc. on November 27, 2018, 04:05:34 PM
Good luck driving in any Seattle freeway anytime between 7 AM and 7 PM.   Even weekends are bad.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: abefroman329 on November 27, 2018, 05:35:00 PM
Quote from: slorydn1 on December 20, 2017, 03:48:34 AM
Back in the late 80's and into 1990, it was possible to drive on the expressways in Chicago between 9am and 2pm and not hit a signifigant slow down. I did just that during the fall of 1990 when I worked for a leasing company. If your vehicle had service due (oil change for example) we would come to your house/job or whatever to pick up your car and bring it to the dealership for its service, and drop it back off to you. We had customers all over Chicagoland. After about 2 to 2:30 in the afternoon all bets were off as the toll plazas (especially on the Tri-State) would begin to back up signifcantly, and by 3pm the Ike or Kennedy would be a parking lot.

The friends I still have back home tell me rush hour around Chicago is now pretty much 24-7.
It really depends on the route you take and the day of the week, but I wouldn't say it's 24/7 everywhere.  294 between Lake County and O'Hare starts to back up by 3, but I think that's due to people traveling from offices in Lake County to catch flights.  I can leave the Deerfield area at 4 and be in Rogers Park by 4:45.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: bzakharin on November 29, 2018, 02:54:56 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 26, 2017, 08:12:13 AM
Quote from: webny99 on October 25, 2017, 10:12:43 PM
Another side-topic here;

Are there any areas or suburbs that would be worse to commute to than downtown?

I personally think commuting to Henrietta (from any origin except south of the thruway) would be worse than going to downtown Rochester. Way more congestion, especially on I-590 and I-390.

I-295 in NJ is all suburb-to-suburb commuting, with traffic delays of over 10 miles quite normal, varying between interchanges 23 & 40.   Approaching US 1 (Exit 67) congestion is normally expected also, with no downtown within 30 miles.
I realize I'm replying to a years-old post, but I would guess that the majority of I-295 traffic between 23 and 40 is Philadelphia-bound during rush hour. Now for *me* it's a suburb to suburb commute, but not the majority. As for US 1, Trenton doesn't have a downtown?
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: jeffandnicole on November 29, 2018, 03:03:07 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on November 29, 2018, 02:54:56 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on October 26, 2017, 08:12:13 AM
Quote from: webny99 on October 25, 2017, 10:12:43 PM
Another side-topic here;

Are there any areas or suburbs that would be worse to commute to than downtown?

I personally think commuting to Henrietta (from any origin except south of the thruway) would be worse than going to downtown Rochester. Way more congestion, especially on I-590 and I-390.

I-295 in NJ is all suburb-to-suburb commuting, with traffic delays of over 10 miles quite normal, varying between interchanges 23 & 40.   Approaching US 1 (Exit 67) congestion is normally expected also, with no downtown within 30 miles.
I realize I'm replying to a years-old post, but I would guess that the majority of I-295 traffic between 23 and 40 is Philadelphia-bound during rush hour. Now for *me* it's a suburb to suburb commute, but not the majority. As for US 1, Trenton doesn't have a downtown?

Not really.  Rush hour is especially heavy on 295 North from Exit 26 to Exit 36 with some congestion in the morning, and from Exit 40 to Exit 26 in the afternoon, with much of that traffic trying to get to Rt. 42 South.  If they were trying to get to Philly, the opposite would be true.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: skluth on November 29, 2018, 04:12:55 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 26, 2017, 10:37:46 PM
I've driven the entire length of the Grand Concourse in The Bronx without ever stopping because of benefitting from the synchronized signals.

Palm Springs is where old people and the concept of synchronized signals go to die
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: Brandon on November 29, 2018, 04:16:50 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 29, 2018, 04:12:55 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 26, 2017, 10:37:46 PM
I've driven the entire length of the Grand Concourse in The Bronx without ever stopping because of benefitting from the synchronized signals.

Palm Springs is where old people and the concept of synchronized signals go to die

Regarding synchronized signals, I think we have Palm Springs beat for the complete and total lack of them.  IDOT seems to believe that every signal needs to be actuated in some way, shape, or form, across the entire fucking state.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: hotdogPi on November 29, 2018, 04:21:43 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 29, 2018, 04:16:50 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 29, 2018, 04:12:55 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 26, 2017, 10:37:46 PM
I've driven the entire length of the Grand Concourse in The Bronx without ever stopping because of benefitting from the synchronized signals.

Palm Springs is where old people and the concept of synchronized signals go to die

Regarding synchronized signals, I think we have Palm Springs beat for the complete and total lack of them.  IDOT seems to believe that every signal needs to be actuated in some way, shape, or form, across the entire fucking state.

Signals here are usually actuated. However, with no street grid, it's more justifiable.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: tradephoric on November 29, 2018, 04:57:40 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 26, 2017, 10:37:46 PM
I've driven the entire length of the Grand Concourse in The Bronx without ever stopping because of benefitting from the synchronized signals.

Keep in mind that any 2 way street can be timed perfectly for one direction of travel.  Maybe you were just fortunate enough to be driving in the "right" direction.  Looking at the geometry of the Grand Concourse through the Bronx it doesn't seem humanly possible to achieve good signal progression for both directions of travel.  That's what makes this continuous drive below so impressive to me... driving 20 miles from Detroit to Pontiac without hitting a red light... only to flip around and drive another 20 miles from Pontiac back down to Detroit still without hitting any red lights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb2R2fPB1nE
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: thenetwork on November 29, 2018, 05:45:15 PM
As long as Denver limps along on the rebuilding and/or widening of their core interstates, you can expect rush-hour conditions on most Interstate highways nearly every day of the week.

Oddly enough, it seems like every freeway that DOESN'T carry an Interstate shield around metro Denver is a lot easier to drive more often than 25, 70, 76, 225 and 270.

Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: jakeroot on November 29, 2018, 10:59:10 PM
Quote from: 1 on November 29, 2018, 04:21:43 PM
Quote from: Brandon on November 29, 2018, 04:16:50 PM
IDOT seems to believe that every signal needs to be actuated in some way, shape, or form, across the entire fucking state.

Signals here are usually actuated. However, with no street grid, it's more justifiable.

I'm pretty sure most new signals, even in CA, are actuated. Problem is, they're not often connected to other signals, so signal progression can be bad. Connected, actuated signals can actually provide decent signal progression, assuming the engineers are clever.

Quote from: skluth on November 29, 2018, 04:12:55 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 26, 2017, 10:37:46 PM
I've driven the entire length of the Grand Concourse in The Bronx without ever stopping because of benefitting from the synchronized signals.

Palm Springs is where old people and the concept of synchronized signals go to die

You can safely expand the latter to the entire state. I've never driven anywhere in CA that had any sort of signal synchronization Perhaps downtown LA or San Francisco, but I haven't driven in those places for some time. Signal engineers in CA have it pretty easy: "install a protected left for all directions, lead the left turn movements, lag the through movements, repeat".
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: jakeroot on November 29, 2018, 11:06:08 PM
Quote from: tradephoric on November 29, 2018, 04:57:40 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 26, 2017, 10:37:46 PM
I've driven the entire length of the Grand Concourse in The Bronx without ever stopping because of benefitting from the synchronized signals.

Keep in mind that any 2 way street can be timed perfectly for one direction of travel.  Maybe you were just fortunate enough to be driving in the "right" direction.  Looking at the geometry of the Grand Concourse through the Bronx it doesn't seem humanly possible to achieve good signal progression for both directions of travel.  That's what makes this continuous drive below so impressive to me... driving 20 miles from Detroit to Pontiac without hitting a red light... only to flip around and drive another 20 miles from Pontiac back down to Detroit still without hitting any red lights.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mb2R2fPB1nE

The only thing Michigan has proved, is that signal progression is easily achieved with two-phase signals. Any road can have great signal progression, but that progression relies almost exclusively on the abandonment of any protected turn phasing.

In Vancouver, a fair number of arterial roads have zero protected left turn phasing. Signal progression for straight-through traffic is usually quite good, but left turn capacity is limited (during rush hour) to the occasional gap + two at the end. So, it can take quite a few phases if the left turn is backed up. On the roads with pro/per signals, TOD phasing is decently common; the green arrow activates during rush hour, limiting the chance of straight-through green progression, but does not activate during off-peak hours, to keep progression good during hours when left turn queuing is less likely.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: jdbx on November 30, 2018, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2018, 10:59:10 PM
You can safely expand the latter to the entire state. I've never driven anywhere in CA that had any sort of signal synchronization Perhaps downtown LA or San Francisco, but I haven't driven in those places for some time. Signal engineers in CA have it pretty easy: "install a protected left for all directions, lead the left turn movements, lag the through movements, repeat".

San Francisco does a pretty good job of coordinating signal timing on arterials.  Good examples would be 19th Ave, or the Oak/Fell and Franklin/Gough pairs.  In fact, Valencia St has the signal timing coordinated for a 13 MPH through speed to favor cyclists getting the "green wave"
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: TheStranger on November 30, 2018, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: jdbx on November 30, 2018, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2018, 10:59:10 PM
You can safely expand the latter to the entire state. I've never driven anywhere in CA that had any sort of signal synchronization Perhaps downtown LA or San Francisco, but I haven't driven in those places for some time. Signal engineers in CA have it pretty easy: "install a protected left for all directions, lead the left turn movements, lag the through movements, repeat".

San Francisco does a pretty good job of coordinating signal timing on arterials.  Good examples would be 19th Ave, or the Oak/Fell and Franklin/Gough pairs.  In fact, Valencia St has the signal timing coordinated for a 13 MPH through speed to favor cyclists getting the "green wave"


IIRC, Great Highway along the ocean (which has no automobile grade crossings between Sloat Boulevard and Lincoln Way, but numerous crosswalks) has signal timing for 37.5 MPH.

There are some other minor arterial streets in the Mission District that have low-speed green wave timing, I feel like either Bryant or Folsom near Cesar Chavez Street is where I saw the tiny green signs identifying the target speed.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: abefroman329 on November 30, 2018, 06:46:11 PM
I traveled somewhere within the last year or two that actually had signs indicating the speed at which one could travel and hit all green lights, and I can't for the life of me remember where it was.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: jakeroot on December 01, 2018, 02:26:11 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on November 30, 2018, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: jdbx on November 30, 2018, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2018, 10:59:10 PM
You can safely expand the latter to the entire state. I've never driven anywhere in CA that had any sort of signal synchronization. Perhaps downtown LA or San Francisco, but I haven't driven in those places for some time. Signal engineers in CA have it pretty easy: "install a protected left for all directions, lead the left turn movements, lag the through movements, repeat".

San Francisco does a pretty good job of coordinating signal timing on arterials.  Good examples would be 19th Ave, or the Oak/Fell and Franklin/Gough pairs.  In fact, Valencia St has the signal timing coordinated for a 13 MPH through speed to favor cyclists getting the "green wave"

IIRC, Great Highway along the ocean (which has no automobile grade crossings between Sloat Boulevard and Lincoln Way, but numerous crosswalks) has signal timing for 37.5 MPH.

There are some other minor arterial streets in the Mission District that have low-speed green wave timing, I feel like either Bryant or Folsom near Cesar Chavez Street is where I saw the tiny green signs identifying the target speed.

I may not be being entirely fair. I'm sure coordinated streets exist in CA, they just seem to be rare. In my experience, though most signals run with actuation, they don't seem to "talk" to neighboring signals that aren't less than thirty feet away. Granted, it's hard to coordinate green waves with left turn signals, so even those states that use lots of coordination don't always have Michigan-style green waves like we all love; just seems to me that CA does coordination the worst, outside of urban cores.

Quote from: abefroman329 on November 30, 2018, 06:46:11 PM
I traveled somewhere within the last year or two that actually had signs indicating the speed at which one could travel and hit all green lights, and I can't for the life of me remember where it was.

https://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/01/06/green-wave-becomes-permanent-on-valencia-street/

Mostly for bikes but works for cars too! Ironic this comes from CA given my above comment. :-|
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: abefroman329 on December 01, 2018, 06:39:06 AM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 01, 2018, 02:26:11 AM
Quote from: TheStranger on November 30, 2018, 02:50:07 PM
Quote from: jdbx on November 30, 2018, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2018, 10:59:10 PM
You can safely expand the latter to the entire state. I've never driven anywhere in CA that had any sort of signal synchronization. Perhaps downtown LA or San Francisco, but I haven't driven in those places for some time. Signal engineers in CA have it pretty easy: "install a protected left for all directions, lead the left turn movements, lag the through movements, repeat".

San Francisco does a pretty good job of coordinating signal timing on arterials.  Good examples would be 19th Ave, or the Oak/Fell and Franklin/Gough pairs.  In fact, Valencia St has the signal timing coordinated for a 13 MPH through speed to favor cyclists getting the "green wave"

IIRC, Great Highway along the ocean (which has no automobile grade crossings between Sloat Boulevard and Lincoln Way, but numerous crosswalks) has signal timing for 37.5 MPH.

There are some other minor arterial streets in the Mission District that have low-speed green wave timing, I feel like either Bryant or Folsom near Cesar Chavez Street is where I saw the tiny green signs identifying the target speed.

I may not be being entirely fair. I'm sure coordinated streets exist in CA, they just seem to be rare. In my experience, though most signals run with actuation, they don't seem to "talk" to neighboring signals that aren't less than thirty feet away. Granted, it's hard to coordinate green waves with left turn signals, so even those states that use lots of coordination don't always have Michigan-style green waves like we all love; just seems to me that CA does coordination the worst, outside of urban cores.

Quote from: abefroman329 on November 30, 2018, 06:46:11 PM
I traveled somewhere within the last year or two that actually had signs indicating the speed at which one could travel and hit all green lights, and I can't for the life of me remember where it was.

https://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/01/06/green-wave-becomes-permanent-on-valencia-street/

Mostly for bikes but works for cars too! Ironic this comes from CA given my above comment. :-|
I think that was it! I was there last May.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: kphoger on December 03, 2018, 01:36:38 PM
Quote from: abefroman329 on November 30, 2018, 06:46:11 PM
I traveled somewhere within the last year or two that actually had signs indicating the speed at which one could travel and hit all green lights, and I can't for the life of me remember where it was.

They used to have those signs in Monclova, Coahuila.  Old GSV here (https://goo.gl/maps/yh5ud9tT1yq).
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: tradephoric on December 03, 2018, 03:26:26 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on December 01, 2018, 02:26:11 AM
https://sf.streetsblog.org/2011/01/06/green-wave-becomes-permanent-on-valencia-street/

Mostly for bikes but works for cars too! Ironic this comes from CA given my above comment. :-|

According to the picture in the article the "bicycle green wave" is timed for 13 mph.  With 580 ft block spacing, it takes 30 seconds to travel a blocks at 13 mph.  So to achieve perfect bicycle green waves in both directions the lights would have to be running 60 second cycle lengths. 

While we're on the subject Portland is probably the best example of bicycle green waves in America.  It's a little different to the San Fran example as Portland is a network of one-way streets, but it's still relevant.  Here's a post i made about Portland's green wave in a previous thread:

Quote from: tradephoric on December 11, 2017, 11:35:04 AM
Many downtowns in America have uniform one-way grids.  One example is Portland, Oregon.  The traffic signals in downtown Portland are timed so that traffic progresses in a slow but steady speed in all directions.  This is possible because of something known as quarter cycle offsets and is discussed by a Portland engineer at rEvolving Transportation:

QuoteSignal Timing Using Quarter Cycle Offsets in Downtown Portland
A similar method of manual coordination timing can be applied to downtown grid networks. This method has been deployed in downtown Portland, Oregon by separating intersections into a quarter cycle offset pattern. The block spacing in downtown Portland is fairly uniform and relatively short (280 feet) and the grid is a one-way network. Each subsequent intersection is offset by a quarter of the cycle length, which is selected to progress traffic in both directions. The result is a progression speed that is dependent upon the cycle length. This approach establishes a relationship in both directions of the grid and permits progression between each intersection in each direction based on the speed that is a result of the selected cycle length and the block spacing. As shown in Figure 6-18 cross coordination throughout the grid is achieved using the quarter cycle offset method. This approach can be adjusted to account for turning movements within the grid and subtle modifications to the distribution of green time.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-AYYv4o3faDA%2FUdIbzHKK--I%2FAAAAAAAAQ6I%2FHRSHMMxPHc8%2Fs320%2Fwww.signaltiming.comThe_Signal_Timing_Manual_08082008.pdf%2B-%2BGoogle%2BChrome%2B712013%2B50847%2BPM.jpg&hash=1425010debe8415ee9eb61570354711ace100616)

In downtown Portland, the p.m. peak hour cycle length is 60 seconds, which results in a 15 second time difference between subsequent intersections. To travel the 280 feet in 15 seconds, one must travel (280'/15sec) or 18.67 feet per second or 13 miles per hour. The lower the cycle length, the faster the travel speed. Thus, Downtown Portland has progression in multiple directions at a slow speed which is especially good for buses that are accelerating from a stop, cars that can drive through at a consistent speed and come to a quick stop if someone in front of them pulls out of a driveway unexpectedly, and reasonable for people travelling on bicycles to use the lane and move along the signals without stopping every 280 feet. The short cycle length is also important in the condition that you have a high percentage of turning traffic that can result in queue spillback between the intersections. Short cycle lengths give an opportunity to keep traffic moving. There's a longer debate on short cycle lengths, but the important element of block spacing is a big part of that  debate.
http://koonceportland.blogspot.com/2010/10/portland-tribune-article-on.html

Visually here is an aerial model of Portland's downtown grid.  The turning movements have been removed to highlight the through platoon coordination.  Also there is about a 30 minute video of a guy cruising around downtown Portland to give a sense of how the signals are timed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jGWdCknurM&t=60s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Z9IX-mPKeQ

I put together a chart that looks at the relationship between grid spacing, cycle length, and speeds that allow for good progression in all directions along a one-way grid.  In the Portland example, the blocks are spaced 280 feet apart, the signals are timed for 13 mph, and the signals have 60 second cycle lengths.  You can now use this chart to estimate how downtowns with different block spacings may time their signals.

(https://i.imgur.com/pAdDWRj.png)   

*Only pedestrian friendly cycle lengths are included in this chart (ranging from 60 seconds to 100 seconds).  Shorter cycle lengths are considered more pedestrian friendly as it allows pedestrians to cross the street without having to wait very long.  But there is a limit to how short a cycle length can be.  Pedestrians still need enough to time to safely cross the street and cycle lengths of 60 seconds are about as short as you can practically run.  As the width of downtown streets gets wider, the cycle length must increase to allow pedestrians to safely cross.  Portland is capable of running short cycles the pedestrian crossing widths are relatively short, but this isn't possible in cities with wider streets.  Part of the reason why Portland has short crossing widths is because they have very short block spacing.   You don't need 6-lane wide streets to move traffic if there is a street every 280 feet apart. 

*Only grid spacing of up to 600 feet are included in the chart.  The practicality of downtown one-way street networks diminishes as the block size increases.  Salt Lake City has big block sizes of about 800 feet and the majority of streets in Salt Lake City runs two-way.

Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: djsekani on December 03, 2018, 06:38:47 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on November 29, 2018, 10:59:10 PM
Quote from: skluth on November 29, 2018, 04:12:55 PM
Quote from: 02 Park Ave on October 26, 2017, 10:37:46 PM
I've driven the entire length of the Grand Concourse in The Bronx without ever stopping because of benefitting from the synchronized signals.

Palm Springs is where old people and the concept of synchronized signals go to die

You can safely expand the latter to the entire state. I've never driven anywhere in CA that had any sort of signal synchronization Perhaps downtown LA or San Francisco, but I haven't driven in those places for some time. Signal engineers in CA have it pretty easy: "install a protected left for all directions, lead the left turn movements, lag the through movements, repeat".

Los Angeles supposedly has signals synced up across the entire city (http://ladot.lacity.org/what-we-do/operations/signal-synchronization), but driving down any major thoroughfare during rush hour you wouldn't know it. To be honest, the left-turn signals and heavy pedestrian traffic in many areas are a pretty significant impediment to consecutive green lights.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: TechZeke on December 03, 2018, 07:29:47 PM
When I lived in the Inland Empire(Rialto) in SoCal, if I were in LA or Orange County and didn't leave to go back by 1:00pm it was going to take 2+ hours to get back.

I'd argue that rush hour starts before 2:00pm in LA.

Eastbound I-10(Especially through Covina), I-210, CA-60, and CA 91 are all nightmares early in the afternoon.

In the mornings, the traffic gets worse in the IE for each minute past 5am.

Fridays are an interesting weekday. Friday mornings are noticeably light, but Friday afternoons are horrendous. By 1:30pm I-10 is a parking lot, even past Montclair.

Since moving to the San Antonio, TX area, the traffic here is much more tolerable. You can still get reasonably around even around 4pm depending on where you're going.

Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: djsekani on December 04, 2018, 12:27:16 AM
Quote from: TechZeke on December 03, 2018, 07:29:47 PM
When I lived in the Inland Empire(Rialto) in SoCal, if I were in LA or Orange County and didn't leave to go back by 1:00pm it was going to take 2+ hours to get back.

I'd argue that rush hour starts before 2:00pm in LA.

Eastbound I-10(Especially through Covina), I-210, CA-60, and CA 91 are all nightmares early in the afternoon.

In the mornings, the traffic gets worse in the IE for each minute past 5am.

Fridays are were an interesting weekday. Friday mornings are noticeably light, but Friday afternoons are horrendous. By 1:30pm I-10 is a parking lot, even past Montclair.
In the Inland Empire, rush hour is now from about 4-9 am in the morning and 3-9 pm in the evening.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: bing101 on December 15, 2018, 10:34:24 AM
Quote from: sparker on October 24, 2017, 04:37:29 AM
In the greater Bay Area, rush hour is not only persisting, it's actually expanding; whereas four years ago you'd find some freeways (such as I-880) to be cleared out in both directions by about 9:30 a.m, with congestion building up again about 3 p.m. -- now you're lucky not to run into residual traffic as late as 10:30-11 a.m. -- and the afternoon equivalent seems to build up about 2:30 p.m. these days.  The latter has been a greater Los Angeles phenomenon for decades, as the larger warehouse/distribution/fulfillment centers invariably have a shift change at 2:30 p.m. (3 daily shifts for around-the-clock operation); while the Bay area doesn't feature the massive distribution facilities found in SoCal (although the Valley region centered around Stockton appears to be on its way toward this status), the trend of more and more firms toward employee "flex time" is likely contributing to the midday congestion increase.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/04/25/nightmare-90-minute-super-commutes-more-common-housing-shortage-intensifies/

And Stockton leads the way for worst commutes.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/pr-rep-commutes-4-hours-every-day-to-avoid-45000-dollar-san-francisco-rent.html

Also in this link you have a person from Solano county who has to battle with both Sacramento and Bay Area rush hour commutes from Dixon to get to his job in Downtown San Francisco.


https://www.ozy.com/good-sht/the-secret-to-a-cheap-commutein-silicon-valley/81137


And this there's also an article where they mention that there are people from San Francisco that have to commute to San Jose.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: djsekani on December 24, 2018, 12:58:45 PM
Quote from: bing101 on December 15, 2018, 10:34:24 AM

And Stockton leads the way for worst commutes.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/pr-rep-commutes-4-hours-every-day-to-avoid-45000-dollar-san-francisco-rent.html

Also in this link you have a person from Solano county who has to battle with both Sacramento and Bay Area rush hour commutes from Dixon to get to his job in Downtown San Francisco.


https://www.ozy.com/good-sht/the-secret-to-a-cheap-commutein-silicon-valley/81137


And this there's also an article where they mention that there are people from San Francisco that have to commute to San Jose.

What a lucky guy. I know several people who have three-plus-hour commutes one way. At one of my old jobs I would leave home at 4:30 am and not get back until after 10 pm. Being away from home for a mere 14 hours (counting the commute) sounds like bliss.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: webny99 on December 24, 2018, 01:06:17 PM
Quote from: djsekani on December 24, 2018, 12:58:45 PM
At one of my old jobs I would leave home at 4:30 am and not get back until after 10 pm. Being away from home for a mere 14 hours (counting the commute) sounds like bliss.

Being away from home for 16+ hours every day, allowing less than 8 for sleep, sounds... unsustainable, to say the least.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: bing101 on December 24, 2018, 05:16:55 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OJvFpzHGIc


Yes even Train did a song called Get to Me where they even had a verse about Bay Area Commutes as their reference.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: bing101 on February 01, 2019, 10:17:08 AM
Quote from: djsekani on December 24, 2018, 12:58:45 PM
Quote from: bing101 on December 15, 2018, 10:34:24 AM

And Stockton leads the way for worst commutes.

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/pr-rep-commutes-4-hours-every-day-to-avoid-45000-dollar-san-francisco-rent.html (https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/20/pr-rep-commutes-4-hours-every-day-to-avoid-45000-dollar-san-francisco-rent.html)

Also in this link you have a person from Solano county who has to battle with both Sacramento and Bay Area rush hour commutes from Dixon to get to his job in Downtown San Francisco.


https://www.ozy.com/good-sht/the-secret-to-a-cheap-commutein-silicon-valley/81137 (https://www.ozy.com/good-sht/the-secret-to-a-cheap-commutein-silicon-valley/81137)


And this there's also an article where they mention that there are people from San Francisco that have to commute to San Jose.

What a lucky guy. I know several people who have three-plus-hour commutes one way. At one of my old jobs I would leave home at 4:30 am and not get back until after 10 pm. Being away from home for a mere 14 hours (counting the commute) sounds like bliss.




https://www.cnbc.com/2018/03/04/bend-oregon-is-becoming-one-of-silicon-valleys-top-commuter-towns.html


Yes oddly enough Bend, Oregon is mentioned as a commuter city for San Jose even though the distance is bigger than the distance of a section I-5 from Sacramento to Los Angeles.
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: danthecatrafficlightfan on February 11, 2019, 01:17:47 PM
no rush hour traffic is the opposite in fresno due to the fact 10 years ago we didn't have traffic unless there was wreck  now traffic is unavoidable!

also this crossbuck crossing is gone replaced with cantilevers with twelve by twenty four lights and e-bells also while this doesn't have anything to do with rush hour traffic wrecks weren't  common but traffic was. in fact the first train i recall on this line was at this crossing with three tanker cars and a up locomotive even though it's a Sjvr line this will help traffic on our free ways for sure and it's about time for this crossing to get signals note thanks to my brother for this info!
Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: bing101 on February 19, 2019, 08:33:31 PM
http://extras.mercurynews.com/megaregion/?fbclid=IwAR30QHp2YkB28ncW-3vq2OPQXcNJMt-48QxeBnTvtKUf0qf9cr-yrwgoGtY

And another article on how NorCal is changing and forming one big Mega region.

Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: bing101 on March 18, 2019, 01:13:56 PM
https://www.sacbee.com/news/business/article228023139.html


Here is more on Super Commuters

Title: Re: Is "rush hour" declining?
Post by: Kulerage on March 21, 2019, 07:48:25 PM
Not at all. And there is a definite time for it; around 5 pm, as expected.