The American Highway Users Alliance released a study today of the worst bottlenecks in America. They were measured by hours of delay. Link to the study is below:
http://www.highways.org/2015/11/unclogging-study2015/
Not at all surprised to see two sections of I-93 in the Boston metro area on that list.
Wait, they didn't think it was I-290/I-90 in Williamsville, NY like Cambridge Systematics did some years ago? :D :D :D
No surprise there: Los Angeles has six of the seven worst bottlenecks in America, none of which can top the Kennedy Expressway in Chicago. And I-5 through downtown Seattle ranked 17th on that list.
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 23, 2015, 03:07:04 PM
Not at all surprised to see two sections of I-93 in the Boston metro area on that list.
Except that one of those sections of I-93 was recently reconstructed as part of a $20 billion project. Doesn't exactly speak well for the project as a whole, if you ask me.
Quote from: roadman on November 24, 2015, 01:24:34 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 23, 2015, 03:07:04 PM
Not at all surprised to see two sections of I-93 in the Boston metro area on that list.
Except that one of those sections of I-93 was recently reconstructed as part of a $20 billion project. Doesn't exactly speak well for the project as a whole, if you ask me.
Pfft. The point was to get that mess underground rather than continue to have eyesore of the Central Artery above ground.
Still, even if it's considered bad now, my experience with it is that it's better than the Central Artery was, traffic-wise.
I see there's two stretches in Nevada on the list of other trouble spots. I'm shocked, shocked, that neither of them is in Tonopah.
Somewhat surprised that none of the tunnels in the Hampton Roads areas made the list.
The Seattle segment could be extended north across the Ship Canal Bridge on most days. I usually get off the bus at NE 45th and walk over to an Eastlake-bound bus to avoid that crawl.
Quote from: kkt on November 24, 2015, 05:37:59 PM
I see there's two stretches in Nevada on the list of other trouble spots. I'm shocked, shocked, that neither of them is in Tonopah.
They used weird cutoff points for those Nevada locations:
*I-15 from Oakey (not "Oakley") Blvd to exit 41. Oakey is an overpass and not an interchange. Exit 41 is Charleston Blvd. This stretch will be alleviated eventually with Project Neon.
*US 95 from Clarkway Drive to I-15. I had to look up where Clarkway was, and it's a very minor street just north of the freeway between Rancho Dr and the Martin Luther King Blvd interchanges. Not sure why that brief stretch is on there, but it does incorporate some of the transition to I-15.
I'm really surprised that the 91 freeway didn't make the list. The "Corona Crawl" is awful most hours of the day.
I'm surprised that I-5 through Portland and across the Colombia River didn't make the list.
If there is only one entry for Seattle (or all of Washington state) on that list, then I think Washington state is doing all right.
As for Los Angeles, well...
Quote from: mcarling on December 03, 2015, 05:49:30 PM
I'm surprised that I-5 through Portland and across the Colombia River didn't make the list.
Or I-84 between I-5 and I-205...
An aside, I-84's lack of westbound exits in the Metro area make for miserable drives when someone decides to be an idiot and cause a crash between NE 43rd and I-205.
Quote from: Rothman on November 24, 2015, 01:43:51 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 24, 2015, 01:24:34 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 23, 2015, 03:07:04 PM
Not at all surprised to see two sections of I-93 in the Boston metro area on that list.
Except that one of those sections of I-93 was recently reconstructed as part of a $20 billion project. Doesn't exactly speak well for the project as a whole, if you ask me.
Pfft. The point was to get that mess underground rather than continue to have eyesore of the Central Artery above ground.
Still, even if it's considered bad now, my experience with it is that it's better than the Central Artery was, traffic-wise.
I agree, I thought that was the only purpose
I always felt 295 in South Jersey gets unfairly excluded from these lists. Even the Philly area doesn't give it the respect it deserves, probably because it doesn't feed directly into Philly. But when a backup stretches about 14 miles on a daily basis (Rt. 38 to Rt. 42), it's a significant point of congestion.
Surprise, surprise, Los Angeles got 11 of the Top 30. :sleep:
Surekill Expressway anyone?
[
Bumping this thread with a new story just out on the same topic]
Washington Post: The 100 worst traffic bottlenecks on U.S. highways (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/the-100-worst-traffic-bottlenecks-on-us-highways/2017/01/24/3ddcd388-e1ce-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html)
QuoteYou know it when you see it: that piece of highway where everything slows to a crawl for no apparent reason, where it's stop-and-go for miles but no crash in sight.
QuoteThere are many reasons that traffic just won't flow, and technology may provide some insight as to why. Using GPS, the trucking industry has identified the 100 worst bottlenecks in the U.S. highway system.
QuoteFor those prone to complain about turgid traffic in the mightily congested urban sprawl that extends from Washington north past Boston, there is news that no resident will believe.
QuoteTheir home turf is home to just one of the county's top 30 worst traffic choke points.
QuoteA bunch of the rest are in places that true traffic jam aficionados in the northeast sniff at in disdain: Baton Rouge; Tacoma, Wash.; Nashville; and Seattle.
Quote from: Rothman on November 24, 2015, 01:43:51 PM
Quote from: roadman on November 24, 2015, 01:24:34 PM
Quote from: The Nature Boy on November 23, 2015, 03:07:04 PM
Not at all surprised to see two sections of I-93 in the Boston metro area on that list.
Except that one of those sections of I-93 was recently reconstructed as part of a $20 billion project. Doesn't exactly speak well for the project as a whole, if you ask me.
Pfft. The point was to get that mess underground rather than continue to have eyesore of the Central Artery above ground.
Still, even if it's considered bad now, my experience with it is that it's better than the Central Artery was, traffic-wise.
That's only because of the extension of I-90 via the Ted Williams Tunnel to Logan Airport was included in the Big Dig as well. Such diverted a portion of coastal traffic (to/from points south & west) off I-93 though such has since created traffic havoc along MA 1A north of the airport. The then-Third-Harbor Tunnel was originally planned (circa 1969) to include an expressway north of the airport that would've connected to (unbuilt) I-95 just north of Copeland/Cutler Circle.
Nonetheless, the public was somewhat (mis)led to believe that the underground I-93 mainline corridor was to be 8 to 10 lanes wide
throughout not just in key areas. Much of the mainline tunnel is
still only 6-lanes wide.
Quote from: PHLBOS on January 25, 2017, 09:20:53 AM
Nonetheless, the public was somewhat (mis)led to believe that the underground I-93 mainline corridor was to be 8 to 10 lanes wide throughout not just in key areas. Much of the mainline tunnel is still only 6-lanes wide.
IMO the
entire Big Dig should have had (or be retrofitted
now) as a variable-priced toll road.
I understand and accept that when the Big Dig was being planned, E-ZPass and video tolling was not really on the horizon.
But now with Massachusetts going with cashless tolling on the MassPike, Tobin Bridge and others, it should be fairly easy to toll the Big Dig.
Yes, it's easy for me to write that, as I live many hundreds of miles south of Boston, and am an infrequent user of the highways of Massachusetts.
I would think that would be difficult given PA's problems getting I-80 tolled. I would think MA would run into the same regulations if they wanted to toll I-93.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2017, 02:13:02 PMIMO the entire Big Dig should have had (or be retrofitted now) as a variable-priced toll road.
I mentioned similar before and I'll mention it here (modified in the wake of 2-way AETs being established on all harbor crossings):
Place two AET gantries along I-93: one north of the Zakim Bridge and the other south of the I-90 interchange; and charge the same
fixed toll rate (sorry, I'm not completely sold on variable-priced tolling) as the harbor crossings and the Allston tolls. That way everybody
outside of immediate local traffic heading to/from Downtown Boston gets tolled in a fair manner.
Quote from: Rothman on January 25, 2017, 02:20:18 PMI would think that would be difficult given PA's problems getting I-80 tolled. I would think MA would run into the same regulations if they wanted to toll I-93.
PA's biggest problem was that the planned tolls for I-80 were going to be diverted a-la-Act 44 in the same manner that the PA Turnpike tolls were. Thankfully, the Feds (under 2 different Presidential administrations I might add) saw the proposal for the
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul it was and shot it down... more than once.
Looking at the graphs for the areas I'm familiar with in the Philly area, while I believe the rush hour congestion speeds, the non-rush hour speeds seem kinda low. Then I spotted this one: http://atri-online.org/research/results/congestion_mobility/2017bottleneck/078.pdf Apparently the travel speed is limited to the speed limit of the roadway. Clearly these trucks are running faster than 55 in a 55 zone.
This one is even worse: http://atri-online.org/research/results/congestion_mobility/2017bottleneck/097.pdf Speed limit of 55 mph, but yet the chart tries to show that speeds are averaging barely 50 mph...even in the middle of the night. No way in hell is that the truth.
I'm wondering where they got their info from.
Having lived in the Bay Area for 24 years, maybe my perspective's a bit off, but US 101 from the I-280/680 interchange in San Jose north to at least Palo Alto seems like it would easily qualify (who knows, maybe it'd be #101 [now that would be appropriate] on the list -- "missed it by that much") for inclusion here. Also, the I-80/US 101 junction right in SF might be right up there as well (best to avoid both of these from 6-9 am and 2:30-7 pm). In any case, I've encountered about a third of the cited congestion spots in my various travels, so I, for one, wouldn't doubt at least its prima facie validity.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2017, 08:49:12 AM
[Bumping this thread with a new story just out on the same topic]
Washington Post: The 100 worst traffic bottlenecks on U.S. highways (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/the-100-worst-traffic-bottlenecks-on-us-highways/2017/01/24/3ddcd388-e1ce-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html)
The title of the original study (http://atri-online.org/2017/01/17/2017-top-100-truck-bottleneck-list/) seems to have led to a misleading interpretation by the
Post: "2017 Top 100
Truck Bottleneck List".
So a lot of the bottlenecks that plague typical commuter traffic will be missing. I was shocked to see that GA 400 was not on the list initially, but this explains why.
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2017, 08:49:12 AM
[Bumping this thread with a new story just out on the same topic]
The list is missing a few candidates from Chicago, such as the I-90/I-290/IL 53 cloverleaf (plenty of trucks backing up there for the WB I-290 to WB I-90 loop), as well as the I-290/I-294 interchange (plenty of trucks usually in the queues for the NB to WB loop and the EB to SB ramp).
They don't have the routes right for the interchange at the west end of the PSB in St. Louis either - I-70 has not run through that interchange for almost three years now. It has also been over a year since the ramp from the Depressed Section onto the PSB was removed (the ramp is still shown on the map).
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2017, 08:49:12 AM
[Bumping this thread with a new story just out on the same topic]
Washington Post: The 100 worst traffic bottlenecks on U.S. highways (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/the-100-worst-traffic-bottlenecks-on-us-highways/2017/01/24/3ddcd388-e1ce-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html)
QuoteOther than Fort Lee [at #2], the fabled northeastern congestion doesn't resurface on the bottleneck list until Brooklyn weighs in at 37th with the conjunction of I-278 and the Belt Parkway.
TIL Hartford (#24, I-84/I-91) is not in the northeast. That location is down 4 from the previous year, probably because other areas leapfrogged it.
I-95 in Norwalk around US 7 (#47) is down 16 from the previous year, possibly because an auxiliary SB lane opened to traffic on July 31, 2015 (source (http://i95norwalk.com/News_and_Updates.html)).
There are five other entries for Connecticut, including I-84/CT 8 (up 19 to #68)
Quote from: coatimundi on January 25, 2017, 05:18:57 PM
Quote from: cpzilliacus on January 25, 2017, 08:49:12 AM
[Bumping this thread with a new story just out on the same topic]
Washington Post: The 100 worst traffic bottlenecks on U.S. highways (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/trafficandcommuting/the-100-worst-traffic-bottlenecks-on-us-highways/2017/01/24/3ddcd388-e1ce-11e6-a547-5fb9411d332c_story.html)
The title of the original study (http://atri-online.org/2017/01/17/2017-top-100-truck-bottleneck-list/) seems to have led to a misleading interpretation by the Post: "2017 Top 100 Truck Bottleneck List".
So a lot of the bottlenecks that plague typical commuter traffic will be missing. I was shocked to see that GA 400 was not on the list initially, but this explains why.
Agreed that the Post should have put truck in the heading.
Yes, there are certainly places where "regular" freeway congestion also impacts truck traffic, but even on this list, for example, I find I-278 at Belt Parkway suspect (yes, I-278 (Gowanus Expressway) is frequently and severely congested), but because trucks are banned from the Belt Parkway.
It's also annoying (and potentially misleading to users of the list, though not members of this forum) when congested places on the Capital Beltway are placed in the District of Columbia when they should be (and are) in Maryland.
I'm surprised none of mass 128 made it on the list.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 23, 2017, 03:03:31 PM
I'm surprised none of mass 128 made it on the list.
...other than numbers 72 and 80...
Quote from: davewiecking on April 23, 2017, 03:48:08 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 23, 2017, 03:03:31 PM
I'm surprised none of mass 128 made it on the list.
...other than numbers 72 and 80...
The initial list only has 50 entries, not 100.
Quote from: davewiecking on April 23, 2017, 03:48:08 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on April 23, 2017, 03:03:31 PM
I'm surprised none of mass 128 made it on the list.
...other than numbers 72 and 80...
Well, it does say top 50...
Apologies for not realizing that today's bump of the thread superseded the January bump, effectively returning this thread to the original December 2015 conversation.