And do you experience, per your definition, bad traffic. Please answer in terms of freeways and local roads.
Freeways: Cars carry an average speed of <20 MPH during rush hour. If the mass of cars continues to move, then it is just volume and not really all that bad.
Local roads: Takes more than two light cycles to clear a red light.
I generally don't experience "bad traffic" because I strategically picked a reverse commute and shop during off-peak hours. Generally if I am stuck in traffic on a routine day, it is because there was an accident.
The hick definition of bad traffic:
Freeway: Continually having to pass people.
Local road: Having to wait at a stop sign.
I've never had to plan a commute to avoid traffic.
Quote from: SD Mapman on June 26, 2017, 08:12:17 PM
The hick definition of bad traffic:
Freeway: Continually having to pass people.
Local road: Having to wait at a stop sign.
I've never had to plan a commute to avoid traffic.
I'm glad your examples are very different from mine, because it shows the issue if two people discuss traffic (e.g. when moving somewhere new or taking a road trip)....means very different things to different people.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 26, 2017, 08:09:06 PM
And do you experience, per your definition, bad traffic. Please answer in terms of freeways and local roads.
Freeways: Cars carry an average speed of <20 MPH during rush hour. If the mass of cars continues to move, then it is just volume and not really all that bad.
Local roads: Takes more than two light cycles to clear a red light.
I generally don't experience "bad traffic" because I strategically picked a reverse commute and shop during off-peak hours. Generally if I am stuck in traffic on a routine day, it is because there was an accident.
I don't have a problem with local roads...
Having come from 17 years of living in south Florida, the entire counties of Miami-Dade, Broward and Palm Beach.
Well, in terms of my commute, "bad traffic" is "there aren't any seats left on the MARTA train, so I have to stand". :spin:
But on a serious note, when I am driving (which is much more enjoyable when I only do it when I want to instead of having to):
Freeway: being in Atlanta, the threshold for "bad traffic" is pretty high. It's not really bad traffic unless you have to come to a complete stop at some point.
Local roads: if I have to sit through multiple light cycles, that's bad. If I have to stay stopped at a green light due to a backup from the next light, that's also bad.
Heh, I'm used to New York City traffic, so my threshold is pretty high. On an expressway, I need to be moving less than 10 mph. Even up in Albany (where I have lived most of my life), moving is considered to be a good sign. Surface roads, it's a backup of several blocks (as in stopped or barely-moving traffic).
Compare that to people from Buffalo, who think moving under the speed limit on an expressway is "bad traffic".
Hmm, I've gone to places like DC, Philadelphia, NYC, and some others, so my threshold is through the sky.
Freeways/Expressways/Highways (or, any limited access road): If I've been in a standstill for 10-15+ minutes, and decide to try an alternate route to avoid traffic (unfortunately in terms of Philadelphia, there's no alternate route from the west). Another definition Ihave (for more suburban areas) is if it takes more than ten minutes to move a mile.
Local Roads: Waiting for multiple traffic light cycles, and taking more than 15-20 minutes to a mile. If traffic is extremely bad, I'll probably just find the nearest train station (if I'm in a city) and just take a train in.
I-95 in Northern Virginia!
I wouldn't consider stop/go to be bad, because it's the norm in my area at many spots during rush hour. "Bad traffic" to me means anything orange/red on Waze in an area where traffic normally flows quite well.
Quote from: epzik8 on June 26, 2017, 11:11:50 PM
I-95 in Northern Virginia!
Heh. When I saw this thread yesterday, I thought about replying "the Inner Loop this morning" after the latest three-hour backup following a fatal crash. (Makes me glad the first thing I do in the morning, even before getting out of bed, is to listen to the traffic report on WTOP. We were going to drive yesterday but took the train instead. We don't use the Beltway in the morning, but we would have hit bailout traffic.)
I don't really have any single firm definition of "heavy traffic." It's kind of a "know it when I see it" thing. I also try to distinguish between "the usual" traffic that's there every day (even if some people not from around here would consider it heavy) versus the "crap, something's wrong today" kind of traffic that makes you take notice that it's worse than usual.
One factor that comes to mind regardless of the type of road is what the traffic reporters in Raleigh used to (may still) call "stop-and-roll" traffic, where traffic is so slow that you move your car forward using the clutch and the brake rather than the accelerator and the brake. I'd consider that "heavy traffic."
Another, not applicable on the highway for obvious reasons, is when multiple intersections in a row fall victim to box-blockers.
I also equate a difference between "normal bad" and "abnormal bad" For example, The Schuylkill Expwy in SE PA/Philly, there will always been areas that are stop-and-go...which is bad, but "normal bad"; it's expected, you know it's coming, and there isn't anything that is going to fix it anytime soon. It's still bad...but expected.
Actually...that's all of the Philly-area expwys, come to think of it.
My commute is 42 miles each way; 38 miles of that on 55/65 mph highways. Normally, the commute can be done in about 50 - 60 minutes. Bad traffic for me starts when that commute takes over 75 minutes, and it's absolutely bad at 90 minutes (btw, my record for that commute is 35 minutes (occurred once in my 19 years of commuting), which meant I averaged 71 mph for the entire commute...a very impressive feat if I do say so myself!)
For other 'bad traffic' examples, it would generally have to be considered if I'm on a road that I should normally be free-flowing on and it's jammed, that's bad. Or on a road that I expect some jammed traffic on (let's say, 1 mile), but it's overly jammed (let's say, 5 miles), then that's bad traffic.
NJDOT did some sort of survey a number of years back to gauge what people consider to be jammed. They provided several examples. People mostly were ok with the lighter congestion examples, but would often pinpoint the more congested scenarios as jammed traffic. NJDOT pointed out later that every scenario given was actually considered jammed traffic, and the survey pretty much showed what people are generally able to live with without getting upset about it.
"Bad traffic" is like "bad schools" or "dirty water". A basic failure of government to do its J O B .
On interstates and the like, traffic should flow at or above the SL, even at "rush hour" in the absence of a wreck or the like. If it does not, government has not built enough lanes, enough alternate routes, or provided enough comunal transit.
On city or surban streets, traffic should flow at or above the SL, even at "rush hour" and the waiting cross traffic should be cleared in each light cycle. If it does not, government has not built enough lanes, enough exits from the expressway, or enough roads.
I think bad traffic is when developers are allowed to go amuck with sprawl before the roads of the area can handle the extra traffic. I know some may blame the environmentalists for being too careful in allowing the studies to be completed promptly, but the fact remains the politicians know that they cannot push up the final date of PD&E studies, so they should tell the developers to wait until the roadways are up to par before they even break ground.
Florida is the best example for that and so was NJ back in the 70's and 80's. You think that FL would learn from NJ mistakes or other states who has sprawl that led to traffic nightmares, however our state (especially our Good for Sh*** governor) is not even looking to see the mistakes of overdeveloping. Just let the businesses build and deal later and us people should just count traffic as normal when proactive planning could have prevented it all.
I-77 north of Charlotte, NC. Traffic will sometimes be at a standstill at 1 PM. Now granted, most of it is due to the shitty construction taking place, but its still bad traffic nonetheless.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 27, 2017, 09:49:51 AM
"Bad traffic" is like "bad schools" or "dirty water". A basic failure of government to do its J O B .
On interstates and the like, traffic should flow at or above the SL, even at "rush hour" in the absence of a wreck or the like. If it does not, government has not built enough lanes, enough alternate routes, or provided enough comunal transit.
On city or surban streets, traffic should flow at or above the SL, even at "rush hour" and the waiting cross traffic should be cleared in each light cycle. If it does not, government has not built enough lanes, enough exits from the expressway, or enough roads.
I'm willing to forgive the government for this. Sometimes areas explode in population and you can't properly construct lanes to keep up with growth.
To me, bad traffic on a freeway is when you repeatedly have to come to a complete stop. Basically I only consider it bad if it shows as dark red on Google Maps.
On local roads, if I have to wait more than two cycles at a light or if you can't advance on green due to traffic.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 26, 2017, 08:09:06 PM
And do you experience, per your definition, bad traffic. Please answer in terms of freeways and local roads.
Freeways: Cars carry an average speed of <20 MPH during rush hour. If the mass of cars continues to move, then it is just volume and not really all that bad.
Local roads: Takes more than two light cycles to clear a red light.
I generally don't experience "bad traffic" because I strategically picked a reverse commute and shop during off-peak hours. Generally if I am stuck in traffic on a routine day, it is because there was an accident.
Bad traffic? How does a twenty plus mile backup due to a lane drop do ya?I-55 used to back up, and I'm not kidding, from what used to be a lane drop one mile before Weber Road (Exit 263) at MP 264 to at least Cicero Avenue (Exit 286) on a daily basis until IDOT finally added a lane for the extra mile to the exit. Those were the good days. The bad days would see it back up to the Ryan (I-90/94, Exit 292) or the Drive (US-41, MP 294). The Stevenson still isn't a picnic with perpetual delays approaching Cicero Avenue in both directions.
The we have a constant back up that persists throughout the day.I-290, Eisenhower Expressway, has a few back ups that seem to persist throughout the day. 1. From North Avenue (Exit 13) through to the Tri-State Tollway (I-294) exit ramp (Exit 15). 2. Through the Avenues, from Mannheim Road (US-12/20/45, Exit 17) to Austin Boulevard (Exit 23) due in part to the exit ramps in the Avenues and the left exits at Harlem and Austin. Sometimes, if you get lucky, back up #2 is split into two parts. But that's just false hope.
Prepare to be late for your flight, ha ha ha!!!The Kennedy Expressway (I-90/94) can be one continual back up from the Circle Interchange (I-94 Exit 51 I-H) all the way through the Montrose Junction (where I-94 splits off onto the Edens) and into O'Hare on I-190. The reverse is slightly prettier, but not by much.
And that's just the start for bad traffic. Just wait for a major rain storm or a few inches of snow, and you'll be sitting for quite some time to come. And heaven forbid there be an accident. It may be on your side, but if not, then you've got a wonderous gapers' delay.
Speed limit or higher at rush hour means that the road is overbuilt. If you assume rush hour is 4 hours per day (I know, every market is different...do your own math if you please), that's 20 hours out of 168 for the week. In any line of business, that's way over capacity. Traffic congestion is a signal for people to "consume" the highway at "cheaper" times.
For me, I discount morning, noon, and night rush. Then I make my opinions based outside of those times. The only horrible interstate I have personally driven on is US65 before it was expanded to six lanes (Springfield, MO). Pushing 60K, and it was bumper to bumper at 35mph (SL65) for five miles. (I avoided it like the plague during the six lane construction after that "harrowing experience")
For nonfreeflow, yeah two or three cycles for offpeak daytime driving (9-11:30, 1:30-4, 6:7:30 other times are either excused or never have any problems). Two if it turns yellow as I sneak past for my second light...
I sometimes feel like we have it easy hear in Missouri (Past the KC [I-435] Southern Loop and STL) We actually have enough road for the people we have.
For me, < 40 mph on the freeway (< 60 mph on the Thruway) or having traffic back up multiple lights or having to wait through more than one light cycle on a surface street.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 27, 2017, 11:54:33 AM
Traffic congestion is a signal for people to "consume" the highway at "cheaper" times.
Not really an option for most people. Most employers don't offer flex time.
Quote from: SP Cook on June 27, 2017, 09:49:51 AM
"Bad traffic" is like "bad schools" or "dirty water". A basic failure of government to do its J O B .
On interstates and the like, traffic should flow at or above the SL, even at "rush hour" in the absence of a wreck or the like. If it does not, government has not built enough lanes, enough alternate routes, or provided enough comunal transit.
On city or surban streets, traffic should flow at or above the SL, even at "rush hour" and the waiting cross traffic should be cleared in each light cycle. If it does not, government has not built enough lanes, enough exits from the expressway, or enough roads.
Maybe we should blame the citizens for not paying enough in taxes so that the government can build without restriction. Or blame the citizens for buying houses in the suburbs that don't have the road capacity. But, wait, we *can* blame the government for allowing those houses to be built. But the citizens wanted the suburban life, so maybe it's their fault anyway after all.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 27, 2017, 11:54:33 AM
Speed limit or higher at rush hour means that the road is overbuilt. If you assume rush hour is 4 hours per day (I know, every market is different...do your own math if you please), that's 20 hours out of 168 for the week. In any line of business, that's way over capacity. Traffic congestion is a signal for people to "consume" the highway at "cheaper" times.
If you have a dollar left before you cash your next paycheck, you're overpaid
If you are not waking up from hunger, you're overfed...
Quote from: kalvado on June 27, 2017, 01:19:27 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 27, 2017, 11:54:33 AM
Speed limit or higher at rush hour means that the road is overbuilt. If you assume rush hour is 4 hours per day (I know, every market is different...do your own math if you please), that's 20 hours out of 168 for the week. In any line of business, that's way over capacity. Traffic congestion is a signal for people to "consume" the highway at "cheaper" times.
If you have a dollar left before you cash your next paycheck, you're overpaid
If you are not waking up from hunger, you're overfed...
Highways take money to build and money to maintain, we all know that. You want to build the minimum highway size needed to be sufficient (not perfect), because that money could be used elsewhere for other stuff.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 27, 2017, 01:54:33 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 27, 2017, 01:19:27 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 27, 2017, 11:54:33 AM
Speed limit or higher at rush hour means that the road is overbuilt. If you assume rush hour is 4 hours per day (I know, every market is different...do your own math if you please), that's 20 hours out of 168 for the week. In any line of business, that's way over capacity. Traffic congestion is a signal for people to "consume" the highway at "cheaper" times.
If you have a dollar left before you cash your next paycheck, you're overpaid
If you are not waking up from hunger, you're overfed...
Highways take money to build and money to maintain, we all know that. You want to build the minimum highway size needed to be sufficient (not perfect), because that money could be used elsewhere for other stuff.
There's basically two schools of thought with highway expansion:
The Texas method: [attempt to] maintain far more freeway lane miles than "necessary" to stay ahead of traffic congestion; or
The Seattle method: accept the fact that there's nothing that can be done to improve congestion, so focus efforts on improving HOV and transit connections across the freeway system.
Generally speaking, one method is chosen over the other due to land prices. Seattle-area land prices are outrageous, so WSDOT can't do much to expand the freeways because it's too expensive. Texas, on the other hand, has far more affordable land prices, so freeway expansion is slightly (if not, remarkably) less expensive.
Quote from: cl94 on June 26, 2017, 09:44:23 PM
Heh, I'm used to New York City traffic, so my threshold is pretty high. On an expressway, I need to be moving less than 10 mph. Even up in Albany (where I have lived most of my life), moving is considered to be a good sign. Surface roads, it's a backup of several blocks (as in stopped or barely-moving traffic).
Compare that to people from Buffalo, who think moving under the speed limit on an expressway is "bad traffic".
I was going to say the same about Buffalo.
Being on I-270 Sunday in Maryland was interesting though, every lane was clogged past Germantown, and I-495 after the Potomac wasn't much better.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 27, 2017, 01:54:33 PM
Quote from: kalvado on June 27, 2017, 01:19:27 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 27, 2017, 11:54:33 AM
Speed limit or higher at rush hour means that the road is overbuilt. If you assume rush hour is 4 hours per day (I know, every market is different...do your own math if you please), that's 20 hours out of 168 for the week. In any line of business, that's way over capacity. Traffic congestion is a signal for people to "consume" the highway at "cheaper" times.
If you have a dollar left before you cash your next paycheck, you're overpaid
If you are not waking up from hunger, you're overfed...
Highways take money to build and money to maintain, we all know that. You want to build the minimum highway size needed to be sufficient (not perfect), because that money could be used elsewhere for other stuff.
Honestly speaking, cost of delays quickly builds up. If you have an average of 10 minute delay on 60k/day highway, and assume $10/hour wage, that is $100k/day or $30M/year of lost productivity idling on a pavement. So building roads is actually cheaper than not building them. Problem is, some officials think US is rich enough to buy cheap crap...
Quote from: SD Mapman on June 26, 2017, 08:12:17 PM
The hick definition of bad traffic:
Freeway: Continually having to pass people.
Local road: Having to wait at a stop sign.
:-D
NW Territories: Lots of bison standing around on the road.
Quote from: kkt on June 27, 2017, 04:07:57 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on June 26, 2017, 08:12:17 PM
The hick definition of bad traffic:
Freeway: Continually having to pass people.
Local road: Having to wait at a stop sign.
:-D
NW Territories: Lots of bison standing around on the road.
Yup! Seen that too (and then you sit very very still in your car with the windows down...)
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 27, 2017, 11:54:33 AM
Speed limit or higher at rush hour means that the road is overbuilt.
That is a ridiculous statement.
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on June 27, 2017, 11:54:33 AM
Speed limit or higher at rush hour means that the road is overbuilt.
Could also mean that the road was built for traffic that no longer exists. Seems to me that much of Detroit's road system is "overbuilt" due to a dwindling population.
No matter how you look at it though, let's be real: it's better for a road to be over-built than under-built. Unless you just don't like cars, which is a reasonable argument.
Rural Belgium: a line of ten cars stuck behind a tractor on a single lane road where passing is not an option, having to wait for a herd of cows to cross the road while transiting from their pasture to their barn, or some sort of an unannounced Flanders wide cycling event that has all the roads in the region all tied up for the entire day.
Freeways (Autosnelweg): AutoE40/E19 and the Brussels R0 Ring road Near the E40'and E19'junctions is always a solid three lanes of brake lights moving at a crawl when you're running late to the airport.
I expect there to be congestion in urban areas or major highways, especially where I live now (Arlington, VA), and often enduring stop and go traffic on an interstate is still faster than trying to find an alternate route. Only occasionally is it so bad that abandoning a trip or seriously trying to find an alternate is more viable. A few weeks ago we were on our way back from the blue ridge mountains to Arlington and 81 was a solid line of trucks that were not moving very fast due to some accident. I was tempted to just do roll with the traffic, but we ended up taking 11 to I-66 and made reasonably good time doing that. Maybe we made the right decision, but the fact that 11 was almost empty probably meant that the congestion on 81 was not bad enough to warrant a mass exodus to other routes.
Quote from: Eth on June 26, 2017, 09:38:09 PM
Well, in terms of my commute, "bad traffic" is "there aren't any seats left on the MARTA train, so I have to stand". :spin:
But on a serious note, when I am driving (which is much more enjoyable when I only do it when I want to instead of having to):
Freeway: being in Atlanta, the threshold for "bad traffic" is pretty high. It's not really bad traffic unless you have to come to a complete stop at some point.
Local roads: if I have to sit through multiple light cycles, that's bad. If I have to stay stopped at a green light due to a backup from the next light, that's also bad.
Change that to Los Angeles, and that's the same thing I had to go through once upon a time!
Portland. In fact, I'm about to slog it out from US 26 at I-205 to Hillsboro in a few minutes. Woe is me.
To me, bad traffic is created when simple solutions are not executed to improve the traffic flow, and thus not-as-safe traffic occurs:
- Speed Limits set too low for the roadway.
- Traffic lights not synchronized, or are programmed to go against the existing natural traffic flows.
- Intersections where 4-way stop signs are not needed or where Yield signs can be substituted for Stop signs due to lack of sufficient traffic.
- Unusually long construction zones -- blocking off lanes where/when there is no work going on, yet the closed lane(s) can be driven on safely -- and keeping work zone speeds in effect when no work is going on.
These are a few things, (IMHO) that jurisdictions can easily adjust to allow for better traffic flows, and reduce driver fatigue/frustration due to bad traffic.
Anything that happens on Interstate 55 from Festus, Missouri to St Louis.
If traffic on the freeway is moving I'm cool. I think a lot of what fucks it up is drivers rushing to get on the cars ass in front of them and then hitting the brakes causing a chain reaction.
I think traffic could flow better in rush hour in many scenarios as long as drivers kept a better distance and more sustainable speed. Of course that can't be expected in every case.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 29, 2017, 12:18:41 AM
If traffic on the freeway is moving I'm cool. I think a lot of what fucks it up is drivers rushing to get on the cars ass in front of them and then hitting the brakes causing a chain reaction.
I think traffic could flow better in rush hour in many scenarios as long as drivers kept a better distance and more sustainable speed. Of course that can't be expected in every case.
It's one of those things that I know I should do, but I just can't bring myself to actually do. Leaving a large distance, in theory, reduces the amount of braking that has to be done, which in turn decreases the likelihood of a chain-reaction "brake", which tends to fuck up traffic. The problem is, I hate myself for letting too many cars in, mostly because of the people behind me who are likely very irate with my decision to let a thousand cars in. Never mind how much farther back I am, compared to where I would have been, had I not kept letting cars in.
I agree with that. I can't say I do as I say in this case. As you said, most people view that space you leave as an invite to get in front of you which you would keep having to create more space and seems counterproductive.
I don't know that even in a perfect world if that would work in LA simply because the freeways lack enough lanes to properly move traffic it in a city like OKC that has enough lanes for the most part seems to get congested because of things like this. I'm also convinced that there are those that believe the freeway abruptly ends around the slightest corner or curve causing them to slam their brakes.
I live in SW NJ, but have a non-traditional commute. I travel 60 miles SE within the state to get to work, and can count on my hands the number of times I had to go to Philly, so I'll break it down by road, and sometimes even parts of road. In general my definition of bad traffic is traffic that makes me find an alternate route, though that may not always be possible
Freeways:
I-295 (exit 34 to 26) and NJ 42 freeway: Traffic comes to a complete stop more than three times or for more than a few seconds
Atlantic City Expressway / most of NJ 55: Maximum possible speed drops below 75 MPH for several minutes at a time
NJ 55 northern terminus: Backup of 2 miles or more
Garden State Parkway (exit 38 to 36): Speed below 30 MPH
Non-freeways:
NJ 73 Berlin and southbound: Speed below 50 MPH between traffic lights
NJ 70 / NJ 73 north of Berlin: Having to stop at the same traffic light for more than one cycle
That last one is my definition for most local roads as well. In cases where there are no traffic lights, wait times at stop signs of more than a minute or so.
If I'm rating my commute as a whole, bad traffic is when it takes more than 65 minutes.
Bad traffic (example close to home): US 101, NB, from CA 129 north to I-880, 5:45 a.m to 9:15 a.m. M-F. The reverse of this, 2:45 p.m. to 7:15 p.m., likewise. Ostensible cause of this: closely placed interchanges in Gilroy, Morgan Hill, and the east side of San Jose (from CA 85 north). Also, underpowered 101/880 interchange and the fact that about 25-30% of NB 101 traffic exits onto 880 north via slip lane and 1-lane ramp. NB, you'll average about 20-25 from 129 to Morgan Hill, get up to maybe 35 through Coyote (5 miles, 1 set of ramps to virtually nowhere), but drop to 5-10 until I-280/680 junction. The first-timer will get a break for the next 2 miles (maybe up to 25!), but drop to near-zero as much of the traffic jockeys for position to get over to the NB 880 ramp. Going the other way in the afternoon, it's not too bad (20 average) from 880 to 280/680, primarily because a lot of SB 880 traffic doesn't want to risk a wreck on the SB 880>101 loop, so they go all the way down to 280 or even 85 before cutting back over. From 280/680 all the way out to the SB 85 merge, it maxes out at 10-15 mph, with 20-25 average after the 85 folks merge into place. Once in Morgan Hill, everything depends upon whether there's any incidents; without, figure remaining between 20 and 25, with -- all bets are off; you're better off heading over to the old road (Monterey Hwy). Gilroy slows down the process (lotsa commuters get off there -- and some of the exits need expanding). What's left generally disperses like this: 35-40% get off at CA 25 toward Hollister, another 15-20% use CA 129 toward Watsonville (now functioning as an exurb), while the remaining generally is through traffic (there's no significant Salinas commute traffic, but there is a little heading toward Seaside & Monterey via 156).
From I-880 and Montague Expressway ("employment central" these days) to a Gilroy residence takes about 1.8 hours for 35 miles, or an average of between 19 & 20 mph on a mostly 3+3 or 4+4 freeway. Now that's what I call bad traffic. I've heard (repeatedly) that 580/205 between Dublin/680 and Tracy is much worse -- but I haven't been masochistic enough to find out for myself. :ded:
I consider bad traffic to be anything where the current estimated travel time is 150% or more than the usual estimated travel time. So, for something that usually takes 20 minutes, bad traffic would be 30+
Nexus 6P
Quote from: sbeaver44 on July 03, 2017, 09:06:50 PM
I consider bad traffic to be anything where the current estimated travel time is 150% or more than the usual estimated travel time. So, for something that usually takes 20 minutes, bad traffic would be 30+
So a two minute drive taking three minutes = bad traffic? :-D
I get your point though.
Considering that I grew up and learned to drive in the Chicagoland area I really haven't seen bad traffic in the 25+ years since I left, lol.
Actually, in my area I consider it as bad traffic if the light turns green and I can't go. It really doesn't happen like that very often (usually it takes a wreck, or construction on another road that everyone is avoiding by being in my way).
On freeways, as long as its moving and I don't have to keep jamming on the brakes, I don't consider it as being bad, per se. I might turn to my wife and say "Wow, traffic is really heavy today", but I wouldn't say it was bad.
My commutes to work are at either 0530 or 1730 depending if I am working days or nights, and I only go 9 miles. Coming home it would either be 1800 or 0600 depending. Going to work on dayshift or home from work on night shift takes about 11-12 minutes on average. Going to work on nights, or home from work on days takes about 14-15 minutes on average. If I start creeping into 14-15 minutes in the first scenario or 17-18 minutes in the second scenario I start to feel like I am being held up. If it goes over 20 minutes I'm about ready to write my congressman, lol.
Thinking back to my Chicago days, I can often remember hearing travel times of 55 minutes from the Tri-State to the Post Office on the Ike from traffic reporters and just cringing. From what I hear from people now, it seems they would be begging for it to be only 55 minutes now.