Worst Traffic in Nation Once Again Los Angeles

[andy3175]

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/LA-Commuters-Face-Worst-Traffic-in-the-Nation-Study-Shows-372178702.html

To the surprise of no one who drives on SoCal freeways, the Los Angeles metro area was ranked as the most congested region in the nation and the second most congested in the world, according to a traffic score card released Tuesday by INRIX Inc.

LA drivers spent an average of 81 hours in traffic in 2015, beating out Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, where motorists waited in traffic for 75 hours last year, according to speed data collected on more than 1.3 million miles of roads last year. Houston and New York City ranked fourth and fifth with 74 and 73 hours, respectively.

Across the country, the study revealed commuters spent more than 8 billion hours in traffic in 2015, averaging around 50 hours per driver.

London is the only city in the world with worse traffic than LA. In 2015, London residents spent an approximate 101 hours in traffic delays.

Four of Los Angeles' highways also rank in the top 10 worst roadways in the world, the study showed. These stretches included the 101 Freeway from Topanga Canyon Boulevard to Vignes Street, the 101 Freeway between the 60 Freeway and Haskell Avenue, the 10 Freeway between 20th Street and Alameda Street and the 5 Freeway between Cesar Chavez Avenue and Valley View Avenue.

Higher employment rates, low gas prices and economic and population growth are to blame for the congestion on roadways in the U.S., INRIX stated.

As an aside, you have to love the California 101 shield on this LA map graphic from the above linked story:

[Rothman]

I would have thought some large mess of a city, like Manila or Kinshasa or New Delhi would have had much worse traffic problems than London or LA.

[Max Rockatansky]

I just use I-40, US 95, US 395, CA 18, CA 58, CA 247 and CA 62 just to avoid the area all together whenever I have to head east.  For some reason they never include San Bernardino/Riverside in these articles but they get heavy lingering effects of all the L.A. traffic pretty much all the way to Palm Springs somethings.  L.A. on it's worst days is the only city that made driving through Chicago, New York and Miami feel like a breeze.

[Henry]

That's no surprise at all!

[english si]

I would have thought some large mess of a city, like Manila or Kinshasa or New Delhi would have had much worse traffic problems than London or LA.

Manila, Kinshasa and New Delhi have a much higher proportion of two-wheeled private motor transport than London.

Plus I think you both underestimate the arterial road/expressway network in those cities, and overestimate London's similar network. London's main roads (ie one level below arterial roads) will also be narrower than ones in LEDC cities.

London's high GDP creates a lot of demand for travel - eg for leisure and shopping - that doesn't exist at as-high levels as in poorer countries.

Thankfully London has an extensive and frequent rail network (OK, south London not so much) that, while very crowded at peak times, still moves relatively quickly.

[Bickendan]

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/LA-Commuters-Face-Worst-Traffic-in-the-Nation-Study-Shows-372178702.html

To the surprise of no one who drives on SoCal freeways, the Los Angeles metro area was ranked as the most congested region in the nation and the second most congested in the world, according to a traffic score card released Tuesday by INRIX Inc.

LA drivers spent an average of 81 hours in traffic in 2015, beating out Washington, D.C. and San Francisco, where motorists waited in traffic for 75 hours last year, according to speed data collected on more than 1.3 million miles of roads last year. Houston and New York City ranked fourth and fifth with 74 and 73 hours, respectively.

Across the country, the study revealed commuters spent more than 8 billion hours in traffic in 2015, averaging around 50 hours per driver.

London is the only city in the world with worse traffic than LA. In 2015, London residents spent an approximate 101 hours in traffic delays.

Four of Los Angeles' highways also rank in the top 10 worst roadways in the world, the study showed. These stretches included the 101 Freeway from Topanga Canyon Boulevard to Vignes Street, the 101 Freeway between the 60 Freeway and Haskell Avenue, the 10 Freeway between 20th Street and Alameda Street and the 5 Freeway between Cesar Chavez Avenue and Valley View Avenue.

Higher employment rates, low gas prices and economic and population growth are to blame for the congestion on roadways in the U.S., INRIX stated.

As an aside, you have to love the California 101 shield on this LA map graphic from the above linked story:

I'm slightly more impressed that they included the arched 'California' on the shields!

[The Ghostbuster]

Something tells me Los Angeles will always have the nation's worst traffic.

[mcarling]

Something tells me Los Angeles will always have the nation's worst traffic.

The future lasts a long time.

[hm insulators]

Surprise, surprise.

In other news, the Pope is Catholic. Water is wet.

[paulthemapguy]

Cities on the west coast tend to have little to no inter-urban public transit.  Find the biggest urban area on the west coast, and, well, there you go.  I really appreciate that L.A. is FINALLY starting to build SOMETHING in the way of passenger trains.  But they have to keep moving, full speed ahead, in establishing more metropolitan rail.

[TheStranger]

Cities on the west coast tend to have little to no inter-urban public transit.

Inter-urban as in metro area-to-metro area?  (For instance, the Bay Area and Sacramento are linked via Amtrak's Capitol Corridor, while the Bay Area itself is home to numerous regional transit systems including CalTrain and BART)

[Max Rockatansky]

Cities on the west coast tend to have little to no inter-urban public transit.

Inter-urban as in metro area-to-metro area?  (For instance, the Bay Area and Sacramento are linked via Amtrak's Capitol Corridor, while the Bay Area itself is home to numerous regional transit systems including CalTrain and BART)

I was about to say....I always thought that mass transit system in the Bay Area to be pretty efficient for what it is.  It's a lot easier to get into San Francisco by taking the train during week by a country mile. 

[jakeroot]

Cities on the west coast tend to have little to no inter-urban public transit.

Inter-urban as in metro area-to-metro area?  (For instance, the Bay Area and Sacramento are linked via Amtrak's Capitol Corridor, while the Bay Area itself is home to numerous regional transit systems including CalTrain and BART)

I was about to say....I always thought that mass transit system in the Bay Area to be pretty efficient for what it is.  It's a lot easier to get into San Francisco by taking the train during week by a country mile.

Portland also has a pretty substantial light rail system. Its ridership is hardly overwhelming, but it has, undoubtedly, contributed to Portland's high cycling rate, which has in turn reduced the number of drivers entering the city.

[paulthemapguy]

Sorry, I meant urban-suburban.

[english si]

Cities on the west coast tend to have little to no inter-urban public transit.

As well as being debunked as not really being true, I'm not sure it's relevant as:

1) LA built roads rather than rail with the money it had for transport. Most US cities who took that approach pulled it off rather well, with car users able to travel around fairly easily (however if you can't drive for whatever reason, you are screwed).

2) London has a high quality urban-suburban (and inter-suburban) transit network, better than pretty much anywhere in the US, but has more congested roads than LA.

[mcarling]

Portland also has a pretty substantial light rail system. Its ridership is hardly overwhelming, but it has, undoubtedly, contributed to Portland's high cycling rate, which has in turn reduced the number of drivers entering the city.

Portland's MAX has the rare (possibly unique) distinction of a multi-billion dollar urban rail system that had zero affect on the ratio of public to private transport.  Some riders shifted from buses to MAX, but there was no net shift out of cars.  MAX may be the biggest failure of urban rail on the planet.  A more likely explanation for Portland's bicycle ridership is downtown Portland's extensive network of very wide bicycle lanes.

[jakeroot]

Portland also has a pretty substantial light rail system. Its ridership is hardly overwhelming, but it has, undoubtedly, contributed to Portland's high cycling rate, which has in turn reduced the number of drivers entering the city.

Portland's MAX has the rare (possibly unique) distinction of a multi-billion dollar urban rail system that had zero affect on the ratio of public to private transport.  Some riders shifted from buses to MAX, but there was no net shift out of cars.  MAX may be the biggest failure of urban rail on the planet.  A more likely explanation for Portland's bicycle ridership is downtown Portland's extensive network of very wide bicycle lanes.

I need an explanation from our resident transit expert, Bruce, as to why Portland's MAX isn't all that successful. I wouldn't go so far as to say net-shift from cars to rail was zero, but it's less than I would have expected.

[Chris]

There are similar stories about LA's transit system. However, it is important to note the difference between the modal share (transit vs driving ratio) and ridership. With a growing population (thus, growing travel needs) transit ridership may increase while the share remains stable, as the proportion of people who use transit or driving remains the same. MAX likely did see an increased ridership, but not much of an increase in share.

Transit ridership figures are sometimes inflated (linked vs unlinked trips), where a traveler changing trains or from bus to train counts as two separate trips, whereas someone driving that route would count as one trip. That's why traveled miles are a better comparison. In addition, most U.S. transportation figures are based on commuting only, while typically 60-70 % of highway travel is for purposes other than travel from home to work and back.