L.A. Has the Worst Traffic Congestion in the World (Study)

[chris08876]

Scoreboard: http://inrix.com/resources/inrix-201...fic-scorecard/

L.A. Has the Worst Traffic Congestion in the World

Los Angeles is perennial champion when it comes to the worst traffic congestion in the United States, but on a global scale, the metro area has been beaten in the past by Istanbul, Mexico City and Bangkok.

But traffic data firm Inrix reports that it has a fresh way of measuring the worst traffic across the globe and that Los Angeles is not only America's No. 1 but also the world's as well. Greater L.A.'s rank on the all-new Global Traffic Scorecard is based on the estimated time the average local motorist spent stuck in traffic during peak commuter hours in 2016. In L.A., that number is 104 hours. Moscow came in second with 91; New York nabbed third place with 89. Traffic costs the average L.A. driver $2,408 a year in productivity and fuel, the firm found.

"This scorecard takes all roads into account to give a more accurate reflection of the typical trip," Inrix senior economist Bob Pishue explains. Traffic in other global cities can be "more severe" for shorter periods, "but people in L.A. tend to sit in it longer," he says.

One of the problems here, besides the area's traditional reliance on freeways and boulevards, is the low cost of driving, Pishue says. Gas prices have been more than reasonable in the last year, parking is relatively plentiful, particularly in the suburbs, and toll roads are still rare. "If it costs more to travel, people do less of it," he says.

Los Angeles shows up in the fifth spot on an accompanying list of the most congested roads in the United States, with the 10 East from the 405 to the 110 representing our worst. New York's 95 West is No. 1. Chicago's 90/94 took second place.

Even though the United States made a strong showing on the congested global cities ranking, Thailand is the most traffic-ridden nation in the world overall, followed by Colombia and Indonesia, according to the report. The United States tied for fourth with Russia.

Inrix is not taking a stand on solutions, which could range from the expansion of public transportation to higher parking rates.

"We want public officials, transportation officials, drivers and employers to take a look at this to see how it affects the commute," Pishue says. "Maybe an employer says we should shift our hours or do more telecommuting. Maybe bus routes are expanded. The solution is different for each city."

======================
http://www.laweekly.com/news/la-has-...-world-7953381

[dc_denizen]

good, this means people are incentivized to get off the streets and take the new metro!!

[giallo]

LA is bad, real bad, but this study is missing out some key players. Beijing had the worst traffic I'd ever seen (LA's traffic at least moves at a snail's pace) until I went to Jakarta.

I've never seen traffic as bad as Jakarta. 32 million people and not one single metro line or properly wide freeway. The city is in perpetual gridlock EVERYWHERE. It took me 2 hours to go 13 kilometers.

Not having Beijing or Jakarta on this list makes it incomplete. Maybe the hard data isn't available for these two cities?

[BrownTown]

Originally Posted by giallo

LA is bad, real bad, but this study is missing out some key players. Beijing had the worst traffic I'd ever seen (LA's traffic at least moves at a snail's pace) until I went to Jakarta.

I've never seen traffic as bad as Jakarta. 32 million people and not one single metro line or properly wide freeway. The city is in perpetual gridlock EVERYWHERE. It took me 2 hours to go 13 kilometers.

Not having Beijing or Jakarta on this list makes it incomplete. Maybe the hard data isn't available for these two cities?

Well, it's about how long people stay in traffic and if I'd have to wager in most of the world the average person only lives a few miles from work instead of in the US where it's normal to live 30+ miles away. Most of Atlanta doesn't have bad traffic most of the time, but everyone in Atlanta lives an insane distance away and they all funnel into the same few spots and those spots are always bad. NYC seems a little silly on here because of course the traffic is beyond insane at all hours of the day, but only a mad man tries to drive into NYC for work.

[MolsonExport]

Lima, Peru has cataclysmically terrible jams that last for many hours. I spent 2 hours to move but 4 blocks.

[JDRCRASH]

I feel like it's gotten a WHOLE lot worse lately, especially on Saturdays.

[Crawford]

LA has easily the worst traffic in the U.S., but is a breeze compared to any major developing world city.

Mexico City and Bogota are insane compared to LA. I hear Dhaka and Karachi make Latin American cities look tame.

[ChrisLA]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

I feel like it's gotten a WHOLE lot worse lately, especially on Saturdays.

Saturday's is the worst day of the week for traffic in LA, unless you are out and about before 9am. The rest of the day is just awful, it's like 12-14 hours of rush hour traffic.

[chris08876]

I think in the Tri-state, from my experience, Friday has to be the worse day for traffic. Friday from 2pm to 6pm is just a nightmare. The 5 boroughs, Essex/Somerset/Union County in NJ. I-287 , I-278, and the Turnpike are extra annoying on Friday afternoons.

The BQE aka I-278 one of the worst highways ever. That is always jammed.

[ocman]

Originally Posted by JDRCRASH

I feel like it's gotten a WHOLE lot worse lately, especially on Saturdays.

Less cars, but people drive agonizingly sloooow on the weekend, like they’re drive-by sight seeing or something.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

Saturday's is the worst day of the week for traffic in LA, unless you are out and about before 9am. The rest of the day is just awful, it's like 12-14 hours of rush hour traffic.

Interesting. Houston also has absolutely terrible all day long weekend freeway traffic. There is congestion everywhere, especially at interchanges. Maybe there is something about very sprawled out metros that lead to weekend congestion. Everybody is on the move at the same time trying to do errands, visit friends and family, or looking for fun.

[BnaBreaker]

LA traffic is nothing compared to cities like New Delhi.

[JDRCRASH]

Originally Posted by ocman

Less cars, but people drive agonizingly sloooow on the weekend, like they’re drive-by sight seeing or something.

I hate to say it but in certain areas of the county notorious for this (T***le City, Ar****a, P**nte Hills) it's becoming like this ALL THE TIME now. It's awful.

And this leads me to another issue: the quality of the driving. I feel like traffic in this town is becoming a world of extremes. As mentioned, so many drivers seem to be overly cautious and feel like they need a mile of open space to make left turns into oncoming traffic; or if they're making a right turn on a red signal onto a 4-lane street with oncoming cars making a left on a green arrow signal, they assume they never have the right of way to turn onto the right lane for fear of colliding with the left-turning cars that should be turning onto the left lane.

On the other hand, ive noticed that in other areas of the region, particularly in upper-middle class and upper-class areas (Pasadena, West LA, Glendora-San Dimas, East/South Orange County), so many drivers that appear to be LA-area natives are becoming overly aggressive, sometimes tailgating you by only INCHES even if you're flying 80 mph on the freeway.

[ChrisLA]

In the San Fernando Valley, especially along the 101 Freeway and Ventura corridor the drivers are especially rude and aggressive. As this area has become more urbanized and more crowded people are less patient. I think we have the most aggressive in the entire LA region.

[niwell]

Surprised Toronto isn't on this list. Traffic has gotten to a point where it's just bad, all the time. Johannesburg has really bad traffic as well. When the Mall of Africa opened my friends posted on Facebook about being trapped in traffic for 3 hours...

[Pedestrian]

Anecdote: When, last October, it was time for me to leave the Bay Area and, like a Monarch butterfly, migrate south (to Tucson) for the winter, I planned to leave downtown San Francisco around 10 PM after, I assumed, rush hour would be over. But I consulted my Google Map traffic overlay at 10 PM . . . and 11 PM . . . and midnight . . . and the onramps to the Bay Bridge were still a glowing red (meaning at a standstill). There was no escape from the city in that direction. I finally decided I had to go and drove south through San Jose and took a 2-lane little road that goes over the mountains to the Central Valley and I-5. San Jose too can be a traffic nightmare, but on this particular night it was all clear after midnight when I passed through.

By the way, my GPS always tells me the shortest route between SF and Tucson timewise is through Pasadena to I-10 and then east on that freeway. But I've seen too much LA traffic to risk that (because once you are in the LA basin you are trapped). I have a route that avoids both LA and Phoenix, the LA clone in the desert: I-580 --> I-5 --> SR 58 --> I-40 --> US 95 --> SR 62/72 --> I-10 --> SR 85 --> I-8 --> I-10

[10023]

Originally Posted by giallo

LA is bad, real bad, but this study is missing out some key players. Beijing had the worst traffic I'd ever seen (LA's traffic at least moves at a snail's pace) until I went to Jakarta.

I've never seen traffic as bad as Jakarta. 32 million people and not one single metro line or properly wide freeway. The city is in perpetual gridlock EVERYWHERE. It took me 2 hours to go 13 kilometers.

Not having Beijing or Jakarta on this list makes it incomplete. Maybe the hard data isn't available for these two cities?

Plus in Jakarta there's the constant risk of carjacking and/or kidnapping to make things extra exciting.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

Anecdote: When, last October, it was time for me to leave the Bay Area and, like a Monarch butterfly, migrate south (to Tucson) for the winter, I planned to leave downtown San Francisco around 10 PM after, I assumed, rush hour would be over. But I consulted my Google Map traffic overlay at 10 PM . . . and 11 PM . . . and midnight . . . and the onramps to the Bay Bridge were still a glowing red (meaning at a standstill). There was no escape from the city in that direction. I finally decided I had to go and drove south through San Jose and took a 2-lane little road that goes over the mountains to the Central Valley and I-5. San Jose too can be a traffic nightmare, but on this particular night it was all clear after midnight when I passed through.

By the way, my GPS always tells me the shortest route between SF and Tucson timewise is through Pasadena to I-10 and then east on that freeway. But I've seen too much LA traffic to risk that (because once you are in the LA basin you are trapped). I have a route that avoids both LA and Phoenix, the LA clone in the desert: I-580 --> I-5 --> SR 58 --> I-40 --> US 95 --> SR 62/72 --> I-10 --> SR 85 --> I-8 --> I-10

Traffic in the city has gotten really insane.

[EastSideHBG]

At what point does it just become too much for a majority of people? I have taken routes that have gone out of the way and/or increased mileage just to not be sitting. What is the solution? Yes, "public transit" is a great answer and I think that we should focus on that but it's not realistic for it to be the only solution. In my area if you made some minor improvements to intersections, the timing of lights, on/off ramps you would see a dramatic difference.

[Pedestrian]

Originally Posted by EastSideHBG

At what point does it just become too much for a majority of people? I have taken routes that have gone out of the way and/or increased mileage just to not be sitting. What is the solution? Yes, "public transit" is a great answer and I think that we should focus on that but it's not realistic for it to be the only solution. In my area if you made some minor improvements to intersections, the timing of lights, on/off ramps you would see a dramatic difference.

The tragic thing (IMHO) is that government is constantly making things worse. This may be less true of LA where, when we think of traffic we usually mean freeway traffic, but in San Francisco where I am thinking of surface traffic the mass redesignation of traffic lanes as "transit-only" and "bike" lanes and the utter failure to enforce double parking and other regulations has meant that 3-lane streets are becoming single lane streets. Yesterday I watched and drank a coffee as an ambulance double-parked in front of a senior housing project on one side of the street and a parking control officer double-parked on the other while arguing with some guy she was trying to give a ticket for ? (he, at least, was in a legal space) and did exactly that. Commonly it's cops or other city employees parking wherever they want (and not always tending to an emergency) but also it's often just delivery trucks.

And in SF, they purposefully obstruct traffic with lights timed to make you stop at every intersection. They call it "traffic calming". I call it "driver infuriating". I think it literally leads to more traffic law violations such as red-light running and right turns without stopping.

Out on the freeways, they say vehicles driven by machines, not people, will make a big difference. Machines don't slow down to gawk at whatever's going on on the side of the road and they don't slow down while texting etc. They maintain a steady, even traffic flow.