Study: Denver rush-hour traffic 3rd worst in nation

[GRID]

http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,141 ... 24,00.html

The Associated Press
and The Denver Post
Wednesday, October 01, 2003 -

Denver was ranked third worst in the nation in a new study that rates how long motorists in 75 cities wait in rush-hour traffic.

In cities large and small, the daily struggle with bumper-to-bumper traffic is getting worse. Nationwide, the average rush-hour driver wasted more than two full days - almost 51 hours - sitting in traffic in 2001, according to an annual report released today by the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University.

That's an increase of four hours in the last five years.

In Denver, motorists spent an average 64 hours in rush-hour traffic in 2001, ranking third among the 75 urban areas studied.

At the top of the report's list is Los Angeles, where the average rush-hour driver spent about 90 hours waiting in traffic in 2001. The San Francisco-Oakland area was next at 68 hours.

Rounding out the top 5: Miami at No. 4 (63 hours) and Chicago and Phoenix, tied at No. 5 (61 hours).

The rush-hour wait costs Americans $69.5 billion in wasted time and gas, said the study.

"Congestion extends to more time of the day, more roads, affects more of the travel and creates more extra travel time than in the past," the study said.

Tim Lomax, the study's co-author, said public transportation, traffic signals on freeway entrance ramps and other congestion-busting measures have kept a bad situation from getting even worse. For example, traffic signal coordination aimed at smoothing the flow of cars, trucks and buses saved commuters 16 million hours, the report said.

The study found some areas of the country where gridlock eased. The average delay dropped for commuters in San Antonio, Texas; Fresno, Calif.; and Pensacola, Fla.

Still, more improvements are needed, the report said. Among the recommendations: more roads to handle increased demand, additional bus and car pool lanes, and adjusted work hours for commuters.

In response to criticism about its earlier studies, the institute for the first time factored in improvements that cities are making, such as traffic light coordination and ramp metering, as well as the benefits of public transportation, Lomax said.

Data from the Federal Highway Administration and information from various state and local agencies - including the Colorado Department of Transportation - was analyzed by the researchers to come up with the rankings.

[DanCa]

I can vouch for LA being number 1. I live 10 miles from work and twice in the past week it's taken me about an hour to get to work. I'm no mathmatician, but that's roughly 10 mph average. And also consider this is leaving home at 6:25 a.m., driving on a freeway that has 6 lanes in each direction, including one carpool lane in each direction. At times when I can go the speed limit all the way to work, it's a 15 min. drive at most. Absolutely insane. Traffic is the one of the major issues that will drive me out of this place!

When I lived in Denver, I lived and worked near downtown so traffic really wasn't an issue. It seemed kind of bad on the freeways, but they really don't have that many freeways in Denver. Maybe that's why the few they have are clogged.

[bahua]

Maybe I'm not getting something, but 51 hours on the entire year works out to just under 6 minutes per commute trip. That's bad?

[mean]

I wait in traffic that long about half the time.

[KC0KEK]

Maybe I'm not getting something, but 51 hours on the entire year works out to just under 6 minutes per commute trip. That's bad?

I did the same math and wondered about that, too. But apparently none of the gazillion reporters who covered this story did.

[Brooksider]

I think the article meant 51 hours per year over the average. KC came in at 21 hours over the average per year.

[KC0KEK]

I reread the Star article, and it sounds as if the average increased by 51 hours in the worst city. In other words, the average was X in 2001, and now it's X plus 51, or X plus 21 here.

But I'm not sure if that's a factor of worsening congestion or just people commuting greater distances. A lot of people lost their jobs in the past year or two, and their new jobs might be farther away from their homes. (In an uncertain economy, most people probably would rather tough out a longer commute than buy a new home closer to a new job.) If enough people do that, then it's no surprise to see the average go up in most metros.

[GRID]

I still don't get these studies and think they are worthless. I know KC does well compared to other large cities, but it's not number 50 or 60 or whatever.

Peoria and Joplin do not have worse traffic than KC.

I have been all over the country and KC's main freeway corridors are just as bad as the main freeway corridors of most cities out there, with the exeption of top 15 or so cities including LA Denver and even StL, but come on.

Try going from OP to LS between 4 and 6 or OP to Olathe or Downtown to Olathe or BS or LS etc.

But we have all those freeways that are not even close to being congested like half of 435, most of 635, 29, 50 etc that throw off the stats.

Sure we don't have it as bad as Denver, but number 60? Not.

[bahua]

Yeah, my dad commutes 50+ blocks on city streets in Peoria, and it only takes him 5-10 minutes each way.

[chrizow]

i think places like joplin and peoria figure on there because a lot of people probably drive in from waaaaay out in the rural areas, adding to the drive time. there is no way they have more congestion. KC has people with very short commutes and some with long, so they balance out i guess?

i had an internship in Corporate Woods a few summer ago, and it would take me 60 minutes each way drving from south raytown (470-435-metcalf). it got better once i started taking 87th to 435 and then over, but the triangle killed me every day. 11 miles = 60+ min. suck.

[bahua]

11 miles is still a long way(over 100 miles a week!), but in Kansas City, it's considered a short commute. Bleh.