For the first time ever, the Texas Transportation Institute is reporting that traffic congestion has decreased for two years in a row.
I wish this pointed to some amazing change in American behavior, but of course it’s a product of our economic situation (and gas prices, more so last year than this year).
The Oregonian has both coverage on the local angle and deconstruction of that coverage by one of its bloggers.
11 responses to “Congestion Reduced, Again”
The Oregonian: Without mass transit, the average Portland area commuter would spend five hours more a year in rush-hour congestion, costing the region $98 million a year in lost time and wasted fuel, the Texas study says.
JK: Of course that $98 million saved costs us $400 million (Trimet’s annual income, mostly taxes.)
And buses stopping in the middle of traffic is a cause of congestion.
Thanks
JK
JK: Of course that $98 million saved costs us $400 million (Trimet’s annual income, mostly taxes.)
And buses stopping in the middle of traffic is a cause of congestion.
If the lost time was the only benefit, the comparison would make sense, but it’s only one of many.
And stopped buses just doesn’t seem to show up anywhere on lists of causes for congestion. Odd, isn’t it?
The Wikipedia article includes the following sentence, which I’m guessing means no one ever reads the article: “Ultimately, most researchers believe the evidence points to oriental women in white minivans as the leading cause of traffic congestion.”
Will this lead to a tabling of expensive, new projects—planned to accomodate population growth?
Jeff –
What Wikipedia article are you referring to?
I suspect whatever Wikipedia article it is, the vandalism has been removed…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_congestion
Look under “Causes”.
Gotta love Wikipedia. The best part is that it is cited! I went to the “original source” and it is a) an amateur hobbyist site (kind of like citing PortlandTransport.org) and b) doesn’t appear to have the study in it.
Basic math time!
+5 hours / year is the quoted figure.
5 hours / 260 work days per year (standard 5-day work week) = .0192 hours per work day.
0.192 hours per work day / 2 (commute to and from work) = .0096 hours per commute.
.0096 * 60 to convert to minutes, and then *60 again to seconds = 35 seconds (rounded up) tacked onto the commute. Less than what you waste sitting at a traffic signal which is poorly timed, of which there are plenty.
Who cares, again?
I suspect whatever Wikipedia article it is, the vandalism has been removed…
I have removed it. The vandalism occurred yesterday evening according to the history log.
(If you still wish to view the vandalism, you may do so by clicking on the “history” tab and selecting the revision from July 8th).
These numbers are from 2007 (per the article), so it’s not the economy causing this one.
MachineShedFred Says: . . .= 35 seconds (rounded up) tacked onto the commute. Less than what you waste sitting at a traffic signal which is poorly timed, of which there are plenty.
Who cares, again?
JK: There is a fallacy here somewhere, hidden by the averages. For people on a few routes it is really bad.
Thanks
JK