Here's a news flash: traffic is a huge waste of time for commuters mired in rush hour gridlock. A recent study by the Texas Travel Institute unearthed some startling statistics concerning traffic, and everybody, including state and local governments, is paying huge.
On average, drivers spend 38 hours per year in traffic, which translates into 2.9 billion gallons of wasted fuel. If you live in L.A., 72 hours per year are thrown out the window as a result of congestion. Due to the strain that 2.9 billion additional gallons of gasoline puts on the volatile refinery market and all the lost revenue caused by the delays, about $78 billion goes down the drain each year.
The study puts much of the blame on an infrastructure that hasn't grown much over 50 years, even as the amount of drivers on the road has exploded. Commuters are also putting more distance between themselves and their typical destination. It'd be a welcome sight for our government to spend as much energy increasing the bandwidth of our roads as it does imposing challenging fuel economy standards on automakers. The economy could use the extra jobs created by the needed construction work, and our environment could use a break from all the carbon coming from drivers with their foot on their brake.[Source: CNN Money]
New KITT Attack Mode revealed at Comic Con
London 2008: Honda OSM concept roadster says, "Cheerio!"
London 2008: Lotus unveils the Evora
2010 Chevy Camaro - Official Details and Images
2010 Chevy Camaro - LIVE from the reveal
First Drive: Maserati Quattroporte S in Europe
First Drive: 2008 MINI Cooper S JCW
In the Autoblog Garage:2009 Nissan GT-R
North American Exclusive First Drive: Alfa MiTo
First Drive: 2009 Kia Borrego
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
AlexP @ Sep 19th 2007 11:40AM
Maybe if they'd stop shutting those refineries down...
Ben H. @ Sep 19th 2007 11:44AM
Hamsters will be hamsters!
John Metcalf @ Sep 19th 2007 11:52AM
Umm, how about an investment in light rail and other forms of public transportation. My time commuting by train was not a waste as I was able to read and do other tasks while someone else did the "driving."
Looking at the extreme network of highways in L.A., adding lanes doesn't seem to reduce traffic much.
the a train @ Sep 19th 2007 1:36PM
Yeah but you're assuming that people aren't using their driving commute the same way.
A sampling of things I've seen drivers doing when I used to have a car:
-Reading the Bible on the steering wheel (he's gonna need it for that eventual accident anyway)
-Reading the newspaper (perfectly folded up like on a subway too)
-Playing a Gameboy
Mind you, all these things were splayed open on the steering wheel. One winner was driving with his arms through the steering wheel and holding the book up against the dash with his hands, while driving in light traffic.
Nowadays I live in NYC and walk to work. Exercise and no pollution.
Doogs @ Sep 19th 2007 5:55PM
The layout of most U.S. cities is not conducive to public transportation. Sorry. Suburbs, sprawl, and decentralized business districts mean too many people have too many routes for public transportation to cover in a way that effectively competes with personal vehicles.
Take Austin, TX. I live ten miles from downtown. With no traffic, I can get from home to work in fifteen minutes. With traffic, more like 35 minutes. If I wanted to do public transportation, I'd have to drive four of those miles to the nearest park and ride, and then take three different buses to get within walking distance of my office. Which, from my experience taking the UT shuttles, would take about two hours.
Sorry, time wasted is time wasted. And I'd rather waste 45 minutes out of my day in my own car than waste four hours a day with public transit.
Richard @ Sep 19th 2007 11:59AM
72 hours per year!
Man!
I used to commute around Boston and spent a minimum of 10 hours in the car each week.
Times 48 weeks of working each year, that's 480 hours. No wonder I'm divorced!
Though maybe more hours in traffic would have helped.
Shipey @ Sep 19th 2007 12:02PM
It's all relative... I'd rather waste 72 hours sitting in a Corvette than waste 72 hours driving a Corolla.
;)
AnonyMust @ Sep 19th 2007 12:05PM
Andthe point is? We also lost a week looking for keys and a year taking a crap. This is the stuff of life.
Javi0084 @ Sep 19th 2007 12:07PM
Maybe people should move closer to work. I'd rather live in a small house within walking distance to work than a big house an hour drive away, but I do have different priorities than some people.
J M C 3 @ Sep 19th 2007 12:13PM
Make sure the candy dish is full.
Steve @ Sep 19th 2007 12:30PM
It's simple, fiber to the home and woking from home would greatly reduce the white collar workforces need to commute.
There are alot of jobs that you can do just as easily from home with a connection and even a webcam to the office. The solution is to take people off the roads instead of trying to build more of them.
Of course expansion of mass transit would help. The reason people live farther from work is most don't want of can't afford to live near the citys they work in.
Doogs @ Sep 19th 2007 5:57PM
This. Telecommuting and staggering office hours could cut some serious congestion out of the roadways.
J @ Sep 19th 2007 12:37PM
guess that means I spend a week riding my motorcycle around. time well spent!
Puff N. Schtuff @ Sep 19th 2007 1:11PM
I think the point is that people bitch about paying an extra $50 a year in taxes to build more roads or implement public transportation yet have no problems throwing away 72 hours a year of their life.
If you could cut your commute time in half, how much would that be worth to you every year? If the cost to build better roads or public transportation is less then you come out ahead paying the tax. If not then it's not. To me, 36 hours is worth a couple grand so it seems like a no-brainer.
SPG @ Sep 19th 2007 2:54PM
Traffic sucks and traffic from construction is worse.
Yet instead of complaining I occupy myself.
Plus if I ever have a traffic melt-down I can always move to the country.
jesus @ Sep 19th 2007 3:04PM
Studies have always shown that adding infastructure creates more conjestion.
There simply needs to be alternative transportation, denser living, bike lanes, walking and decreased sprawl.
A growing population requires more land, which in tern gives less land for roads, and creates more congestion away from the source.
This is happening now, with almost every downtown exploding with new growth and transit options.
The congestion fuels alternatives that actually reduce the impact of the idling commuters.
There's a reason Downtown LA is the fastest growing population in the country.
Richard Warren @ Sep 19th 2007 3:14PM
Who cares? It is what it is. If we choose to live in a big city it's part of the territory.
dan the viking @ Sep 19th 2007 4:01PM
good point. i am gonna get myself a nicer car. btw, that pic of tyra is totally doctored or really old, because she doesn't nearly look like that right now.
Secret Squirrel @ Sep 19th 2007 4:23PM
Try a commute 1 Hour each way to go 15 miles to work 5 days a week, 50 weeks in a year. That's 500 hours or ~21 days in my car per year. This must be the evening out of the average. Who is taking this poll anyhow? I also don't have it the worst. I know others that commute twice and thrice the distance or time. And that's just for work that's 15-30 miles away. So i should walk to work? Let's see... Sell my home, lose equity, rent a small apartment, no equity, now I'm close to work in a smaller home, and the national average for jobs is to change every 2 years... but I'm walkin and "enjoying" my commute now! I didn't see a LOLZ in there but i think you're funny! ;)
Otto Ingineer @ Sep 19th 2007 4:50PM
Rather than make the pipeline bigger (wider roads, more of 'em)...Why not make the vehicle footprint smaller? (more people per vehicle, smaller vehicles/motorcycles, etc)
Smaller vehicles (or several people per) reduces the congestion - traffic flow more smoothly, road wear/tear is lessened...etc.
Even better are those suggestions to telecommute or walk/ride a bicycle.