Traffic Congestion Dropped by 73% in 2020 Due To the Pandemic (arstechnica.com) 79
In 2020, the average US driver spent 26 hours stuck in traffic. While that's still more than a day, it's a steep decline from pre-pandemic times; in 2019 the average American sacrificed 99 hours to traffic jams. Around the world, it's a similar story. From a report: German drivers averaged an identical 26 hours of traffic in 2020, down from 46 the year before. In the UK, 2019 sounded positively awful, with 115 hours in traffic jams. At least one thing improved for that island nation in 2020: its drivers only spent 37 hours stationary in their cars. This data was all collected by traffic analytics company Inrix for its 2020 Global Traffic Scorecard that tracks mobility across more than 1,000 different cities around the world based on travel times, miles traveled, trip characteristics, and the effect of crashes on congestion in each city.
And unless you've spent the past 12 months in a cave -- in which case, gee, do I have some crappy news for you -- you'll instinctively know that there were big declines in traffic in 2020, and in particular a drop in people traveling to downtowns and central business districts. Still, traffic didn't actually disappear completely, and averages hide a lot in a country as large as the United States. The worst traffic of 2020 was experienced in New York City, up from 4th worst in 2019, where drivers lost 100 hours to traffic jams. But New Yorkers still spent 28 percent less time stuck in traffic, traveled 28 percent fewer miles, and experienced 38 percent fewer crashes than in 2019. The biggest decline in traffic was seen in Washington, DC. In the nation's capital, drivers spent 29 hours in traffic, a whopping 77 percent decrease over pre-pandemic times. However, the city only saw a 26 percent reduction in crashes and a 25 percent decrease in vehicle miles traveled.
And unless you've spent the past 12 months in a cave -- in which case, gee, do I have some crappy news for you -- you'll instinctively know that there were big declines in traffic in 2020, and in particular a drop in people traveling to downtowns and central business districts. Still, traffic didn't actually disappear completely, and averages hide a lot in a country as large as the United States. The worst traffic of 2020 was experienced in New York City, up from 4th worst in 2019, where drivers lost 100 hours to traffic jams. But New Yorkers still spent 28 percent less time stuck in traffic, traveled 28 percent fewer miles, and experienced 38 percent fewer crashes than in 2019. The biggest decline in traffic was seen in Washington, DC. In the nation's capital, drivers spent 29 hours in traffic, a whopping 77 percent decrease over pre-pandemic times. However, the city only saw a 26 percent reduction in crashes and a 25 percent decrease in vehicle miles traveled.
also (Score:5, Funny)
Parking is a lot easier now too. Can't imagine the reason for that, I guess I'll wait for some genius journalist to explain it to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:also (Score:5, Informative)
Here's a secondary fact that is also not so surprising: US saw sharp increase in crash deaths in 2020 despite fewer drivers on roads [theguardian.com]. Report finds fatality rate spiked due to reckless behaviors, including speeding and increased use of alcohol and drugs.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
How do we know these crashes weren't caused by COVID-19 ?
Re: (Score:1)
Re:also (Score:5, Interesting)
This comment is intended to be stupid, but it might actually hold a grain of truth. My girlfriend's friend has been going back to work after COVID, even though he's still so weak that he passed out at work. He had to start taking Ubers to work because he drove one day and realized that he didn't remember ANY of it.
COVID brain fog is real, and one has to wonder how many people are making bad decisions to drive while too impaired by illness to do it safely.
Re: (Score:1)
Someone tell the "low-traffic street" fools who think fewer cars means safe streets,job done.
"Low-traffic street" mean cars driving faster and no room given back to people.
Car Free streets is the only solution. Low-traffic streets are not a half-way step to this solution.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So traffic is not only a sign of prosperity but it also reduces fatal crashes. And the only people who complain about traffic are the ones who cause it.
Let's make more!
Re: (Score:1)
It's not all bad, handicapped drivers still do all their shopping when its raining. The journalist is just being a partisan hack.
Seventy three percent? (Score:1)
That's all?
Re: (Score:1)
Just wait... (Score:5, Insightful)
Good luck getting all those people who are now used to working from home to go back to a long commute. I know that I don't miss being on the road for a couple of hours a day dealing with stop and go traffic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
In a lot of places that's as close as people can afford to live to downtowns.
Re: (Score:3)
This.
I used to live in a townhouse in the northern VA suburbs of Wash. D.C., approximately 15 miles from work. I bought that place in '96 for ~$185k. A couple years later, I spoke with my realtor, and told him I wanted to live within 5 miles of my office (directly toward DC), and that I could afford to put up another $70k. For $255k, we couldn't do it without significantly downgrading my living conditions. That 15 mile commute was, on average, one hour, and "rush hour went from 5:30am to 9:30, when it w
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody likes me, and I am compelled to try to take it out on people, but I'm too much of a coward not to post as AC.
FTFY.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I sort of miss the "me time" during which I can listen to various podcasts (don't worry about attention to the road, Autopilot does that for me -- j/k).
Re: (Score:2)
Good luck getting all those people who are now used to working from home to go back to a long commute.
Less driving, but I miss having a paycheck.
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck getting all those people who are now used to working from home to go back to a long commute.
That's where I'm at, and I even had a very reasonable commute of like 35-40 minutes.
Every business which demands asses in seats is going to really struggle to compete against all the rest who now realize that that's not necessary for a large percentage of employees.
I'm curious to see where my business ends up for a teleworking policy. We've been busier than ever trying to respond to all of the curve-balls of the last year, and as far as I'm aware everyone working from home went above and beyond to keep us f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've already been told that we'll only be required to be in the office one otr two days a week.
I agree. I'm much more productive at home. Also, it's easier for me to just keep on going when I'm in a groove at home, where at the office, I'd be interrupted, or leaving to catch the train, and maybe picking it back up.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm in the same position, and the last year has also given me some space to realize that I don't want to live in this city or this province anymore. I'd like to relocate somewhere smaller with a more natural environment. It's not original, but getting out of the city would be a big win for us, and it would be nice to get closer to my family and friends across the country.
Work-life balance can mean a completely different thing in a work-from-home world. Being able to pick your city for personal, financial an
Re: (Score:2)
I would imagine this newfound freedom will be a welcome change to some organisations too: less necessary investment in real estate, and they get to sell their work-at-home flexibility instead of increasing salaries.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think we can rely on market forces for this one. Employers are in a very strong position.
An office tax would be appropriate. Any business over a certain size would be taxed on the number of people in the office. The more people WFH the less they pay. Would need some exceptions for jobs that can't be remoted. Call it an environmental tax.
Re: (Score:2)
An office head tax was already done in Chicago, for many years, as a way to try to get some money for the infrastructure all the commuting suburbanites use. (as well as a way to raise general revenue, of course) Businesses hated it.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess they hated it because they felt they had no choice, but now they can reasonably let many of their employees work from home.
Considering current L.A. traffic... (Score:1)
This is out of date. Traffic is pretty much back to normal... but might crash with the California economy struggling under the weight of an 85c per gallon increase in the price of gas since January.
Re: (Score:3)
Europeans pay the equivalent of between $4/US.gal to $7/US.gal (converted from Euros/L, Turkey and The Netherlands) yet still go to work. Gas tax tends to impact shipping cost and harm the household budgets of the working poor, but it doesn't keep people from going to work or going shopping. If you live in L.A. the cost for gas for a trip to Anaheim pales in comparison to the cost for admission to Disneyland. You probably spend more on lunch in the park than you will on gas.
P.S. I spend approximately $9/day
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
My Californian gas tax is higher than many parts of the US, but when a nearby highway washed away it was closed for several months before any work began on it. Locals were told to just find an alternate route several miles out of the way.
Probably the biggest slap in the face in my local politics is that Cal-Trans has built new express toll lanes instead of additional car pool lanes are initially promised. They so far did not improve traffic congestion in a few spots in the South Bay have made it more compli
Re: (Score:1)
Oh... so you're all right then?
Pity about the gig economy and minimum wage people who have to drive to work to live then...
Dost thou get my point yet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe more people will buy 50 mpg cars
Diesels.
Re: (Score:2)
It's getting back to normal in Seattle as well. But following the reduction in traffic earlier this year, the DOT switched the on-ramp metering to weekend mode (off, in other words). And they seem to have forgotten to turn it back on. So now freeway traffic flows quite nicely and there are fewer collisions with slow traffic trying to merge.
While the transit promoters don't catch on, they will probably leave the traffic calming measures shut off. Until they need more funding for light rail. Then they'll tur
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in Chicago, I drove downtown a couple of times in the last week. Traffic was heavier than it had been previously in the pandemic, but it was still a 20% to 33% shorter commute time than before the pandemic, except for one night when some traffic incident caused lanes to be closed on the freeway.
No kidding (Score:2)
The few times I’ve actually needed to drive in to Seattle during the past year have been almost enjoyable.
Re: (Score:2)
Enjoyable driving in Seattle? Maybe I'll take a quick, unnecessary drive downtown just to experience that sort of Twilight Zone moment.
Hahaha, no... I'm not THAT stir-crazy yet.
Re: (Score:1)
I live in Ruskington - look it up in maps.
I saw 5 cars at the mini roundabout this afternoon.... Traffic!!
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, and this time around the drop in demand without a drop in supply meant the price of oil went negative for the first time in history.
In related news ... (Score:3)
Traffic deaths are up, a lot.
Now we know how to make the roads safer: just create more congestion.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we know how to make the roads safer: just create more congestion.
That's kind of the point of traffic calming. [wikipedia.org] People hate it because it causes congestion, but it reduces fatalities.
It's mostly idiots though (Score:3)
"Congestion" and "traffic" not same thing (Score:2)
They are measuring "jams", not traffic volume itself, per "73%".
I do notice accidents seem to be up. I don't know if it's because people have more room to speed, or Covid stress is making people go nuts. I've seen 2 accidents and many close calls, some involving myself, and this is under less driving by myself. My boss was killed by a thrill speeder going 100+ mph on a winding road. Even large trucks are taking more risk.
If this is a preview, a full-on Armageddon will be Mad-Max-ish.
But Traffic Deaths Are Up (Score:4, Informative)
I took a drive last weekend. Holy cow people are driving fast!
Re: (Score:2)
You don't even need to say "per mile." More people died in car accidents in 2020 than in 2019, unqualified.
Re: (Score:2)
So is this because more people are drinking, or maybe the virus has given people a YOLO attitude that might make them drive fast. Or perhaps people that would have flown have opted to take long drives instead, and are getting tired.
Yes, cities ARE actually this stupid (Score:1)
Re:Yes, cities ARE actually this stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yes, cities ARE actually this stupid (Score:4, Insightful)
Guaranteeing people cheap, abundant parking at the end of their journey is how you make traffic.
Re: (Score:3)
Guaranteeing people cheap, abundant parking at the end of their journey is how you make traffic.
Knowing I'll never find a parking space in the city is one of the many reasons I live in the suburbs.
Re: (Score:2)
To keep it that way, you must continue to deny the businesses in your suburb their property rights, because freedom! Right?
In other words, don't ever allow commercial property owners on your side of town to use some of their spare parking spaces to put up another store and create local jobs and commerce, because that would be a personal inconvenience to you. Who cares what the market wants?
And let the peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares what the market wants?
The market wants parking spaces.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? Where do you live where the market is allowed to choose the amount of parking?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
False. No city ever died due to lack of parking.
In fact, the most prosperous cities, like NYC, have the least amount of parking per capita.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is that possible when the businesses in your downtown core bring in far more tax revenue per acre than the suburban malls [strongtowns.org]?
No, as I said, the most prosperous cities have the least amount of parking per capita. Parking isn't profitable for businesses, and they also aren't profitable for cities.
Let me guess, people aren't allo
Re: (Score:2)
No, as I said, the most prosperous cities have the least amount of parking per capita.
Then people will flock there (nobody I know, though), and all will be good with the world. If you pack everyone in like ants obviously that that increases the potential for profitability.
From link: What’s more, the Walmart also requires people to drive to access it—which means they each have to own a car and money for gas and insurance—whereas the downtown store could be accessed on foot by the thousands of people whose homes are within half a mile of it for free.
Sure. Firstly, buying gas and insurance actually do contribute the economy, even if they are things you personally don't like. Secondly, by all means put a Home Depot downtown too. Lots of people wi
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why the government must force Wal-Mart to provide parking for their own customers? How very big-government authoritarian of you. Tell me, which is your favorite type of government? Socialism? Communism? You are most definitely not a free-market capitalist if you think the government should micromanage businesses to make them succeed. Of that I am 100% certain.
We're done here, Ivan.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure Walmart here provides much more than the government mandated minimum parking, and for good reason. Literally nobody here is fighting for less parking. Perhaps you come from an alternate universe.
Personally, I think you just hate cars and it informs your prejudices. Sadly, society here is kind of built on personal mobility. You have a huge uphill battle convincing people to strive for less.
Glad we could have a respectful discussion thoug
Re: (Score:2)
Retail wants parking, or they'd lose business. Residential wants parking, because the market for residential without adequate parking will be depressed. Offices want parking, to attract commuters and expand the pool of people from which
Re: (Score:3)
If that were true, then why does your city force retail businesses to provide parking? Why not let the market decide?
Re: (Score:2)
I hope it doesn't change back (Score:2)
Maybe if we go back halfway to what it was that would be ok, but not 2019 congestion.
Vehicle miles traveled decreased much less (Score:4, Interesting)
Traffic congestion may have decreased a lot (from 99 to 26 hours or 74%), but the decrease in vehicle miles traveled [nsc.org] in the US was far less, from 3.26 to 2.83 trillion miles or 13%.
This discrepancy is interesting because it suggests that the tipping point leading to a lot of traffic congestion is a relatively small change in miles traveled. This outsized effect may be due to exactly where the miles are changed. That is, the congestion decreased a lot with a small change in miles traveled because the miles that were avoided happened to be correlated with where the congestion was located.
Re: (Score:2)
Considering driving is a alternative to sitting in a tin can for 4 hours the road trip made a great comeback in middle part of America. The national parks were just as packed as
Exact Opposite in Sydney (Score:2)
Assumptions (Score:2)
I see several assumptions made in comments (surprise, right?) about the cause of traffic fatalities. Looking at the data, some of you might want to recant your positions...unless you're trolling. Note that while there was a large increase, the rate is still lower than it was back in 2007 and for several years prior to that. This was followed by a long drop (Global Recession anyone?) until 2015 when it rose again for a couple years before starting to decline slightly each year until now.
https://landline.m [landline.media]