Yep, Los Angeles has the world's worst traffic congestion — again
 

Yep, Los Angeles has the world's worst traffic congestion — again
Kevin McCoy, USA TODAY
2/6/18

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money...-l/1088205001/

And with that title, despite billions poured into local mass transit projects, public transportation ridership continues to slide, now down 15% in 5 years.


Los Angeles: Ridership on Metro fell to the lowest level in more than a decade last year
By LAURA J. NELSON
Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...124-story.html

It's commonly asserted that traffic congestion in Toronto is "actually worse than Los Angeles." Maybe that's a way of trying to stir up politicians to "do something."

I remember driving from Wisconsin back to Ontario and my friend warned me about Chicago's traffic. It was a breeze compared to Toronto.

After reading the article relating LA Metro ridership, I was shocked by the numerous comments. It is no wonder ridership is declining with all the comments about safety. The top priority for any transit system has to be public safety. LA has a lot of work to do.

How can a city of that size remain viable if public transit cannot be made attractive?

As a potential visitor to LA, this moves the city down my priority list.

I'd like to see the full list of cities; if Manila isn't up there, then it's bogus.

If LA has the worst traffic, and I live in LA, then that should mean that traffic should be a breeze in any other big city in the world that I go to---and I highly doubt that would be the case.

Manila has REALLY BAD TRAFFIC. WAY worse than LA. And whenever I have relatives visiting from the Philippines, they always ask "so is this supposed to be the bad LA traffic?" And then they start laughing.

Wow, that's some massive decline in ridership. I think most US cities are seeing transit ridership declines, but LA must be seeing the largest drop.

There are 10 million cars in São Paulo urban area (2,400 km² as opposed to 6,000 km² to Los Angeles-Inland Empire). I find hard to believe traffic is worse in Los Angeles.

US articles have this habit to use "world" instead of "US".

I don’t believe it, and I’ve heard from many former Angelenos who say Atlanta traffic is worst. I can also say from first hand experience, the NY Metro is much worse than LA.

LA probably has less traffic congestion than any developing world city on the planet.

I've never had major traffic issues in LA. Traffic is heavy and constant, but it moves, most of the time. I'd say it's one of the easiest megacities to get around (seriously).

Yep, once again, the author has clearly never been to Jakarta--which makes LA's worst seem like the Indy 500.

Oh.. you can't follow newspaper comments. Its generally a freak show.

Did LA follow the sun belt model of expanding light rail at the expense of the bus system?

The difference between NY and LA is that most NYers don't actually use a car to commute. In most of the LA region, most workers don't have the same access/options that exist in NY.

In my experience, although traffic is really bad in NY, for most, it's a once in a while experience, so it isn't perceived as negatively.

Using myself as an example, I have an apt in NYC and a house in Philly. I work in NYC. Maybe 2-3 weekends a month, I drive to work (in NYC) from Philadelphia on a Monday morning (if I need my car for some reason and don't take the train). Yes, the traffic on approach to the NY tunnels can be horrific (though very often not as bad as you'd expect), but because it's something I experience 3 days a month, then it doesn't really grate on me. I think for most people in that traffic on any given day, it is not an everyday occurence for them.

The other 4 days that week I will have been commuting from within NYC so I just take the subway.

In LA, I imagine most people sitting on the 405 or the 10 sit in the traffic every single day. So it is a defining characteristic of their routine and consumer of their time.

A quick glance at the article's methodology compares total number of hours spent in peak traffic. This was calculated by "combining anonymous, real-time global positioning system probe data from 300 million connected cars and devices with real-time traffic flow data and other criteria, such as construction and road closures."

This explains why you don't see the painfully obvious candidates (Manila, Jakarta, Bangkok, all of which have much worse traffic than any American or Canadian city): connected cars and devices will underrepresent the actual driving population. Not a whole lot of jeepneys driving around Manila with GPS.

Seriously, nothing in the US or Canada comes close to the SE Asian megacities when it comes to vehicle traffic. Not remotely close.

I have heard on good account that Bangkok is the worst of the worst, of the worst. Followed by Jakarta.

Bangkok was the worst I've ever seen. Ho Chi Minh looks like a nightmare as well.

anecdotally, i’ve been in far worse traffic in atlanta. in los angeles i just hit the street grid if theres bad congestion (or never leave the surface streets at all)...in/around atlanta you’re fucked.

I can vouch for Bangkok. It's pretty bad.

At least in Bangkok and Jakarta there's an actual restricted-access highway connecting the airport to downtown. In Manila, that highway has been under construction for the past, oh, two decades or so and is no where near completion.

MNL to Fort Bonifacio is a 6 km / just under 4 mile drive. It takes 2.5-3 hours by taxi. 5 hour flight from NRT to MNL, but I'm not in my hotel for at least 8 hours from leaving Narita.

LA? Huh? BS.

Its far worse in:

Delhi
Moscow
Manila
Bangkok
Yangon
Ho Chi Minh City

Been to all of the above and, yes, born and raised in LA

Yangon is pushing 9 million and as zero limited access hwys and no real mass transit. HCMC is an amazing mess, everyone on motorbikes. Now imagine if HCMC was mostly cars and much bigger...thats Manila. Delhi is....ungh. Moscow is the surprise contender, best rail in the world bar Tokyo, yet the core is just a nightmare.