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

[L41A]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

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 do the same in Atlanta. I rarely take the freeways during rush hour in Atlanta. You are more dependent on the freeways in Atlanta the further you get outside the Perimeter. I do understand however that Atlanta's hilly, winding and less-gridded streets can be confusing especially outside of Downtown and Midtown, intown neighborhoods and for out of towners, newcomers, etc.

[giallo]

Jakarta and Beijing are absolutely terrible. The top two worst cities for traffic I've experienced. Now that I've spent some time in Seoul, I've got to say that it's pretty bad here as well. Constant congestion everywhere. Shanghai doesn't seem nearly as slow to get around in.

LA is still really bad though. Not as bad as JKT or BJ, but awful nonetheless.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

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.

Originally Posted by pip

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

You should still visit LA and stay Downtown, which is definitely the place to go and stay now if you're a visitor to the city. It is connected to Santa Monica, Hollywood, Pasadena Long Beach and many points in between by transit as well as Santa Barbara and San Diego by train.


All that said the City and LA Metro did let things get a bit out of control, which they seemed to have reversed now with a heavy police presence on the subway and light rail lines, which should be a permanent thing and not thought of as a temporary solution. It was/is a serious issue and I know it has had an impact on ridership; however many of those comments are over the top and probably bots from big oil or Russia or something. ;-) ;-)

Other reasons ridership has dropped IMO:
1.Charging $3.00 to park at many park and ride stations;
2.People who used to use transit getting priced out of the neighborhoods and moving to be replace by people who would never consider riding transit;
3.Gas prices. Gas prices used to be well over $4.00 a gallon and then the price basically was cut in half for at least the last 3 years. Now that prices are rising again I am sure ridership will start going up.


And it is absolutely crazy to think that LA has the worst traffic in the World. My biased opinion is that it isn't even the worst in the US.

[giallo]

Originally Posted by dktshb

You should still visit LA and stay Downtown, which is definitely the place to go and stay now if you're a visitor to the city. It is connected to Santa Monica, Hollywood, Pasadena Long Beach and many points in between by transit as well as Santa Barbara and San Diego by train.


All that said the City and LA Metro did let things get a bit out of control, which they seemed to have reversed now with a heavy police presence on the subway and light rail lines, which should be a permanent thing and not thought of as a temporary solution. It was/is a serious issue and I know it has had an impact on ridership; however many of those comments are over the top and probably bots from big oil or Russia or something. ;-) ;-)

Other reasons ridership has dropped IMO:
1.Charging $3.00 to park at many park and ride stations;
2.People who used to use transit getting priced out of the neighborhoods and moving to be replace by people who would never consider riding transit;
3.Gas prices. Gas prices used to be well over $4.00 a gallon and then the price basically was cut in half for at least the last 3 years. Now that prices are rising again I am sure ridership will start going up.


And it is absolutely crazy to think that LA has the worst traffic in the World. My biased opinion is that it isn't even the worst in the US.

I'd definitely recommend visiting LA. I love that place.

But staying downtown? I don't know. DTLA after 8pm is a bit of a shit show. I stayed by Pershing Square, and it gets pretty ugly around that time. There are just too many mentally unstable people walking around. I felt ok, but my wife wasn't feeling all that secure. She didn't really want to go out by herself once it got dark. I'm sure DTLA's bark is far worse than its bite, but it didn't come off as all that tourist-friendly. Not many couples walking around there at night.

That said, the amount of development in DTLA is staggering, and it'll definitely be a place to stay and hangout soon, I imagine. It just needs a bit more time.

[Quixote]

The traffic's not that bad, at least not to the extent that it's forcing people not to drive. But being a native, I guess I've been conditioned to not know any better. Those that move here from other places learn to deal with it as well.

As for the declining transit ridership, let's see if this trend holds up 15 years from now. I doubt it.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Shawn

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.

How do those cities even function? Spending 5 hours in traffic from DC to Hampton Roads literally drives me insane when the trip should be 3 hours.

[Sun Belt]

Declining mass transit numbers is timed with the arrival of an alternative to public transportation -- ride share cos. Uber and Lyft.

Consumers are making the choice to spend just a little more money to save a lot of time and to have a safe and spacious trip to wherever it is that they're going. Mass transit cannot compete when it comes down to this.

[Vlajos]

In Chicago, Uber and Lyft are not really competing with rush hour mass transit. It's weekend ridership and off hours that are taking the hit. Driving saves no time here during rush hour.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

In Chicago, Uber and Lyft are not really competing with rush hour mass transit. It's weekend ridership and off hours that are taking the hit. Driving saves no time here during rush hour.

I think this is true in most cities. Some are making the choice to spend extra even if it's once or twice a week to sit back and relax in a quiet car, than a packed rush hour bus. Before Uber and Lyft, nobody would consider taking a taxi anywhere. That could run you the cost of an airline ticket.

I think that is why rail hasn't seen a drop, while bus numbers have seen a large drop.

Has Chicago seen a drop in bus transit numbers in the past 5 years?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Vlajos

Driving saves no time here during rush hour.

Driving probably saves everyone time unless you're headed to the city center.

Transit generally only works timewise for rush-hour core commutes, and even then, might not be a timesave if commuter has reserved parking.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

Declining mass transit numbers is timed with the arrival of an alternative to public transportation -- ride share cos. Uber and Lyft.

Consumers are making the choice to spend just a little more money to save a lot of time and to have a safe and spacious trip to wherever it is that they're going. Mass transit cannot compete when it comes down to this.

I agree. Everyone I know uses uber and lyft down here. Six bucks and 5 minutes o get to Koreatown from downtown LA via uber or $1.50 and 25 min minimum via transit? It's a no brainer

[PFloyd]

Originally Posted by Crawford

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).

How does LA's traffic compare to your hometown of Mexico City?

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by PFloyd

How does LA's traffic compare to your hometown of Mexico City?

That isn't my hometown; I just lived there a couple of years.

Mexico City has like 1000x worse traffic than LA. It's horrific, and your commute will be hell if you're more than a few miles from work. There's really no comparison. Though Dhaka probably takes the cake (never been there but visitors often cite the epic jams, even worse than the SE Asian cities).

I honestly have never had an issue with traffic in LA. Yeah, it's heavy and rush hour sucks, but it mostly seems to move.

NY Times article on Dhaka traffic. I (almost) want to visit just to experience the hell for a bit:
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/23/t...h-traffic.html

[IrishIllini]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

I think this is true in most cities. Some are making the choice to spend extra even if it's once or twice a week to sit back and relax in a quiet car, than a packed rush hour bus. Before Uber and Lyft, nobody would consider taking a taxi anywhere. That could run you the cost of an airline ticket.

Uber and Lyft are interesting. Neither has turned a profit. Their business model thus far has been growth over profit. I don't see how they can turn a profit without charging what traditional cabs do or receiving public subsidies. I've taken pools with one other person that cost me $0.80. Even if you manage to remove the driver, there's no way $0.80 covers their operating costs.

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

I think that is why rail hasn't seen a drop, while bus numbers have seen a large drop.

Has Chicago seen a drop in bus transit numbers in the past 5 years?

Yes, bus ridership has declined. Some lines more so than others. Vlajos already said it, but ride sharing has chipped away at weekend and off-peak L ridership.

I'm personally not convinced that Uber or Lyft are going to revolutionize the way we view transit. They're still far less efficient than mass transit and they haven't figured out how to turn a profit. I don't know many people who will willingly pay $30-40 on their daily commute when you can take transit for 10%of that. I do think these companies will make it more challenging for cities like LA, which never quite got its multi-modal transit network to where it should be, to garner the political support for future improvements. I think in places like Chicago buses were falling out of fashion anyway. They combine the worst aspects of driving with the worst aspects of public transportation. I suspect L ridership overall will hold steady.

[pacarlson]

I believe it was back in 2015 (using 2014 data?), someone I believe on SSP linked to a source with worldwide traffic congestion, ranked by morning peak, afternoon peak, and a few other categories. I still have the spreadsheet. Morning peak showed Mexico City first. LA was 30th. For evening peak, Istanbul lead the way. LA was 12th.

[Northern Light]

Transit in L.A. has experienced declines, in part, because bus service was slashed a few years ago.

There was a disconnect from transit staff/pols who somehow failed to realize that the then, and still small rapid transit system was not the workhorse of LA transit; that title belonged to the bus.

Service on most routes in LA is to my eyes, stunningly infrequent.

Even the subway has waits of 20m between trains on the outer parts, at off-peak times.

By contrast, subways in Toronto are never worse than 7min apart, usually closer to 3-4m.

Even in rush hours LA subways never beat a 5min headway on the core portion of the line(s); where Toronto runs trains every 2m30.

That level of service isn't particularly attractive, particularly when combine w/buses that often have much larger waits.

[Minato Ku]

Los Angeles heavy public transit system is small and it's centered downtown.
The issue is that Los Angeles is spread out and very decentralized.

[Urban Zombie]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

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

In my experience, Jakarta is far, far more auto-centric than Bangkok; though very comparable congestion-wise, Bangkok is quite walkable and has decent rapid transit and is far easier to get around town. While Jakarta has no rapid transit other than buses (at the moment) and is a complete mess of freeway upon freeway upon freeway while literally lacking even sidewalks throughout much of the city.

There's a reason why most of the photos we of Jakarta over at SSC are taken from a moving vehicle on the freeway.

[Quixote]

Rail ridership has held pretty steady up to this point, hanging around the 360K mark. The Expo Line is proof that rail can work in LA if you bring it to the places where people need/want to go (i.e. the Westside). Expo trains only became jam-packed once the line was extended to Santa Monica. After the peak service was increased to 6-minute headways, ridership surged and met the projected 2030 ridership figure... 13 years ahead of schedule.

Lines running through wealthier, whiter neighborhoods are (go figure) responsible for offsetting declining ridership on the Blue/Green Lines. I actually find this really encouraging; it points to a positive trend.

[Minato Ku]

For 100 miles of lines, 360k is a pretty low number.