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

[Sun Belt]

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

U.S. cities dominate the world's top 10 most-traffic-congested urban areas, with Los Angeles leading in mind-numbing and costly gridlock, according to a new report issued Tuesday.

La La Land, with its jam-packed freeways and driving culture despite billions being poured into rail transit, emerged from the 1,360 other cities in 38 countries to claim the worst-congestion title for the sixth consecutive year in the 2017 traffic scorecard by INRIX, a leader in transportation analytics and connected car services.

Drivers in and around the City of the Angels spent 102 hours battling 2017 traffic congestion during peak hours, INRIX's 11th annual report said.

Despite having the worst traffic congestion overall, Los Angeles had lower peak period tie-ups than San Francisco, Seattle, Boston and Portland, the INRIX study showed. Nighttime travel is also a bright spot, with Los Angeles city streets ranking better than 35 other cities.

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

Despite a growing population and a booming economy, the number of trips taken on Los Angeles County's bus and rail network last year fell to the lowest level in more than a decade. Passengers on Metropolitan Transportation Authority buses and trains took 397.5 million trips in 2017, a decline of 15% over five years. Metro's workhorse bus system, which carries about three-quarters of the system's passengers, has seen a drop of nearly 21%.

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

[Docere]

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."

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Docere

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.

[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.

[sopas ej]

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.

[Yuri]

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".

[pip]

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.

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

[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.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by giallo

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.

As recently as a little over a year ago I would agree but so much has changed in the last year coupled with the opening of the InterContinental Hotel, NoMad, Hotel Indigo and Freehand in the last year to join many other amazing hotels already Downtown I cannot imagine a better place to stay.

[Vlajos]

Originally Posted by Sun Belt

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

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.

[ChrisLA]

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.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

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.

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.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

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.

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.

[homebucket]

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

[WonderlandPark2]

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.

[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.

[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.

[Labtec]

Originally Posted by ChrisLA

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.

I live in Atlanta and have been to LA a lot of times (even lived there briefly for 6 months). The traffic in LA is worse.

[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).