Top 10 Worst Traffic Cities; They Need Congestion-Pricing/Zero Emission Travel

By Michael Coates

Michael Coates is a senior editor at Clean Fleet Report and an internationally recognized expert in the field of automotive environmental issues. He has been an automotive editor and writer for more than three decades. His media experience includes Petersen Publishing (now part of Source Interlink), Green Car Journal, trade magazines, newspaper and television news reporting. He currently serves on the Board of the Western Automotive Journalists.

Jul 16, 2014 | Smart Cities | 0 comments

Editors note: This article first appeared on CleanFleetReport.com and is reprinted with permission.

Here’s Top 10 list you don’t want your city to be on, but it could have a silver lining if you’re looking at a zero emissions or near-zero emissions car. The researchers at Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) compiled their annual ranking of the worst cities in the U.S. in which to try to drive somewhere. This study year (2011) they also added another metric to those of extra time expended, added cost and wasted fuel – CO2 emissions added by congestion. Their list of the worst major cities in which to drive contains most of the usual suspects:

1. Washington D.C.
2. Los Angeles (tie)
3. San Francisco-Oakland (tie)
4. New York-Newark
5. Boston
6. Houston
7. Atlanta
8. Chicago
9. Philadelphia
10. Seattle

The “good” news, if you can call it that, is that this year’s congestion measurements found about the same level of traffic frustration as last year, although the improving economy is expected to put that in the rear view mirror when 2012′s numbers come out.   The other bad news is the statistical significance of the difference in time spent idling in these cities is relatively little. And quite a few cities are just bubbling under the Top 10, including Miami, Dallas, Detroit, Nashville, Denver, Las Vegas and Portland. In other words, it’s slow-going out there.

As TTI said in their press release announcing the report, “As traffic congestion continues to worsen, the time required for a given trip becomes more unpredictable.”   Some cities are likely to seize on this report as a rationale to attempt to mitigate congestion and the attendant human and financial cost by introducing special zones designed to limit congestion and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. London did so several years ago and several other cities have followed suit.

In London, since 2003, extra fees have been charged to drive into the downtown area, with exemptions for low or zero-emission vehicles. The charge has resulted in lighter traffic and reduced pollution while it has also raised revenue for the city.   These “Top 10″ cities are the most likely to attempt similar measures with similar goals, which could put owners of zero or near-zero emission vehicles at an advantage. Typically, they would escape any fees and/or be allowed to drive in zones that would otherwise limit traffic. It’s a logical extension of the perks extended to plug-in vehicles – some cities and states allow free parking, solo driver access to carpool lanes as well as financial incentives.

Discussion

Leave your comment below, or reply to others.

0 Comments

Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Read more from the Meeting of the Minds Blog

Spotlighting innovations in urban sustainability and connected technology

10 Objectives for Assessing Mobility as a Service (MaaS)

MaaS has a lot to offer to public transit and it’s time to take a closer look at those benefits. Contrary to a common misconception, integration of third-party transit services into the wider public mobility offering doesn’t hurt transit, it actually encourages wider use of public transit, maintaining and even actively increasing ridership. Alternative transit services can address first/last mile problems as well as serve routes that are typically very costly and require a high level of government subsidy (e.g. paratransit), not only increasing revenues for transit agencies but also helping to direct funding and investment back to core transit services.

For Walkers, The Last Six Inches are Important

It is no surprise to those of us in the walking advocacy world that making bus stops accessible and linked to neighborhood sidewalks can increase bus ridership and reduce the number of para-transit trips that are called for. This is a logical outcome of thinking about how people make real life choices about how to get around. What this research demonstrates is an amazing win-win-win for walking and transit advocates. It shows how we can shift trips from autos to transit; give more people more independence by making it possible for them to use regular bus service rather than setting up special, scheduled para-transit trips (some of which require appointments to be made at least 24 hours in advance and only for specified purposes); and save money for transit systems over the long run.