TTI: Mass Transit Saved Drivers 45.4 Million Hours Last Year

Last year, the D.C. region ran away with the dubious honor of Most Congested Metro Area. D.C. area drivers wasted 74 hours and 37 gallons of fuel sitting in traffic last year, which would have cost about $100 over the course of the year. But the gasoline cost is just the tip of the iceberg.

According to the 2011 Urban Mobility Report, released today by the Texas Transportation Institute, this delay cost the average D.C. driver $1,495 once you factor in lost productivity and increased trucking times. In Chicago, it’s $1,568. L.A., $1,334.

Every year, TTI puts out their Urban Mobility Report, and every year we criticize it for its autocentrism. After all, its sole measure is how fast a vehicle can speed down a given mile of roadway. Maybe your city is dense and friendly to pedestrians and bikes, so that it’s easy to glide past the automobile gridlock on your short commute to work. Or maybe transit provides an excellent and affordable alternative to traffic jams. None of that matters to TTI. If someone, somewhere, is sitting in traffic, that’s all that matters. All other measures and modes of urban mobility are ignored.

TTI doesn’t bother to figure out how much time is saved if one avoids that congestion by taking transit, but they do examine how much time transit riders save drivers by taking vehicles off the road.

How public transportation reduces delays for drivers, 2010. Source: 2011 Urban Mobility Report, via APTA.

If there were no transit, the country’s drivers would be facing an additional 796 million hours of traffic delay. (Take that, drivers who grumble when their gas tax “user fee” funds mass transit!)

“Operational treatments” like ramp metering, traffic light timing, and removing crashed vehicles from the road have become much more effective in the last 20 years but still don’t come close to the savings provided by transit, saving about 40 percent as much as transit in terms of hours of delays, fuel, and costs.

Still, in TTI’s examination of congestion relief strategies, public transportation is barely alluded to and never mentioned outright, while operational treatments get significant attention. There is a shout-out to smart growth, or “denser developments with a mix of jobs, shops and homes, so that more people can walk, bike or take transit to more, and closer, destinations.” They also suggest telework and, of course, adding capacity.

TTI warns that congestion is only as bad as it is because the economy is still sluggish. We can expect a rapid worsening of the situation when the economy rebounds – 3 more hours of delay by 2015 and 7 hours by 2020, per commuter, with costs rising from $101 billion to $133 billion, more than $900 for every commuter, and enough wasted fuel to fill more than 275,000 gasoline tanker trucks.

I guess it’s time to really get to work on expanding and improving transit service then; right, TTI?

4 thoughts on TTI: Mass Transit Saved Drivers 45.4 Million Hours Last Year

  1. If there were no transit, the country’s drivers would be facing an additional 796 million hours of traffic delay.

    No, they wouldn’t, and this probably flies in the face of everything we know about traffic planning. Many drivers would simply stop bothering, vote with their feet, get a new job, or find some other way to adjust. One thing is clear: driving is no more a substitute for a good transit system than a good transit system is a substitute for driving.  They should stop being treated as substitutes.  They’re not substitutes, and they’re rarely even complements.

    Just think of the absurdity for a moment. Transit should be looked at as facilitating x hours of productivity, not facilitating x hours of drivers’ productivity. I don’t think you guys should believe TTI when they make claims like this, because the presumption that every transit user would flood the roads is plain false.

    (Take that, drivers who grumble when their gas tax “user fee” funds mass transit!)

    I probably shouldn’t say this, but those grumblers should fall on a spike. Just because some of their “user fee” goes towards mass transit doesn’t mean much income from mass transit users isn’t diverted to roadways.  The only difference is it happens through a general appropriations process, rather than as a fee on top of every transit ride sold, which only makes it more offensive.

  2. I tend to be suspicious of statistics like that in the headline, taking “hours saved” out to the first decimal place.  It reminds me of the various transit-related ballot propositions in California that receiving passing votes, despite dire predictions of failure.  My rather cynical comment has been.  “Of course they passed.  All the drivers out there were thinking,
    “Good! It will get all those other bozos off the road and onto trains so I will have smooth sailing on the freeway!” 

  3. This whole article seems to be written without knowledge the Fundamental Law of Road Congestion. For a recent summary of what we know about congestion, go here:

    The upshot: transit doesn’t cure congestion and it never will. There are many other good reasons to fund and improve transit systems, but reducing congestion isn’t one of them. I would urge the author of this post to read up on some of this research. Transit is a good alternative to congestion, but there is not a single case where a transit improvement has reduced congestion over the long term. Arguably, promoting the false claim that transit cures congestion leads to poor investments, as we focus on congested routes and amenities that will lure wealthier people out of their cars, as opposed to routes with high demand and a large number of carless, transit dependent (read: poor) people. These are not always different – in the case of routes serving downtown they are often the same. But they can be different. Streetsblog DC needs to do more to clarify these issues.

Leave a Reply

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


Urban Traffic Report Sparks Clever Headlines, But Little Transit Talk

(Photo: TTI Urban Mobility Report) The latest edition of the Texas Transportation Institute’s influential urban mobility report was released today, prompting a flurry of mainstream media coverage focused largely on a faux-ironic theme that would do Alanis Morrissette proud — the bad economy is giving us less traffic! The TTI found a one-hour drop in […]

TTI Urban Mobility Report Bungles Congestion Analysis Yet Again

At the risk of repeating ourselves: The Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) got it wrong again. Their 2012 Urban Mobility Report (using 2011 data) just came out [PDF]. Like every year, they tout their “improved methodology,” but the authors still haven’t made the changes that would make their congestion rankings meaningful in the real world. Not only that, […]

St. Louis: Plenty of Highways, Little Congestion, Long Commutes

Last week we wrote about the flawed measurement system employed by the Texas Transportation Institute in its annual Urban Mobility Rankings, which emphasize the free motion of cars over total time spent commuting. TTI’s rankings highlighted the relative mobility of cities like St. Louis, Buffalo and Detroit, while decrying the congestion of Chicago and Washington, […]

The Maddening Wrongness of TTI’s Annual Urban Mobility Rankings

The Texas Transportation Institute yesterday released its urban mobility report, its annual ranking of the nation’s cities based on their relative highway congestion. Topping this year’s list were Chicago and D.C. Let’s imagine for a second all the ways we might measure a concept as broad as urban mobility. Maybe calculate the average speed of […]

Another Tall Tale About Congestion From the Texas Transportation Institute

Crossposted from City Observatory. Everything is bigger in Texas — which must be why, for the past 30 years, the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) has basically cornered the market for telling whoppers about the supposed toll that traffic congestion takes on the nation’s economy. Today, they’re back with a new report, “The Urban Mobility Scorecard,” which purports to […]