Skip to main content

2012 US Urban Mobility Report published

Researchers at the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) have come up with a way to measure the unreliability of trip times due to traffic congestion. The Planning Time Index (PTI) illustrates the amount of extra time needed to arrive on time for higher priority events, such as an airline departure, just-in-time shipments, medical appointments or especially important social commitments. If the PTI for a particular trip is 3.00, a traveller would allow sixty minutes for a trip that typically takes twenty
February 8, 2013 Read time: 4 mins
Researchers at the Texas A&M Transportation Institute (TTI) have come up with a way to measure the unreliability of trip times due to traffic congestion.

The Planning Time Index (PTI) illustrates the amount of extra time needed to arrive on time for higher priority events, such as an airline departure, just-in-time shipments, medical appointments or especially important social commitments. If the PTI for a particular trip is 3.00, a traveller would allow sixty minutes for a trip that typically takes twenty minutes when few cars are on the road. Allowing for a PTI of 3.00 would ensure on-time arrival 19 out of 20 times.

PTIs on freeways vary widely across the nation, from 1.31 (about nine extra minutes for a trip that takes 30 minutes in light traffic) in Pensacola, Florida, to 5.72 (almost three hours for that same half-hour trip) in Washington, DC, according to the 2012 Urban Mobility Report (UMR) by TTI, prepared in partnership with travel time information provider 163 Inrix.

“We all understand that trips take longer in rush hour, but for really important appointments, we have to allow increasingly more time to ensure an on-time arrival,” says  Bill Eisele, a TTI researcher and report co-author.  “As bad as traffic jams are, it’s even more frustrating that you can’t depend on traffic jams being consistent from day-to-day. This unreliable travel is costly for commuters and truck drivers moving goods.”
Rankings of the nation’s most congested cities vary slightly from year to year, and many of this year’s top 10 are repeat performers. Washington, D.C. tops the list, followed by Los Angeles, San Francisco-Oakland, New York-Newark and Boston. The second five include Houston, Atlanta, Chicago, Philadelphia and Seattle. The report provides a detailed illustration of traffic problems in a total of 498 US urban areas.

In addition to PTI, the 2012 UMR also debuts an estimate of the additional carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions attributed to traffic congestion: 56 billion pounds – about 380 pounds per auto commuter.

“Including CO2 emissions into the UMR provides another dimension to the urban congestion problem,” says researcher and co-author David Schrank.  “It points to the importance of implementing transportation improvements to reduce congestion.”  The analysis of CO2 was made possible by funding from the National Center for Freight and Infrastructure Research and Education (CFIRE).

Traffic congestion in US cities has remained relatively stable in recent years and continues to underscore the link between traffic and the economy, according to the UMR. As the nation’s job picture has slowly improved, some congestion measures in 2011 were generally comparable to the year before.

Fuel wasted in congested traffic reached a total of 2.9 billion gallons – enough to fill the New Orleans Superdome four times. That’s the same as 2010, but short of the 3.2 billion gallons wasted in 2005. The Travel Time Index (the difference in time required for a rush hour commute compared to the same trip in non-congested conditions) remained steady at 1.18, still short of the 1.23 level in 2005.

The total financial cost of congestion in 2011 was US$121 billion, up one billion dollars from the year before and translating to US$818 per US commuter. Of that total, about US$27 billion worth was wasted time and diesel fuel from trucks moving goods on the system.

The methods and measures developed by TTI and used in the Urban Mobility Report have been successfully implemented for policy making and prioritizing congestion-mitigating projects,” says report co-author and researcher Tim Lomax. “In light of the recent signing of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act, there is greater importance on using such measures to prioritise transportation improvement spending to get the highest investment return for the public.”

Researchers say that the most effective way to address traffic congestion varies from one urban area to another, but that in all cases a multi-faceted approach should be used, relying on more efficient traffic management and public transportation in addition to new construction. Travel options such as flexible work hours and telecommuting should also be part of the mix.

Related Content

  • April 5, 2013
    Belfast and Bristol ‘most congested cities in UK’
    According to the 2012 Congestion Index from satellite navigation specialists TomTom, motorists in Bristol and Belfast now face the slowest moving traffic in Britain. Even London’s infamous rush hour is less congested than peak-time jams in cities like Manchester and Nottingham, the annual global traffic figures found. The index shows that the average journey for drivers in Belfast takes 32.1 per cent longer than it would do if traffic moved freely, while in Bristol, journeys take 31 per cent longer. Londo
  • September 28, 2017
    Inrix identifies the worst traffic hotspots in the 25 most congested US cities
    Inrix has published its latest research on the worst traffic hotspots in America. Using Inrix Roadway Analytics, a cloud-based traffic analysis tool, Inrix analysed and ranked more than 100,000 traffic hotspots in the 25 most congested US cities. The economic cost of hotspots was also calculated in terms of wasted time, lost fuel and carbon emissions over the next decade. The research identified and ranked 108,000 traffic hotspots in the 25 most congested cities in the US identified by the INRIX Global T
  • June 14, 2018
    Road pricing is inevitable – because the ‘user pays’ principle is fair
    We pay for roads through our taxes: the poor pay proportionately more, and effectively subsidise the rich. It would be fairer to accept the ‘user pays’ principle, says Dr John Walker. Road pricing is already used worldwide to combat congestion and pollution, to compensate for falling revenues from fuel duty (‘gas tax’), to provide an alternative (and fairer) means of charging motorists than the 80-year old fuel tax and to improve the efficiency of and expand transport infrastructure. However, it could and s
  • February 1, 2012
    Positive incentives an alternative to road user charging?
    The Netherlands has been looking at incentivising rush-hour avoidance. The intention is to better understand road users' motivations and find alternatives to congestion charging. Something significant needs to happen if we are to adequately address the traffic congestion and other issues caused by the ever-rising numbers of vehicles on our roads. Congestion or distance-based charging is seen as one way of managing demand and raising revenue for improvements to transport infrastructure. However, charging is