Sacramento traffic 15th worst in U.S.: The region's motorists average 34 hours a year in congestion delays.
By Matthew Barrows
Bee Staff Writer
(Published May 8, 2001)
A new report confirms what thousands of Sacramento commuters already know:
Traffic is among the nastiest in the nation and growing worse every year.
In its annual report released Monday, the
Texas Transportation Institute, part of Texas A&M University, ranks
Sacramento as the 15th-most congested region in the country with the average
Sacramentan in 1999 spending 34 hours a year in bumper-to-bumper traffic.
Seven years earlier, that figure was 27
hours. In 1982, the same driver spent nine hours a year in slowed traffic.
The report examined 68 urban areas
throughout the country, and the most congested cities were clumped in
California.
Los Angeles, where residents average 56
hours a year in delayed traffic, was No. 1 on the institute's list, the Bay
Area No. 2 and San Diego fifth. The national average was 36 hours a year.
Sacramento tied with Detroit,
Minneapolis-St. Paul, San Jose and the San Bernardino-Riverside area for
fifteenth place.
Though the study was based on state and
federal highway data from 1999, all indications are that Sacramento-area
traffic has increased since then and will continue to do so.
According to traffic engineers, true
congestion occurs when drivers must slow to speeds of 35 mph or less for 15
minutes or longer. Along Highway 50 and Interstate 80, the zones of congestion
have been expanding for six years as new homes and businesses boom.
In the next decade, population along the
I-80 corridor is expected to grow nearly 30 percent, with most in places such
as North Natomas, Rocklin, Roseville and Lincoln.
Nationwide, the institute estimated the
delays cost $78 billion a year in wasted time and burned gasoline. The data in
the report were compiled by 11 state highway departments, including the
California Department of Transportation.
Study co-author Tim Lomax, a research
engineer, said new highways, buses and trains are not keeping pace with new
housing and businesses.
"It's a whole lot easier to start a
manufacturing company or a software firm or build new housing than it is to put
in a new highway or new street or even a new bus route or ride- sharing
program," Lomax said. "Virtually all of the things we're trying to do
to improve the mobility are not growing as fast as the cause of the
problem."
The situation is magnified in many parts of
California because of air pollution problems that stem from vehicle exhaust.
Smog in Sacramento, for example, prevents
Caltrans from building highways to relieve the pressure on I-80, Highway 50,
Interstate 5 and Highway 99.
But Caltrans spokesman Dennis Trujillo said
the department is tackling the problem in other ways and would spend $200
million on congestion relief in the Sacramento area over the next six years.
Projects include:
New
car-pool lanes along Highway 50.
Improvements
at major intersections.
Extending
light rail to Folsom and south Sacramento.
Adding
more clean-air buses to local fleets.
A companion study by the Surface
Transportation Policy Project, a coalition of public-interest and professional
organizations, said giving commuters more alternatives is a key to Sacramento's
transportation future.
The group's Trinh Nguyen said Monday that
57,000 Sacramentans bike, walk, ride light rail or buses or use other
alternatives as their primary means of transportation.
"Imagine how many more cars would be on
the road if all those people drove to work every day," she said.
Taking the Texas Transportation Institute
figures, Nguyen's group re-ranked the cities to account for the alternatives
they offer to driving. Although highway-dominated Los Angeles remained No. 1.,
San Francisco improved from No. 2 to No. 29.
"Sacramento can learn lessons from
those two cities," she said. "We have to get smart and think of as
many (transportation) options as we can."
The Bee's Matthew Barrows can be reached at (916) 321-1008 or mbarrows@sacbee.com.
The Associated Press
contributed to this report.