Arguably the U.S. city most closely associated with traffic congestion, Los Angeles ranks just sixth on a new list of the nation’s most traffic-clogged urban areas.
LA regularly claimed the No. 1 spot in previous iterations of the annual ranking, released by Inrix, but last year the transportation data tracker changed its method of calculating congestion on a citywide level. As a result, cities with denser downtown cores now top the list (Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia claimed the first three spots this year).
That doesn’t mean that gridlock in Los Angeles isn’t an issue: By Inrix’s calculations, the typical driver logged 103 hours in traffic during 2019. The metro area is also home to three of the 10 most-congested stretches of road in the United States, including the top two.
Per the report, the stretch of the 5 freeway between the 10 and 605 interchanges (located in Boyle Heights and Downey, respectively) is the most congested road in the country—with a typical rush hour delay of 20 minutes.
Coming in second, with an average delay of 19 minutes, is the segment of the 101 freeway running between the 134 in North Hollywood and the 110 in Downtown LA. The Sepulveda Pass stretch of the 405, connecting the Westside to the Valley, placed ninth on the list, with a daily delay of 14 minutes.
The 405 freeway has become a symbol of the inability of local leaders to address congestion through the addition of new traffic lanes. A new northbound carpool lane opened in 2014, after years of planning and construction. Five years later, drivers traveling through the Sepulveda Pass move even more slowly than they did before the project started.
Now, Metro is considering installing Express Lanes on the freeway similar to those already in place on the 110 and 10 freeways. These toll lanes, which charge drivers a per-mile fee based on the level of traffic at that time, are a limited form of congestion pricing—something transportation officials are considering implementing on a wider basis throughout the Los Angeles area.
Such a program could prove unpopular with drivers, who might have to pay to use certain roads at particularly busy times of day, but the Inrix report notes that cities like Singapore have managed to reduce gridlock with pricing systems while maintaining a dense urban core.
The report also rates Los Angeles’s public transportation and biking infrastructure as poor, compared to cities like Boston and New York, where rush hour traffic can be more impenetrable, but residents are also less reliant on cars.
The good news for commuters is that Los Angeles’s rapid transit network is expanding. Among other major projects, the transportation agency aims to build a rail line within the next eight years that would sweep riders through the Sepulveda Pass in as little as 15 minutes. The B (formerly Red) Line subway already parallels the most congested segment of the 101 freeway.
These options give residents a decent alternative to driving, but they may not cut down on traffic.
“It basically allows people to avoid exposure to congestion,” UCLA associate professor of urban planning Michael Manville said in a January interview. “But if you want to actually improve congestion on the 405, the unfortunate truth is that you have to toll the 405.”
Comments
Wow. I thought LA would be #1 forever. It goes to show us that things in other cities are just as or even worst than what we’re experiencing in Southern California.
By subaruwrx on 03.09.20 4:14pm
We are in the midst of a generational shift – young people are moving from the suburbs back into city centers. These cities mentioned are older cities with smaller denser roads and are experiencing this migration shift a little later then Los Angeles (LA has better weather and draws from the entire country, these cities tend to draw from the surrounding suburbs ). Every city will eventually become congested if well paying service jobs are available (especially in tech related industries). At least LA was built to the scale of a person driving a car – Philly and Boston were built to the scale of a person walking.
By Mr Balls on 03.09.20 5:45pm
I have to say that this article is hilarious. The title seems to communicate progress but the body says things remain the same. The only positive scenario is that LA taxes residents even more to go to work or take their children to school. Can’t wait.
By Mitche444 on 03.09.20 5:45pm
Yep we’re congested and we always will be. next story
By LAoneWay on 03.09.20 6:31pm
The TomTom Traffic index still puts LA as #1 in the US; #31 worldwide. Take a look at the list on this link:
I haven’t yet figured out why Inrix and TomTom have two different ranking lists. The TomTom ranking seems more intuitively correct to me.
By T Folks on 03.10.20 9:27am
The link didn’t post above, but here’s the url: https://www.tomtom.com/en_gb/traffic-index/ranking/
By T Folks on 03.10.20 9:32am
"Coming in second, with an average delay of 19 minutes, is the segment of the 101 freeway running between the 134 in North Hollywood and the 110 in Downtown LA."
This is the stretch of freeway that Alissa Walker suggested should be closed to cars.
By LADude on 03.10.20 12:07pm
Well that will fix the traffic problem!
By Greyvagabond on 03.11.20 11:48pm
"A new northbound carpool lane opened in 2014, after years of planning and construction. Five years later, drivers traveling through the Sepulveda Pass move even more slowly than they did before the project started."
A nice statement for useful idiots. How much did the population of the SFV, Santa Clarita and Conejo valley’s increase during that time and how many more commuters are there? They never said that the 405 widening was going to reduce traffic, they said it would slow the rate of traffic getting worse. The relevant question is how much worse would traffic be today if they didn’t add the lane? Oh, that’s right, if they didn’t add the lane everyone would ride their bikes over the Sepulveda pass.
By LADude on 03.10.20 12:13pm
Cost benefit of building new freeways in LA just doesn’t make any sense. Traffic might be marginally worse had they not widened the 405, but that money could’ve been spent on other transit projects… ones that actually generate significant investment and pollute the air less.
By corner soul on 03.10.20 2:07pm
"Traffic might be marginally worse" What data are you looking at to make that statement?
By LADude on 03.12.20 2:44pm
Companies in Silicon Beach could’ve thought about moving to the other side of the Sepulveda Pass.
Santa Clarita to Silicon Beach commute should’ve been unbearable, but the new 405 lanes help bosses to stay in Santa Monica.
By Ivan III on 03.10.20 7:41pm
Tech employees don’t want to be in the Valley. That is for the Porn Companies.
By LA Denizen on 03.12.20 4:11pm
Being able to flow more traffic means more people are living in the valley and commuting. That’s a bad thing as far as global warming is concerned. The freeway widen should have only been for a bus-only lane.
By Greyvagabond on 03.11.20 11:50pm
"Being able to flow more traffic means more people are living in the valley and commuting." Do you guys even think about what you are saying? Not a single person said to themselves, "You know what, they added a lane to the 405 so rather than living in West LA I’ll live in the SFV." People who live in the valley and work in the city do so because they can’t afford to live in the city.
By LADude on 03.12.20 2:42pm