Baltimore ranked 16th worst in congestion
Baltimore's traffic congestion continued its slow climb into the top ranks among America's most jammed-up metropolitan areas last year, ranking 16th, according to a national survey.
The annual INRIX National Traffic Scoreboard shows Baltimore, the 20th largest metro area in population, steadily worsening relative to other cities since 2006. That year it ranked 21st; by 2008 it was 17th.
According to INRIX, Baltimore was one of only three of the nation's largest cities to show an increase of more than 10 percent in congestion between 2008 and 2009. Washington and Las Vegas were the other two.
The same survey showed that none of the nation's 100 worst traffic bottlenecks are in Maryland -- a finding that could puzzle commuters on such frequently jammed highways as Interstate 95 near White Marsh or Interstate 270 in Montgomery County. Maryland's exclusion reflects the near-monopoly on the worst-bottleneck list held by the nation's three most congested regions -- Los Angeles, New York and Chicago -- which together accounted for 88 of the 100. The Washington region ranked 4th worst in congestion, up from 6th in 2008, but had none of the leading bottlenecks.
To some extent, Baltimore's creep up the congestion rankings could reflect the relative strength of its economy during the recession, which has taken a toll on total driving miles nationally as people without jobs travel less. During the four-year period during which it climbed up the ranks from 21st to 16th, hard-hit San Diego fell from 12th to 17th and similarly afflicted Riverside, Calif., felll from 13th to 18th. Both metro areas rank just above Baltimore in population.
According to the INRIX survey, Baltimore's worst drive time occurs about 5 p.m. Fridays -- a typical time nationally.
According to INRIX the top 20 in congestion in 2009 were (2006 rank):
1. Los Angeles (1)
2. New York (2)
3. Chicago (3)
4. Washington (5)
5. Dallas (7)
6. Houston (9)
7. San Francisco (4)
8. Boston (11)
9. Seattle (6)
10. Philadelphia (14)
11. Atlanta (8)
12. Minneapolis (16)
13. Miami (10)
14. Phoenix (15)
15. Denver (17)
16. Baltimore (21)
17. San Diego (12)
18. Riverside CA (13)
19. San Jose CA (18)
20. Sacramento (20)







Comments
sitting in traffic on 695 has brought me to tears on several occasions.
Posted by: NotableM | February 24, 2010 2:32 PM
This morning it took me 12 minutes to drive 1/10th of a mile on Light Street. It usually takes me 45 minutes to drive 6 miles to work!
Posted by: Janet Folmer | February 24, 2010 3:13 PM
What does congestion mean?
It is irresponsible to report on this study without providing any indication of the methodology used to rank these cities. As far as I can tell, this is just another meaningless ranked list.
Posted by: Anonymous | February 24, 2010 4:34 PM
What is Governor O'Malley going to do to remedy this nightmare?
Posted by: rmfelbi | February 24, 2010 4:39 PM
Reply to Janet Folmer:
For everyone leaving Federal Hill the issue is:
- The pointless new "Bus Lane" on Pratt St.
- People turning left from Conway St on to Light St. All traffic at that intersection backs up as those turning left on to Light run the red light.
- No Traffic Guards to move traffic along red lights at pedestrian crosswalk in front of Inner Harbor Pavilion at Light/Pratt split.
Posted by: Fed Hill | February 24, 2010 5:15 PM
How would both Baltimore and DC rank together?
We are close enough that there could be some sort of composite of the two.
I believe when you look at the DC/Balto area, we could possibly be enough to warrant top two...
Posted by: Odie B. | February 24, 2010 6:24 PM
Alfred Foxx (Baltimore City DOT) should have been fired years ago!!! Not a single damn traffic light in this City is in sync. President, Canal, Broadway - can't go 1-2 blocks without hitting a red light. Whatever we pay that man is pure charity.
Posted by: Fells Point | February 24, 2010 9:22 PM
Baltimore? Big deal, try sitting in DC traffic. I really feel sorry for those who live in Balto and have to commute to DC
Posted by: Alex | February 24, 2010 10:04 PM
How about some traffic cops at the bottom of 83 during rush hour? The 83 & Fayette intersection is constantly blocked with idiots trying to squeeze through the red light preventing traffic from entering/leaving the city and causing major delays - day after day after day this happens and not a single attempt to fix this obvious problem.
Posted by: Canton | February 24, 2010 10:10 PM
How about enforcing the law and stopping the endless stream of illegal tractor trailer trucks coming through the City. We have designated truck routes for a reason, but enforcement is non-existent. So many fixes to our traffic problems exist.
Posted by: Fed up with illegal trucks | February 24, 2010 10:13 PM
Traffic congestion is one of the hidden taxes imposed on the population when land use planners approve sprawl development. We are the victims of land use decisions that ensure increased automobile dependency and render alternatives to auto transportation infeasible. Other "taxes" imposed by these decisions are found in the fouled air we breath and the dying Bay we say we 'treasure' but by our daily actions continue to degrade.
Posted by: chris | February 25, 2010 4:20 PM
Regional traffic issues are a culmination of car-based development and the population's personal transportation choices.
rmfelbi - what are YOU doing to remedy the problem?
Janet - LIght St is one of the most bikeable streets in Bmore. Traffic is never an issue.
Posted by: N8ev | February 27, 2010 7:40 AM
N8ev:
Have you ever ridden on Light St. south of Conway?
The tracks make it nerve wracking.
South of Key Hwy?
Quick lane shrink to still a high-traffic area with street parking, all the way down to the end by Rub.
Any time I was riding from the Hamburg St. Alley to Ostend St. was the most nervous I have ever been on a bike.
And, for the record, I've ridden on 83 from Eager to Fayette.
That area used to be my route. I will avoid riding a bike on that street if at all possible.
Posted by: Odie B | February 27, 2010 5:44 PM
Maybe, just maybe there are too many people.
No, sorry. More people and more cars are not the problem.
Um, I guess everyone knows that the population of the US will double by 2050. No problem.
Posted by: Tom | February 28, 2010 7:55 PM
Tom, the world has too many people, but Baltimore does not.
When Baltimore approaches the population of Bombay or the old Lower East Side, then your assertion will be accurate.
Nate Payer
TRAC
Posted by: Nate | March 1, 2010 9:59 AM
Sitting in congestion is predominantly the result of personal decisions about where to live, where to work/shop/etc., and how to get there. Obviously some pieces are out of our control, but for the most part we make decisions and include congestion as one of the factors in those decisions.
For me, I choose to live in the City and walk, bike, or take transit to work because I couldn't imagine wasting that much time on the Beltway, but that's not the choice many others have made.
Building more lanes on the freeways won't solve the problem, it just makes it easier for more folks to make the same decisions, quickly filling up those lanes.
Instead I would suggest that we need to provide better transit and bicycling options throughout the region, encourage more folks to bike, walk, and take transit, make improvements to schools and crime that make the City more attractive, and build housing, jobs, and retail in ways that make it easier for people to choose location where they have transportation options.
Transit, bicycling, smart growth, walkable communities, and improvements in the City won't eliminate congestion, but they will provide us with better options so we can make choices that allow us to avoid congestion.
Posted by: Patrick Mc | March 1, 2010 10:45 AM