Before moving to Los Angeles for a second time, I lived in Dallas, TX. The timing of the lights in Dallas was so bad I kicked around the idea of making a documentary on how poorly timed the traffic lights were. I was going to go out in my hybrid-- and do a real time, "hey idiots, this is what poor traffic flow patterns do to gasoline consumption and emissions from autos" kind of piece. It would've been a real snoozer.

Of course, now I live in LA, where no amount of traffic flow planning can help things out too much. And that's why I ride a bike as much as possible. But I can't emphasize enough how much of a difference an easy thing like having cities properly time their lights might mean for the world and peoples nerves at the same time.

I could not agree with the timing of traffic lights comment more, but there is the problem that cities often actually time their lights to slow you down. They do not want you driving constantly for a long time as they think you will start to speed over that time, so they regularly time lights to sporadically trap and slow down traffic. Actually working against any savings possible.

Nothing makes me happier than biking past traffic congestion ... except maybe biking past the gas station :)

Yesterday I asked a guy if he wanted to race... he seemed to be staring incessantly so I shouted out my macho challenge. He was in a BMW Z4, I was on my E-Glide electric skateboard. It wasn't much of a race. He was stuck in traffic, and I was long gone. The secret to Happiness in Los Angeles is alternative forms of transportation, bike, board, even the bus is better than being pitted against fellow Los Angelenos in a race for the open lane.

In NYC the lights are timed to keep you at around 30 MPH. Since the avenues are mostly 1 way (not park) you can go a long way without stopping if you are lucky.

A big thumbs up to wsder and stevejust!

Unfortunately the roads around here would get me killed riding to work, and it's only five miles.

As a fifty six year old man who commutes 8000 miles per year by bicycle I have little sympathy for the poor motorist. I don't support "Happy Motoring". I want motorists to be miserable. There are no good cars! I laugh when I see weakling motorists sitting still or moving at a crawl. Cars kill and maim millions of people world wide. Some are killed quickly; others just slowly rust like their damnable cars.When I see a SUV pull up beside me I usually correctly predict that there will be a jowly matron or a red faced pre-diabetic behind the wheel. The cost in human bad health and suffering is incalcuable. Sane bicyclists need to do more to insure "Unhappy Motoring". The time is near for direct action. Remember all the fallen ghost cyclists.
Power to the pedal!

Wonderful irony here. The slower they go, the more frustrating the ride is, the more horsepower is added to new models. At some point people might come to realize they are wasting their money and gas and the future of the earth. But we're not there yet. Does it take absolute gridlock for this to sink in? Apparently.

Too bad there isn't and easy solution for those of us that need to use our cars for work. I just don't see much support for the bike crowd if 'direct action' is to intentionally disrupt traffic flow even more. The backlash will be 'direct enforcement' and some of these lane-splitting, stop-sign running, red-light ignoring cyclists will start getting tickets for their actions. Then some idiot, or worse someone innocent cyclist who wasn't seen because of an idiot 'direct actionist',will get killed, probably by a bus. Buses are good at killing cyclists. They drive near the curb, stopping often, heavily distracted with handling traffic, passengers, fares, the bus itself. They miss the bike that had slid in on their side, the a 'direct actionist' cuts off a car, it swerves, the bus dodges, the cyclist gets crushed under 16 tons of steel.

Too bad this isn't fiction, it happens. I've seen it. Your call for 'direct action' is a dangerous one, please be careful and only get yourself killed.

-Lego

I have started biking the three miles to work and I absolutely love it. I get to work faster than using my car, I get to be outside, and I'm saving money by not using my car every day.

I hit some high traffic spots because I have to cross two major thoroughfares, but I follow the rules and try not to slow traffic any more than necessary.

I agree with JC, people sitting in commuter traffic should realize their misery and then join the bicycle movement if there is any way they can. The health benefits alone would be worth it to them.

I would like to understand better how these averages are calculated. In my life, when I lived within 5 miles of work, it took me minimum ten minutes to drive because of traffic control devices, twice a day, equalling 1 hour 40 minutes a week commute time. Multiply that times 48 (52 weeks minus the occasional vacation days and holidays) and you can see that total well betters the purported 38 hours. And that was a quick commute by today's standards. It's not at all uncommon for people to live 30-plus miles from work, meaning on a good day it will take roughly 35 minutes (depending on conditions) each way. In my life, I've lived as close as 2 miles to my office and as far as 70 miles, and I can't imagine either commute being anywhere near 38 hours time spent in my car over the course of a year.

I find it hard to believe that the actual average is 38 hours per year. Knowing where people like to live versus where they work, 38 hours per month would make more sense to me.

I think the numbers are not cummute time total, but the amount of time lost to sitting in traffic. Example.

You drive 8 miles to work. It takes you 12 minutes each way if there is no major traffic. That works out to 24 minutes a day, 120 minutes a week (call it 50 weeks a year - minus holidays) and you have 6000 minutes a year or 100 hours total for a year of commuting.

I think the 'week' refered to is the amount of time lost to sitting in traffic. If you have to deal with heavy traffic that delays your trip to the point of increasing you commute times an additonal 4.8 minutes each way (for instance only able to drive 30mph in a 60mph zone for about 5 miles) your total time commuting becomes 140 hours a year... or one whole work week more.

I live in Minneapolis and it will be intersting to see what the final outcome of the I-35W bridge collapse will be. I had a ten minute commute each way with minimal traffic (5000 minutes a year). While they worked on the bridge it became about 15 minutes each way (7500 minutes a year). Now that it has collapsed, it is 25 minutes each way (12500 minutes a year). Even if I could take the bus, I can't for work reasons, I would be looking at 55 (45 am 65 pm) minutes each way (27500 minutes a year).

Interesting, taking the bus, even versus the worst traffic, would account for 250 hours MORE lost time, more than four work weeks! When the new bridge is finished (winter 2008), the difference becomes 333 hours car vs bus or well over 8 work weeks per year of lost time. WOW! We need better buses here.

-Lego

Could the "Bad Timing of Lights" be Big Oil at Work?

Sounds at first like a left feild ploy, but how can we be sure?

38 hours per month would make more sense to me."

Right. I drive 35 miles one way. If it is good it takes 45 minutes less one way. or 45 minutes longer if it is bad.
45min x 5 days per week x 4 weeks per month x 12=
360 hours per year NOT 38