Traffic's yearly toll: 45 hours in jams

It could be worse.

Seattle-area drivers spent an average of 45 hours stuck in traffic because of congestion in 2005, according to a study released by the Texas Transportation Institute, an arm of Texas A&M University.

That's the 19th-worst figure in the nation for highways and major arterials.

But as maddening as that is, it's better than in 1995, according to the annual study. Back then, Seattle-area drivers lost an average of 52 hours stuck in traffic, seventh-worst in the nation.

"In the bizarro world of transportation, if it doesn't get worse, it's getting better," said Tim Lomax, research engineer for the institute.

"But that's no comfort if you're stuck in traffic," he acknowledged.

By other measures, Seattle improved in the ranking because traffic has gotten worse in other areas -- particularly around Dallas/Fort Worth, where drivers spent an average of 58 hours stuck in slowdowns in 2005, the latest year when figures were available. That's up from 34 hours in 1995.

The same factors were in play there as in the Seattle area in the early '90s, when traffic got much worse, with the population growing faster than the roads could handle it.

Among 14 very large areas, including around Seattle, hours lost to traffic increased from an average of 43 in 1995 to 54 in 2005, according to the study.

Additionally, the study found that in the Seattle area in 2005, it took 30 percent longer to travel during congested times than during free-flowing times, 17th-worst in the nation. For instance, if a trip took 20 minutes in free-flowing traffic, it would take 26 minutes during rush hour.

That was the same as in 1995, but it represented the fifth-worst congestion in the nation at the time.

The study credited the state Department of Transportation for dealing with more vehicles on the road by managing roads efficiently, without adding much more capacity. Another factor, Lomax said, was the area's increase in public transportation over the period.

Transportation Department spokesman Lloyd Brown said those efficiencies include ramp metering, which allows traffic to move smoothly by regulating the flow of vehicles entering the freeway, the construction of 100 miles of HOV lanes since 1970 and the stationing of tow trucks and service trucks on highways to more quickly clear accidents. Another factor has been the use of traffic cameras and the posting of estimated travel times, so drivers can take alternate routes instead of worsening already congested roads.

Lomax, though, noted that "if you're going to add a million and a half people to your population, you can't efficiency your way out of it" and said it would be interesting to see how the region handles the $47 billion transportation item on November's ballot in the urbanized areas of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.

Anne Fennessy, spokeswoman for backers of the road and transit plan, said it would include $17.5 billion to expand light rail to Tacoma, Bellevue, Redmond and Snohomish to get people out of their cars. She said it also would improve highways and bridges to continue letting the area handle its growing population.

Opponents, though, say the package is too focused on roads.

Mike O'Brien, chairman of the Sierra Club's state chapter, said the Texas traffic study showed "we can do smarter things than build roads. There are alternatives. People can live closer to work and play."

THE COST OF LOCAL CONGESTION

THE FUEL

54.7 million -- number of gallons of excess fuel consumed while sitting in traffic

THE TIME

74.1 million -- number of hours lost

THE MONEY

$1.4 billion -- cost of congestion, based on lost productivity and excess fuel consumption

(2005 statistics for Seattle area)