Seattle traffic hasn't improved much

How's Seattle's traffic?

Depending on what measure you use, it was either a little worse — or a little better — in 2003 than in 2002, according to the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI).

The institute, a branch of Texas A & M University, yesterday released its annual "Urban Mobility Report, " the nation's most closely watched ongoing study of congestion trends.

It says that in 2003, the most recent year for which information is available, the average peak-period traveler in the Seattle-Everett-Tacoma metropolitan area spent 46 hours stuck in traffic. That's down slightly from 48 hours in 2002.

But the report also says the region's "travel time index" inched up from 1.36 to 1.38. That means that in 2003 the typical peak-period trip took 38 percent longer than during nonpeak times when roads are free-flowing, compared with 36 percent longer for peak periods in 2002.

The minimal changes in the report jibe with the state Department of Transportation's assessment of Seattle's traffic situation. "We don't see a whole lot of difference," spokeswoman Linda Mullen said.

TTI crunches databases to develop its numbers; it doesn't actually observe traffic. Its 2001 report — which analyzed 1999 traffic — brought Seattle unwelcome national attention when it ranked the region's congestion the country's second-worst.

Seattle's national rankings have improved since then, however, partly as a result of changes in TTI's methodology.

The institute now factors into its calculations real-world influences it once ignored, such as public transit, freeway ramp meters and incident-response efforts.

Those programs benefit Seattle commuters, the new report says: If they didn't exist, peak-period travelers would have lost another 26 hours — or 57 percent more time — to congestion in 2003.

Transit does more to combat congestion in the Seattle area than in most other metropolitan areas, the report says.

In a statement, King County Executive Ron Sims called the findings on transit the study's "silver lining."

But transportation consultant John Niles said TTI's methodology still may be shortchanging Seattle and making the region's traffic seem worse than it really is. For instance: TTI's definition of "delay" is any freeway speed below 60 mph. Niles said regional transportation officials don't always aim for such speeds.

The TTI report says Seattle's travel-time index has increased 31 points since 1982 — from 1.07 to 1.38 — but that most of that increase came in the 1980s. In some smaller cities, in contrast — Portland, Tucson, Las Vegas — traffic has deteriorated more rapidly since 1990.

Nationally, the study says, congestion cost the country 3.7 billion hours of delay and 2.3 billion gallons of fuel in 2003, both up slightly from the year before

The report was released the same day the U.S. Senate resumed debate on a bill that would spend $284 billion on highways over the next six years.

TTI report co-author Tim Lomax offered a gloomy forecast for relieving congestion: lots more money or a weak economy that takes people off the roads.

"The things that dramatically change congestion are loss of jobs or major commitments to expand capacity," Lomax said.

Information from The Associated Press is included in this report. Eric Pryne: 206-464-2231 or epryne@seattletimes.com