Observation: LA vs. St. Louis traffic (St. Charles, Wildwood: home, construction, to live in)

[zoomzoom3]

Two weeks ago I had to travel to LA, and this past week I was back in St. Louis and just thought I'd compare both experiences traffic wise.

In LA I had to commute from Van Nuys in the San Fernando valley to downtown LA on the notorious 405. It's 25 miles from Van Nuys to downtown, and each day I made it from Point A to Point B in under 1hr. & 30 minutes in rush hour, which is not too bad at all. The 405 and Santa Monica Freeway are 6 lanes each way at least which helps immensely. So much for LA having such nightmarish traffic.

In St. Louis I had to commute from Lake St. Louis to Clayton using I-64 which was a distance of about 30 miles. I had ONE good commute day where the drive in and back took around 50-55 min. each way. The other 4 days were absolutely horrendous. One day one of my trips in took 3 hours & 5 minutes with nearly all of the time spent stuck before the Missouri River bridge. The other days my commute time averaged 2 hours & 15 minutes one way.

With all the sprawl in St. Louis, why are there no interstates with 6 lanes going each way? IMO, every interstate highway running through St. Charles county needs to be 6 lanes each way as this area is incredibly overpopulated. Parts of I-64 near I-70 are only two lanes each way. Two lanes each way on an interstate is alright in remote areas of Wyoming for example, but very unacceptable in one the most densely populated areas outside the the LA/Chicago/Greater NYC area.

Happy to be back in Florida where the traffic congestion is still pretty bad, but much better than STL.

[flynavyj]

Interesting.

You'll get a lot of city proponents here who'll say "That's why you stay out of Lake St. Louis, and live in the city proper".

I have friends who live out in Lake St. Louis and state that the commute is approximately 45-50 minutes, not sure what constituted your 3 hour commute, was there construction?

I live 18 miles from work and can commute daily in 25-30 minutes without any trouble...door to door. I have the option of taking either I-70 or I-170/I-64 into downtown, but neither makes a considerable or even noticeable difference in time. When traffic is rough on either route, I-44 becomes an option, and adds about 5-8 minutes onto my commute, I-55 is a bit longer, and extends the drive by about 15 Minutes...but between all those routes (and a very early morning) I never seem to wait in any traffic going to, or coming from work.

Even still, there are some things I wish they changed during the I-64 redo a few years back. They left the bottleneck in around Clayton Rd just West of Hampton, which creates a small (albeit short) traffic jam between 3:30p-5:00p. Traffic approaching I-270 is always a bit rough, as traffic seems to build around that same time period. Going further West can really depend, through the short rush hour, you might be bumper to bumper, or barely creeping as you proceed further West...what I really hate, is how long it takes once you reach surface streets. If you're off a major thoroughfare in West county, traffic off the highway can be as bad as the traffic on the highway...this is especially true around Clayton Rd, Olive Blvd/Clarkson, or along Manchester Blvd West of Rte 141.

Honestly, while I have a massive desire to move to Wildwood, the commute that way is what would likely keep me from doing it...at least as long as I'm working downtown. What has been interesting to watch on morning I go into work late (7:30 ish) are all the cars coming out of Downtown/St. Louis City for work in the morning...the "reverse commute" really doesn't appear to be all it's cracked up to be, I typically see more traffic leaving the city than I do coming in...maybe it's time to really "reverse" those "reversible" lanes along I-70.

[lane_change]

SoCal traffic is not that bad. NYC traffic is terrible. Washington DC traffic is terrible. Austin traffic is terrible. I live in Houston now and to go 30 miles in rush hour you are looking at 1h30-2h minimum. Our friends from STL just came to visit us over the weekend and couldn't wait to get back to STL where traffic was tolerable. But yes, if you are past the bridge on 64, you are doomed to sit in traffic. I don't want to live outside of 270 ideally.

[marigolds6]

There was some luck involved with your two comparisons. Your Lake St Louis trips were pretty bad, and I suspect you may have traveled that route during low morning sun days (or worse, rainy days). Either one tends to result in accidents that lead to long commutes, and there have been a lot of accidents before the bridge on I-64 lately. Accidents are the bane of narrower interstates.

But you got very lucky on the 405. A six lane interstate can tolerate accidents better, but the 405 cannot tolerate any problems. To be honest, Southern California drivers are awesome at rush hour commutes, being able to travel 75-85 mph en masse packed like sardines at following distances St Louis drivers generally cannot tolerate. Sounds like you got to experience that quite a bit. But when you get even a small snarl...
I grew up in San Diego, so I only traveled the 405 maybe 100 times (mostly to catch a flight out of LAX). That was enough to run into a true 405 jam twice. Stuck in traffic, not moving, for 3+ hours. 6+ hour commutes in all. The other big issue with the 405 is that rush covers 5+ hours every day. Leaving work an hour early or hour late does you no good like it does here.

And that is still nothing compared to a traffic jam on the grapevine. It takes something big to get one, but big things happen a lot on the grapevine. My record was 6 hours without moving more than a 1/4 mile while stuck behind a spring jackknife.

[Caesarstl]

Originally Posted by zoomzoom3

Two weeks ago I had to travel to LA, and this past week I was back in St. Louis and just thought I'd compare both experiences traffic wise.

In LA I had to commute from Van Nuys in the San Fernando valley to downtown LA on the notorious 405. It's 25 miles from Van Nuys to downtown, and each day I made it from Point A to Point B in under 1hr. & 30 minutes in rush hour, which is not too bad at all. The 405 and Santa Monica Freeway are 6 lanes each way at least which helps immensely. So much for LA having such nightmarish traffic.

In St. Louis I had to commute from Lake St. Louis to Clayton using I-64 which was a distance of about 30 miles. I had ONE good commute day where the drive in and back took around 50-55 min. each way. The other 4 days were absolutely horrendous. One day one of my trips in took 3 hours & 5 minutes with nearly all of the time spent stuck before the Missouri River bridge. The other days my commute time averaged 2 hours & 15 minutes one way.

With all the sprawl in St. Louis, why are there no interstates with 6 lanes going each way? IMO, every interstate highway running through St. Charles county needs to be 6 lanes each way as this area is incredibly overpopulated. Parts of I-64 near I-70 are only two lanes each way. Two lanes each way on an interstate is alright in remote areas of Wyoming for example, but very unacceptable in one the most densely populated areas outside the the LA/Chicago/Greater NYC area.

Happy to be back in Florida where the traffic congestion is still pretty bad, but much better than STL.

I do not agree with your post at all, you are taking one extreme example and trying to apply it to all; furthermore, I have family in three different areas in Florida, and lived there briefly, and I found the traffic/driving just awful. As for St. Louis, there are a lot of highways (too many really) already, you can get most anywhere at none rush hour times in like 20 mins. My last morning commute there took about 30-35 mins (about 20 miles but with the bottleneck over the Mississippi which should be substantially alleviated with the new bridge).

Your times also seem pretty extreme from my past experience, but I never lived way out there either. Was there a lot of construction? Google estimates 37 mins for for almost 32 miles during none rush hour.

[DinsdalePirahna]

Having done the Lake Saint Louis to Clayton Drive almost daily, I can't really says it sucks. My usual commute time was about 35 minutes.

Rush hour in St. Louis really is rush HOUR. Not Rush 3:30 pm to 7:30 pm as it is in SoCal and midwestern tourists are usually eaten up alive out here.

LA/OC Gridlock is far worse. My daily commute home of 15 miles can take up to an hour (takes about 20 minutes to get to work)

What Saint Louis really excels in is Tailgating. They have taken it to an art form.

[Dawn10am]

I'll be one of those city proponents who says you should move closer in. Not necessarily to the City, but LSL is ridiculous. When you choose to live in a sprawling exurb you make a lifestyle choice that includes traffic. Deal with it. And don't ask people to subsidize your unsustainable lifestyle with more freeway lanes.

[EugeneOnegin]

I lived a couple miles outside of St. Louis for a while. I didn't find traffic there to be bad at all for a big city. It is infinitely better than metro Detroit.

[Hazel W]

Since I don't drive, I can't speak authoritatively but three hours? Friday, I took a cab from the Gravois/Lindberg area to the art museum at the border of the city and it took exactly 25 minutes. I know the exact time because we left at 9:30 and I didn't want to get there before 10:00 when they open. We got there at 9:55. Granted he avoided 64 most of the way but that only says you do not have to drive the freeways. I just can't see it taking 3 1/2 hours to go between any two points in St Louis County. Not unless you get stuck behind a horrible wreck on I 270 where you can't move at all for an hour or two. Otherwise you can be halfway across the state in three hours.

OK. I shouldn't comment as I don't drive and probably don't understand what you are saying. Just can't help but wonder about that three hours bit. Excuse my interrupting.

[glamatomic]

The St. Louis commute must have been an anomaly as others have said, caused by an accident or other unusual conditions.

With that said though, I've personally never found driving in LA to be as bad as people say it is. Atlanta traffic and D.C traffic have always felt the worst to me.

St. Louis traffic and congestion I've found is minimal compared to a lot of other cities