Shocker: Houston made another list of cities with the worst traffic. Courtesy photo

Few things are more frustrating for Houston drivers than sitting in bumper-to-bumper traffic. You're late, you're stuck, and you're wasting time and gas — every single day. It's no surprise that the Bayou City has ranked inside the top 10 in a new list of cities with the worst traffic.

The average Houston driver lost 62 hours to traffic delays in 2023, according to Inrix's latest Global Traffic Scorecard. That's 16 hours more than the time tallied in 2022, and 20 hours more than the national average of 42 hours lost. Ouch!

Trends across the country after the pandemic continue to contribute to congestion. Remote work has led to a longer stretch of high-traffic hours instead of the usual pre-9 am and post-5 pm rush hour surges — and less predictable peaks at that.

"On any given day, everybody might be going into the office and no one is expecting it," David Schrank, a senior research scientist at Texas A&M Transportation Institute, told The Hill in June 2024. "What if next Monday everybody gets called in? Then boom — it's gridlock."

On top of that, truck-related congestion (as anyone driving across Texas knows) has increased with the continued rise of e-commerce and home delivery, with one truck equaling two to three cars on the road.

To see where congestion is the biggest problem nationwide, Stacker ranked the 25 cities in the U.S. with the most time lost per driver due to congestion, according to data from Inrix. Houston lands at No. 8, the worst in Texas. Of course, Houstonians don't need a new survey to tell them just how miserable our traffic is - as our late, beloved columnist Ken Hoffman expressed earlier this year.

Three other cities in Texas have made the top 25-worst list: Dallas is No. 17, Austin is No. 21, and San Antonio rounds out the whole list at No. 25.

Stacker's analysis includes how much delays cost drivers based on median hourly wages in each metro area, per the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and comparisons to pre-COVID-19 pandemic hours lost, measured in 2019. Inrix calculated commute times by looking exclusively at the time it takes to get to and from major employment centers based on anonymized GPS data.

Downtown speed is the speed at which a commuter should expect to travel 1 mile into the city's downtown or central business area during peak morning hours, and the first quarter of 2024 versus the first quarter of 2023 metric is the change in travel times during those two periods.

———

This article originally ran on CultureMap.

Houston drivers — here's your validation for your road rage. Photo by Manuel Velasquez on Unsplash

Houston drivers have the 4th worst commute in America, study finds

on the road again?

For better or for worse, it's finally been confirmed – Houston traffic is among the worst in the nation, according to a new study by Forbes Home.

Houston ranked No. 4 in the Forbes study, which analyzed 25 of the largest U.S. cities to discover the average commute times for workers. Using 2021 U.S. Census data, the report determined the average time spent traveling to work in Houston is 30 minutes, which is only the ninth worst commute time out of all cities on the list.

"No amount of personal playlist songs, audiobooks, podcasts, commuter coffee, or glove compartment snacks can make a tough commute more pleasant," the report said.

While the COVID-19 pandemic brought commuting to a halt for most workers, about 74 percent of Americans are back to making those early morning and afternoon drives to-and-from their employers. Work-from-home rates have continuously dropped since 2020, which isn't helping the rise in commute times.

Houston has nearly 1.75 million workers over the age of 16 living within the area, and only 4.6 percent of households don't have access to a car. Unless workers live very close to their jobs, it's otherwise pretty difficult to walk or bike to work in such a gridlock-stricken city.

It surely doesn't help that the study cites Houston's (unfortunate) fame for being the No. 1 most stressful U.S. city for workers as having a hand in its overall ranking. Add commuting to that list of stressors, and it all equals an unhealthy effect on the working population.

"Research by the National Library of Medicine has found that the longer the commute time, the less satisfaction with work and life as hours spent commuting daily can contribute to a decline in mental and physical health," the report said.

Elsewhere in Texas, Dallas (No. 9) and Fort Worth (No. 10) both made it into the top 10 with their respective commute times of 29.70 and 26.80 minutes. San Antonio ranked No. 16 with an average commute time of 25.40 minutes. Austin, surprisingly, ranked No. 18 overall with an average of 27.90 minutes.

The top 10 U.S. cities with the hardest commutes are:

  • No. 1 – Nashville, Tennessee
  • No. 2 – Charlotte, North Carolina
  • No. 3 – Jacksonville, Florida
  • No. 4 – Houston, Texas
  • No. 5 – Washington, D.C.
  • No. 6 – New York City, New York
  • No. 7 – Boston, Massachusetts
  • No. 8 – Los Angeles, California
  • No. 9 – Dallas, Texas
  • No. 10 – Fort Worth, Texas
The full report can be found on forbes.com.

———

This article originally ran on CultureMap.

Ad Placement 300x100
Ad Placement 300x600

CultureMap Emails are Awesome

Houston-area solar farm to light up Texas with clean power for 15,000 homes

switch flipped

A clean energy developer and operator of solar and energy storage assets has announced the completion and commercial operation of a Houston-area farm that will power 15,000 homes a year.

Recurrent Energy's Liberty Solar project outside of Houston has powered on and will expand solar energy capacity in the Midcontinent Independent System Operator market. Recurrent Energy is an Austin-based a subsidiary of Canadian Solar.

“Projects like Liberty Solar are instrumental to meeting the soaring demand for electricity in Texas,” Executive Director of Texas Solar Power Association Mark Stover says in a news release. "We commend Recurrent Energy for pushing through the development process and working with corporate buyers to deliver new, predictable, clean power to the MISO region of Texas.”

Liberty Solar is in Liberty County, which is about 50 miles northeast of Houston and will be a 134 megawatt solar project. Customers include Autodesk Inc., Biogen Inc., EMD Electronics (the U.S. and Canada electronics business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), and Wayfair Inc.

“Investment in additional renewable capacity on the grid is essential to delivering more sustainable outcomes, and we believe that the Liberty Solar project will help make renewable energy more accessible in North America,” Joe Speicher, chief sustainability officer at Autodesk, adds in tje release. “Autodesk is committed to 100% renewable energy sourcing for our facilities, cloud services and hybrid workforce, and we are committed to leveraging our climate commitments to drive transformational change in our energy generation and deployment.”

Recurrent Energy celebrated the project by welcoming customers at Liberty Solar on October 23 for a guided tour and ribbon cutting ceremony.

“Liberty Solar is a fantastic project that expands Recurrent Energy’s project ownership in MISO,” Ismael Guerrero, CEO of Recurrent Energy, says in the release. “We are thrilled to complete this project on time and on budget in support of the renewable energy goals of our customers.”

Last year, Recurrent Energy scored $200 million in financing for the project, including $120 million in financing through Rabobank, Nord LB, and U.S. Bank in the form of construction debt, a letter-of-credit facility, and a term facility. In addition, U.S. Bancorp Impact Finance, a subsidiary of U.S. Bank, is providing $80 million in tax equity.

Unlocking climate tech’s potential in Houston: What health innovation's rise can teach us

guest column

Over the past several decades, climate tech has faced numerous challenges, ranging from inconsistent public support to a lack of funding from cautious investors. While grassroots organizations and climate innovators have made notable efforts to address urgent environmental issues, we have yet to see large-scale, lasting impact.

A common tendency is to compare climate tech to the rapid advancements made in digital and software technology, but perhaps a more appropriate parallel is the health tech sector, which encountered many of the same struggles in its early days.

Observing the rise of health tech and the economic and political support it received, we can uncover strategies that could stabilize and propel climate tech forward.

Health tech's slow but steady rise

Health tech’s slow upward trajectory began in the mid-20th century, with World War II serving as a critical turning point for medical research and development. Scientists working on wartime projects recognized the broader benefits of increased research funding for the general public, and soon after, the Public Health Service Act of 1944 was passed. This landmark legislation directed resources toward eradicating widespread diseases, viewing them as a national economic threat. By acknowledging diseases as a danger to both public health and the economy, the government laid the groundwork for significant policy changes.

This serves as an essential lesson for climate tech: if the federal government were to officially recognize climate change as a direct threat to the nation’s economy and security, it could lead to similar shifts in policy and resource allocation.

The role of public advocacy and federal support

The growth of health tech wasn’t solely reliant on government intervention. Public advocacy played a key role in securing ongoing support. Voluntary health agencies, such as the American Cancer Society, lobbied for increased funding and spread awareness, helping to attract public interest and investment. But even with this advocacy, early health tech startups struggled to secure venture capital. VCs were hesitant to invest in areas they didn’t fully understand, and without sustained government funding and public backing, it’s unlikely that health tech would have grown as quickly as it has.

The lesson here for climate tech is clear: strong public advocacy and education are crucial. However, unlike health tech, climate tech faces a unique obstacle — there is still a significant portion of the population that either denies the existence of climate change or doesn’t view it as an immediate concern. This lack of urgency makes it difficult to galvanize the public and attract the necessary long-term investment.

Government support: A mixed bag

There have been legislative efforts to support climate tech, though they haven’t yet led to the explosive growth seen in health tech. For example, the Federal Technology Transfer Act of 1986 and the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 gave universities and small businesses the rights to profit from their innovations, including climate-related research. More recently, the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 has been instrumental in advancing climate tech by creating opportunities to build projects, lower household energy costs, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Despite this federal support, many climate tech companies are still struggling to scale. A primary concern for investors is the longer time horizon required for climate startups to yield returns. Scalability is crucial — companies must demonstrate how they will grow profitably over time, but many climate tech startups lack practical long-term business models.

As climate investor Yao Huang put it, “At the end of the day, a climate tech company needs to demonstrate how it will make money. We can apply political pressure and implement governmental policies, but if it is not profitable, it won’t scale or create meaningful impact.”

The public’s role in scaling climate tech

Health tech’s success can largely be attributed to a combination of federal funding, public advocacy, and long-term investment from knowledgeable VCs. Climate tech has federal support in place, thanks to the IRA, but is still lacking the same level of public backing. Health tech overcame its hurdles when public awareness about the importance of medical advancements grew, and voluntary health agencies helped channel donations toward research and innovation.

In contrast, climate nonprofits like Cool Earth, Environmental Defense Fund, and Clean Air Task Force face a severe funding shortfall. A 2020 study revealed that climate nonprofits aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions only received $2 billion in donations, representing just 0.4% of all philanthropic funding. Without greater public awareness/sense of urgency and financial support, these groups cannot effectively advocate for climate tech startups or lobby for necessary policy changes. This type of philanthropic funding is also known as ‘catalytic capital’ or ‘impact-first-capital’. Prime Impact Fund is one such fund that does not ‘view investments as concessionary on return’. Rather their patient and flexible capital allows support of high risk, high-reward ventures.

A path forward for climate tech

The most valuable insight from health tech’s growth is that government intervention, while critical, is not enough to guarantee the success of an emerging sector. Climate tech needs a stronger support system, including informed investors, widespread public backing, and nonprofits with the financial resources to advocate for industry-wide growth.

If we can channel the same sense of urgency and public commitment toward climate change as we did for health crises in the past, climate tech could overcome its current obstacles.The future of climate tech depends not just on government policies, but on educating the public, rallying financial support, and building a robust infrastructure for long-term growth.

———

Nada Ahmed is the founding partner at Houston-based Energy Tech Nexus, a startup hub for the energy transition.

Houston tech company's new partnership to drive affordable green hydrogen solutions for heavy industry

dream team

A Houston energy technology company has announced a new partnership with a green hydrogen technology provider.

Lummus Technology has teamed up with Milwaukee, Wisconsin-based Advanced Ionics to accelerate the commercialization of its hydrogen electrolyzer technology. Lummus Venture Capital has also invested an undisclosed amount into the company's business.

“Lummus has a proven track record of serving as a launchpad for innovative technologies,” says Leon de Bruyn, president and CEO of Lummus Technology, in a news release. “With Advanced Ionics, we will leverage this experience to develop and deploy cost-efficient solutions that advance green hydrogen production and help decarbonize key sectors of the downstream energy industry.”

The platform that Advanced Ionics has created works with process and waste heat to produce green hydrogen for less than a dollar per kilogram, according to the company. The platform's users include industrial hydrogen producers looking to optimize sustainability at an affordable cost.

“Water vapor electrolyzers address two of the biggest challenges to expanding green hydrogen production: capital costs and electricity requirements,” adds Chad Mason, CEO of Advanced Ionics. “Our partnership with Lummus Technology – and their additional investment – marks a pivotal next step in accelerating the commercialization of technology, which was purpose-built for decarbonizing heavy industry.”

Lummus, a global licensor of hydrogen technology for refinery, petrochemical and other industrial gas applications, has also supported other energy transition verticals recently, including sustainable plastics alternatives and carbon capture.