The return-to-office debate has been framed around culture, collaboration, and control. But a new set of data points to a more concrete issue: time is being lost at scale — and no one is paying for it.
According to the 2025 INRIX Global Traffic Scorecard, the average U.S. driver now loses 49 hours a year sitting in traffic, a noticeable 6-hour jump from the year prior. That is more than a full workweek gone — not to work itself, but to getting there.
In the most congested cities, the number is far higher. Drivers in Chicago lost 112 hours, while those in New York lost 102 hours annually.
The Commute Is Work — It’s Just Unpaid
For decades, commuting has been treated as a personal responsibility. But return-to-office policies have changed that equation.
When companies require employees to be physically present, they are also requiring them to absorb the cost of time lost in transit. That time is measurable, predictable, and — according to INRIX — expensive.
In 2025, congestion cost U.S. drivers $894 per person in lost time, contributing to a total national loss of $85.8 billion. That cost is not shared; it sits entirely with workers.
And unlike other business expenses (office space, software, travel) commuting time is not reimbursed, even though it is necessary for the job to happen.
Return-to-Office Is Driving the Problem…Literally
The same report shows congestion is rising again across most cities. In fact, 88% of U.S. urban areas saw increased delays, as more people return to physical workplaces. As companies pull employees back into offices, they are also reintroducing millions of hours of lost time into the system. Traffic is actually intensifying.
In practical terms, this means there are more employees on the road at the same time, longer commute times across major metros, and increased variability and unpredictability in working hours.
The result is a hidden expansion of the workday — one that starts earlier, ends later, and goes unpaid.
The Case for a “Traffic Rate”
If companies are choosing to require office attendance, then the costs tied to that decision should be accounted for.
A “traffic rate” would do exactly that.
The idea is simple: compensate employees for a portion of the time they lose commuting, particularly in high-congestion areas. The rate could be tied to local traffic data, commute distance, or average delay hours in a given city.
INRIX assigns a clear economic value to time lost in traffic. Cities like Chicago see over $2,000 in annual losses per driver, showing just how uneven the burden can be depending on location.
Right now, that burden is invisible in company balance sheets, but a traffic rate would make it visible.
What Happens When Time Has a Cost
Introducing a traffic rate would immediately change how companies think about office mandates.
A five-day return policy in a high-congestion city would carry a direct financial impact tied to employee time.
That could lead to:
- More targeted in-office requirements instead of blanket policies
- Greater investment in remote and hybrid options
- Increased attention to office location and commute accessibility
It would also force a more honest conversation about productivity. If an employee loses 1–2 hours a day commuting, that time does not disappear. It reduces energy, focus, and available working hours elsewhere.
The Future of Work Includes the Commute
The data makes one thing clear: commuting is a measurable, growing cost tied directly to how work is structured. For years, companies have debated whether employees should return to the office. The better question may be: who should pay for it?
Right now, employees are covering the cost with their time.
A traffic rate would shift part of that burden back to the organizations making the decision — turning commuting from an invisible expectation into a recognized part of work itself.
