Atlanta has ONLY the 7th worst traffic in nation...

[MDAllstar]

Originally Posted by waronxmas

The study in the OP is for MSA level only.

Not that I don't disagree with you that one "solution" (it won't fix the problem) is to get more people on to trains. That of course has it's own problems with capacity.

I know, I was just saying that unlike most area's on the list, many drivers on D.C. highway's don't live in the D.C. MSA so they aren't counted with our MSA population. With over 3 million jobs, we should have a population closer to 6.5-7 million people which is the breakdown for most metro area's including Atlanta.

I think the largest problem when looking at traffic is land use. Jobs need to be focused around transit so people see it as a viable option. I think the metro Silver Line in D.C. will go a long way in focusing jobs and housing around transit in northern Virginia which has not had metro in the most developed area's like Tyson's Corner. Those area's are the main reason D.C. is voted as having bad traffic in the first place.

The Silver Line should have been built 30 years ago. That area of the metro area is transit starved and the Silver line runs 23 miles which will cover the last part of the region not covered by metro which happens to be one of the area's with the most jobs. It will be interesting to see the changes over the next decade in that part of the region and how it effects traffic. There are also extensive bus routes being put in place in that part of the region which virtually had no buses before now. They will feed the metro station's and should provide option's that did not exist before for that part of the region. The largest change should happen in the form of reverse commuting to Tyson's Corner which was not possible until this year. That will take a large number of cars off the road too.

D.C. proper is not really the reason D.C. traffic is seen as bad, northern Virginia is.

[ATL Urbanist]

Originally Posted by rcsteiner

I agree, but many suburbs (at least in Atlanta) don't take long to get that tree cover back, assuming it goes away at all. Here's a pic of my local area in Mableton, for example. That's pretty green. The existence of the girl scount camp in the lower right doesn't hurt, but even the subdivisions retain a lot of trees between streets and houses.

The presence of trees within the sprawl is very nice and has some great benefits, obviously. Greenery within urban spaces is good for people and the environment. No argument there.

My specific concern is in keeping as much unbuilt, connected land as possible. First-growth trees that sprout up within a built area are still disconnected by buildings and roads, and this lack of connectivity is unhealthy for native plants and animals and forest ecosystems.

Our unique ecosystems are part of what make north Georgia great and we've built over them willy nilly for the last few decades, losing many species of plants and animals in the process.

The metro Atlanta area is one of the prime offenders when it comes to loss of forest land. You can see the damage well on this map:

http://atlurbanist.tumblr.com/image/725414227

[arjay57]

Originally Posted by ATL Urbanist

My specific concern is in keeping as much unbuilt, connected land as possible. First-growth trees that sprout up within a built area are still disconnected by buildings and roads, and this lack of connectivity is unhealthy for native plants and animals and forest ecosystems.

I love our trees and think we ought to work really hard to protect them.

I must say, however, that they have an amazing capacity to regenerate. You can look at this old photo of Ansley Park, for example, and think, "Oh, no, they have destroyed that place!" But when you drive through today of course it looks like the trees have been there forever.

I've seen aerials from the 1940s where they had cleared big chunks of land and now they are covered in massive oaks that I assumed had been there for a 100 years.

Go trees!

[dichloromethane]

My heart sank when I read the title. I didn't expect Seattle to make the list. It wasn't so bad when I lived there. Then again, I rarely drove around.

[cqholt]

Pretty much the whole east coast was clear cut before the start of the 20th century. There are patches of old growth forest, but almost every tall, large tree we see today are around 100 years old.

[AnsleyPark]

Hey, where is ATL on this list????

10 worst cities for driving - (1) - FORTUNE

[rcsteiner]

Originally Posted by GeorgiatoChina

Dude, no one cares about the size and looks of the houses in each suburb in this discussion. We are talking about the sprawly car dependent nature of just about all low density burbs.

Two of the four examples I gave are not houses, two of the four are also quite walkable, and three of the four are not low-density. Your assumption set is more than a little off, methinks.

[plucas001]

I know this is an older thread, however:

Despite reports such as the one that started this thread, I still see those insisting that Atlanta has the worst traffic in this United States... I just moved from DC and I know that i66 was just as horrendous and anything that I've experienced in this area.