U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old Yesterday, 09:55 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
977 posts, read 359,904 times
Reputation: 1364

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLfromJAX View Post
Don't believe the ATL traffic hype! I never did.

There may be other reasons for ppl not liking Atlanta, but it ain't the traffic.

Boston, NYC, DC, Seattle, and LA ALL have higher traffic congestion. Yet companies and people are still relocating to those cities.

I've driven in Seattle, Austin, LA, and DC at rush hour. And they all are the same or worst than Atlanta.

- Boston (164 hours lost due to congestion) and Washington D.C. (155 hours) ranked as the most congested cities in the United States

- Boston was the only U.S. city included in the top 10 most congested cities worldwide

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...300793672.html
Theyíre #11 according to your link. Thatís hardly a reason to start a thread and boast, lol. Furthermore, #10 Portland was 116 hours lost, Atlanta 108. Thatís a whopping 2 minutes a day to a M-F commuter. Heck, compared to #1 Boston itís only 10 minutes each direction per day. So yeah Iíll still believe the hype. Iíve experienced Atlantaís traffic on a couple of occasions and it blows.

Regardless, I scrolled through all the cities and San Diego was 40th in the US. While itís nowhere as bad as many other major cities, especially those in California, itís hardly #40. I saw many cities listed ahead of it that Iím familiar with that have much less congestion. I put zero stock in this list. Instead of trying to brag maybe Iíll post this list in the San Diego forum so we can all get a good chuckle about being #40 and actually wish it was true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old Yesterday, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Illinois
222 posts, read 76,910 times
Reputation: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ericmrtt View Post
SO Dallas, Kansas City, Saint Louis, Detroit, Buffalo, Denver, Salt Lake City, you will probably see, oh I almost forgot Chattanooga. Will soon be in the top ten list...

Take with a grain of salt these lists, Metro Atlanta traffic is terrible!
St. Louis is an absolute breeze to drive through.

3 million people in a metro with Hwy infrastructure sufficient for nearly 2X that number.

The only traffic I encounter in StL (excepting accidents) is HWY 40 between Kingshighway and Brentwood Blvd during rush hour.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 11:15 AM
 
4,629 posts, read 1,894,588 times
Reputation: 14458
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATLfromJAX View Post
Don't believe the ATL traffic hype! I never did.

There may be other reasons for ppl not liking Atlanta, but it ain't the traffic.

Boston, NYC, DC, Seattle, and LA ALL have higher traffic congestion. Yet companies and people are still relocating to those cities.

I've driven in Seattle, Austin, LA, and DC at rush hour. And they all are the same or worst than Atlanta.

- Boston (164 hours lost due to congestion) and Washington D.C. (155 hours) ranked as the most congested cities in the United States

- Boston was the only U.S. city included in the top 10 most congested cities worldwide

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...300793672.html



I've driven in every single one of those cities multiple times. I'm not sure what criteria they use, but only LA, DC, and Boston compare to Atlanta. I don't believe in capital punishment, but the designer of the 285/400 intersection should be dragged out into the street and shot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 01:57 PM
 
262 posts, read 154,668 times
Reputation: 242
People also believe Atlanta has the worst traffic because they are slowly realizing that for it's population size it's actually the least dense urban area in the entire world.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 02:16 PM
 
4,340 posts, read 1,580,179 times
Reputation: 4054
The situation in Boston is not likely to get better anytime soon. The rapid growth in new jobs in the downtown with many new employers that used to have suburban locations recently moving to the city is making traffic even worse. There is a big increase in new housing construction but it is no where near on pace with new job creation. This is forcing more people from the suburbs to commute into the city. While Boston does have one of the better mass transit systems in the US, it too is not keeping up with demand. Trains are not frequent enough and are far too crowded.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:26 PM
 
Location: Seminole County, FL
8,426 posts, read 5,841,571 times
Reputation: 10546
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinytr View Post
People also believe Atlanta has the worst traffic because they are slowly realizing that for it's population size it's actually the least dense urban area in the entire world.
No correlation whatsoever.

Also, urban population of 4,000,000+ at over 5,000/sq.mi. It's not NYC, but it's not "low" either, let alone the least..


Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 06:28 PM
 
3,509 posts, read 8,638,988 times
Reputation: 1996
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacoSoup View Post
Theyíre #11 according to your link. Thatís hardly a reason to start a thread and boast, lol. Furthermore, #10 Portland was 116 hours lost, Atlanta 108. Thatís a whopping 2 minutes a day to a M-F commuter. Heck, compared to #1 Boston itís only 10 minutes each direction per day. So yeah Iíll still believe the hype. Iíve experienced Atlantaís traffic on a couple of occasions and it blows.

Regardless, I scrolled through all the cities and San Diego was 40th in the US. While itís nowhere as bad as many other major cities, especially those in California, itís hardly #40. I saw many cities listed ahead of it that Iím familiar with that have much less congestion. I put zero stock in this list. Instead of trying to brag maybe Iíll post this list in the San Diego forum so we can all get a good chuckle about being #40 and actually wish it was true.
There was a time when San Diego passed L.A. as having the #1 worst traffic in the entire United States.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:06 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
977 posts, read 359,904 times
Reputation: 1364
Quote:
Originally Posted by SEAandATL View Post
There was a time when San Diego passed L.A. as having the #1 worst traffic in the entire United States.
Not even remotely true, lol. I know you have no love lost for San Diego, but at least try to make your slander somewhat believable.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:11 PM
 
Location: In the heights
21,077 posts, read 22,612,184 times
Reputation: 10970
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMS02760 View Post
The situation in Boston is not likely to get better anytime soon. The rapid growth in new jobs in the downtown with many new employers that used to have suburban locations recently moving to the city is making traffic even worse. There is a big increase in new housing construction but it is no where near on pace with new job creation. This is forcing more people from the suburbs to commute into the city. While Boston does have one of the better mass transit systems in the US, it too is not keeping up with demand. Trains are not frequent enough and are far too crowded.
Boston desperately needs to make the North-South rail link happen as soon as possible and turn its commuter rail network into a S-Bahn/RER type of service.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old Yesterday, 07:34 PM
 
262 posts, read 154,668 times
Reputation: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcenal352 View Post
No correlation whatsoever.

Also, urban population of 4,000,000+ at over 5,000/sq.mi. It's not NYC, but it's not "low" either, let alone the least..

5,000 per square mile? I really hope you're joking.. It's actually 1,700 per square mile and it's not just the least dense in the world for it's population size, it's by far the least dense in the world for it's population size. We're talking almost half as dense as any other urban area in the entire world with it's population or more and I'm pretty sure it's actually becoming less dense each day. It's sprawling much faster than it's infilling. Have a look..


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...es_urban_areas

Last edited by pinytr; Yesterday at 07:42 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top