Atlanta not in top 10 for worst traffic in US. Boston is #1.... (Chicago, difference)

[Arcenal813]

Originally Posted by pinytr

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

The URBAN DENSITY is at 5,000/sq.mi. With a population of nearly 5M. The METRO density is at around 1,500.

• Urban
4,975,300
• Urban density
5,180/sq mi (1,999/km2)
• Metro
5,884,736[7] (9th)
• Metro density
1,350/sq mi (522/km2)

Go on your own link and click on Atlanta.

[Arcenal813]

Originally Posted by pinytr

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

You are absolutely clueless.

The density drops drastically once you leave the urban core areas. Hence the stark difference in Metro vs Urban numbers. Anyone who goes there will see this, even as a visitor.

And the complaints about traffic are due to the "Downtown Connector," which by all accounts, is a horrible design that should have never happened. I don't think anyone there really complains much about the other major highways.

[pinytr]

Originally Posted by Arcenal352

The URBAN DENSITY is at 5,000/sq.mi. With a population of nearly 5M. The METRO density is at around 1,500.

• Urban
4,975,300
• Urban density
5,180/sq mi (1,999/km2)
• Metro
5,884,736[7] (9th)
• Metro density
1,350/sq mi (522/km2)

Go on your own link and click on Atlanta.

You obviously don't have experience with these kind of metrics. Hopefully someone else can explain how very wrong you are.. New York City's Urban Area barely breaks 5,000/ sq. mi. Even Atlanta city proper is only at 3,547 / sq. mi. Pretty funny stuff though and I still hope you're joking.

[Arcenal813]

Originally Posted by pinytr

You obviously don't have experience with these kind of metrics. Hopefully someone else can explain how very wrong you are..

It's there in census analytics. There isn't much explaining needed.

Originally Posted by pinytr

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.

You specifically said "urban area." Had you said "metro," the conversation would be different. However, as it stands (by your own link) there are 5 million people in the urban areas of Atlanta, at a density of 5,000/sq.mi.


Going back to your quoted post too, the lack of density would actually make traffic significantly worse, considering all kinds of people not living near the core areas would all be clamoring onto I75/I85 to get to work, school, etc. And this is actually exactly what happens there.

[stanley-88888888]

i'm surprised that bos is worst than the beltway ?

so even after the big-dig and silver-line addition (and soon to be green-line expansion), boston is still the worst ?

[TheLawMan]

The amount of people here saying worst instead of worse is too high.

[RotseCherut]

I cannot imagine any place being worse than Seattle, especially the I-405 corridor and I-5 from Lacey through Ft. Lewis up to Tacoma during rush hour. That is just brutal and terrifying. It took me over 3 hours to go from Seattle to Tacoma during one Friday rush hour. That is just 40 miles. The only place I have been with worse traffic than Seattle is Kampala, Uganda. Let's just say they don't have a lot of good city planning over there in Kampala. With that being said I have driven through rush hours of Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland OR, Denver, Salt Lake City, St. Louis, Kansas City, Charlotte, Nashville, Vancouver BC and I have yet to see anything that can compare to Seattle rush hour except for my out of country experiences.

[BXboi]

I've been through Atlanta on 85 before during rush and yeah it was BAD.....I gotta say that day ATL lived up to the infamous reputation but I'm sure those who live there know the real deal about how to get around the problem areas....On another note I shudder to think of NYC traffic if the massive transit system we have(warts and all) wasn't in place and its already damn near at the top now with it....

[NC2ATL60]

Originally Posted by BXboi

I've been through Atlanta on 85 before during rush and yeah it was BAD.....I gotta say that day ATL lived up to the infamous reputation but I'm sure those who live there know the real deal about how to get around the problem areas....On another note I shudder to think of NYC traffic if the massive transit system we have(warts and all) wasn't in place and its already damn near at the top now with it....

Honestly, what major top 15 city doesn't have traffic at rush hour??

[Arcenal813]

Originally Posted by NC2ATL60

Honestly, what major top 15 city doesn't have traffic at rush hour??

Very true. The awful layout of the Downtown Connector, however, has to be one of the most ridiculous major highway designs in the country.