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

[BoiWonder13]

Originally Posted by Turnerbro

I don't understand why people from Atlanta think they're so special when it comes to having bad traffic. Yeah it's bad but far from the worst. Also most transplants that move from Atlanta come from places like D.C, Boston and Chicago. Which have worse traffic.

I feel like people are missing the point with Atlanta traffic. It's not the volume, it's the infrastructure challenges that cause you to miss 5-6 cycles of green lights before you even move an foot closer through the intersection. Poorly timed lights, confusion merges and lack of grid patterns cause Atlanta to be a special mix of hell and emotions when you have to deal with its traffic every.single.day. Don't just visit and get on the connector and conclude with a "thats it" statement. Go check out 400 going S into Atlanta from Alpharetta, or 285 near Vinnings. Don't even get me started on 285 near Spaghetti Junction fam

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by DavePa

Some Northern cites are more compact. But expressways smaller. Those with booming cores especially.... MUST have transit to supplement it. They have no room to widen and expand without removing housing. Some like Chicago. Have parts to most of city expressways. As sunken in varieties. Widening a extreme undertaking. Their battle is IMOROVING TRANSIT BY FAR.

Many booming Sunbelt cities. Have more driving distances, more funneling of traffic thru feeder roads, and have less viable options to get off a expressway, to use neighborhood main-streets. Rush hours by far the worst up North. Sunbelt cities can have it more overall rush-hours or not.

Newer cities in their growth eras. Still have more viable widening options too. Chicago is very Core-Centric. Also one side if the Core is Lake Michigan. No 360° ringing spike of expressways.... like most cities. Some have large rivers with limited bridges to cross etc.

Atlantan's clearly know their own congestion aspects. But they are so funneled onto expressways for most of ther travel needs not to ther CBD's. Much Harder to avoid by going thru neighborhood main-streets of more grid-type cities.

So different cities and issues and obstacles and options available to them. One expects cities with much less people working in cores, like maybe a St Louis, or less topography issues in limitations like a Pittsburgh .... to have smoother commutes.

Luckily some cities Cores are booming in live-in residents, for a much shorter commute without expressways used.

The link last cities by the measured commuting times. Must very close anyway. But waaaay too many not good in wasted time to commute and fuel use in our Nation.

Less topography issues. . . like a Pittsburgh? Pittsburgh is so hilly and has so many rivers, there are lots of topography issues. I am surprised Denver isn't on the list. Lots of idiots driving.

[Craziaskowboi]

Ha! I-376 is on the list, but people on the Pittsburgh board will pretend that there's nothing wrong with it, or that it doesn't need to be widened. Never mind that a transportation study done in 2002 (as in 17 years ago) determined that daily traffic demand for I-376 between I-79 and downtown Pittsburgh was more than twice as much as the highway actually carried per day, so even if alternate modes of transportation cut the traffic demand in half, the highway would still be over capacity and require widening. But yeah, trains and bike trails will solve the entire problem.

[Arcenal813]

Originally Posted by BoiWonder13

I feel like people are missing the point with Atlanta traffic. It's not the volume, it's the infrastructure challenges that cause you to miss 5-6 cycles of green lights before you even move an foot closer through the intersection. Poorly timed lights, confusion merges and lack of grid patterns cause Atlanta to be a special mix of hell and emotions when you have to deal with its traffic every.single.day. Don't just visit and get on the connector and conclude with a "thats it" statement. Go check out 400 going S into Atlanta from Alpharetta, or 285 near Vinnings. Don't even get me started on 285 near Spaghetti Junction fam

And then this too.
I was in Morrow visiting a friend, and your description of the ****ty road layouts is spot-on. To get back to I75 from her place, I had to snake through this long, winding two-lane road that was FILLED with cars, and ill-timed traffic lights making it impossible to move an inch. Now, I get that this is an issue in a lot of cities, but there, the worst part was that there simply was no alternative. Any road that you saw branching off of it lead to a dead-end.
And there are tons of similar areas surrounding the city core.

[cpomp]

People arguing over bad traffic acting like its a measurement of becoming world class....

[Arcenal813]

Originally Posted by Craziaskowboi

Ha! I-376 is on the list, but people on the Pittsburgh board will pretend that there's nothing wrong with it, or that it doesn't need to be widened. Never mind that a transportation study done in 2002 (as in 17 years ago) determined that daily traffic demand for I-376 between I-79 and downtown Pittsburgh was more than twice as much as the highway actually carried per day, so even if alternate modes of transportation cut the traffic demand in half, the highway would still be over capacity and require widening. But yeah, trains and bike trails will solve the entire problem.

How would you widen it? There's a river on one side, and a cluster of buildings and urbanity on the other, along with underground tunnels, old bridge crossings, and valleys...

The suburban parts of it are adequate at 6 lanes. But the more central parts would be a nightmare to do.

[Arcenal813]

Originally Posted by cpomp

People arguing over bad traffic acting like its a measurement of becoming world class....

Where? All I see is people posting about examples of bad road designs in their city. No one is boasting about it. They're complaining about it.

[cpomp]

Originally Posted by Arcenal352

Where? All I see is people posting about examples of bad road designs in their city. No one is boasting about it. They're complaining about it.

I am not denying bad traffic, but you an clearly see its a contest as you read thru the thread.

[IndieIndy]

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.

In that same article, if you look just above is says that ATL's urban area is 1,963 sq. mi. with a pop. of 4,975,300 which would equal 2,534 ppsm. I don't know what to believe on Wikipedia anymore.

[Arcenal813]

Originally Posted by IndieIndy

In that same article, if you look just above is says that ATL's urban area is 1,963 sq. mi. with a pop. of 4,975,300 which would equal 2,534 ppsm. I don't know what to believe on Wikipedia anymore.

Yeah I saw that too. Which makes more sense. I used Wikipedia in part as a response to the poster who also used it to back up his sentiments. So for arguments' sake, I used the same source. Same poster also said NYC barely has an urban density of 5,000/sq mi. I really wonder where he/she got that from, as it is FAR from accurate.