Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 02-17-2019, 08:55 AM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
3,416 posts, read 2,455,833 times
Reputation: 6166

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
They’re #11 according to your link. That’s hardly a reason to start a thread and boast, lol. Furthermore, #10 Portland was 116 hours lost, Atlanta 108. That’s a whopping 2 minutes a day to a M-F commuter. Heck, compared to #1 Boston it’s only 10 minutes each direction per day. So yeah I’ll still believe the hype. I’ve experienced Atlanta’s 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 it’s nowhere as bad as many other major cities, especially those in California, it’s hardly #40. I saw many cities listed ahead of it that I’m familiar with that have much less congestion. I put zero stock in this list. Instead of trying to brag maybe I’ll 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 02-17-2019, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Illinois
451 posts, read 364,979 times
Reputation: 530
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 02-17-2019, 10:15 AM
 
10,501 posts, read 7,034,778 times
Reputation: 32344
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 02-17-2019, 12:57 PM
 
307 posts, read 330,643 times
Reputation: 286
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 02-17-2019, 01:16 PM
 
8,496 posts, read 4,558,569 times
Reputation: 9751
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 02-17-2019, 05:26 PM
 
Location: Flawduh
17,156 posts, read 15,373,458 times
Reputation: 23738
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 02-17-2019, 05:28 PM
 
6,561 posts, read 12,044,134 times
Reputation: 5246
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacoSoup View Post
They’re #11 according to your link. That’s hardly a reason to start a thread and boast, lol. Furthermore, #10 Portland was 116 hours lost, Atlanta 108. That’s a whopping 2 minutes a day to a M-F commuter. Heck, compared to #1 Boston it’s only 10 minutes each direction per day. So yeah I’ll still believe the hype. I’ve experienced Atlanta’s 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 it’s nowhere as bad as many other major cities, especially those in California, it’s hardly #40. I saw many cities listed ahead of it that I’m familiar with that have much less congestion. I put zero stock in this list. Instead of trying to brag maybe I’ll 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 02-17-2019, 06:06 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
3,416 posts, read 2,455,833 times
Reputation: 6166
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 02-17-2019, 06:11 PM
 
Location: In the heights
37,131 posts, read 39,380,764 times
Reputation: 21217
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 02-17-2019, 06:34 PM
 
307 posts, read 330,643 times
Reputation: 286
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; 02-17-2019 at 06:42 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
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top