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.
totally agree. for some reason, many outsiders seem to believe that just because nyc's transit is relatively extensive by american standards, nobody drives and everyone takes the train, bus, or ferry (or simply walks). these people would have you believe that all nyc-area residents have the option of taking mass transit to any destination in the region and at any time of day.
the thing is, this could not be farther from the truth. relatively high levels of mass transit ridership do not mean that the roads are free of congestion. don't believe me? consider tokyo, which has one of the world's elite mass transit systems (WAY better than anything in north america, including nyc), yet their traffic is also infinitely worse than every city/region in this country. why? because it's an enormous, dense metropolitan area with a staggeringly large population. this means that there are tons of people on the roads AND the rails AND the buses at any given time. to put it simply, everything's congested.
for the same reasons, the nyc area has horrendous traffic. it is the largest and most dense city in the nation and the largest metropolitan area as well (the suburbs sprawl out for 80+ miles in all directions). and keep in mind that nyc's much-ballyhooed transit system does not provide great service to many outlying areas of the city, while the suburbs have even spottier options. for example, there really aren't any suburb-to-suburb rail lines unless you're already on a train headed to/from manhattan. also, certain towns only have mass transit service during rush hour on weekdays, which forces commuters to get in their cars at all other times.
what this means is that some people have no choice but to drive depending on their place of residence and destination.
and again, i have to emphasize that the nyc metro area has tons of bottlenecks due to its geography (everything is on islands/peninsulas) and an aging, inadequate road infrastructure.
sure, many people in the region (especially those who live in manhattan and closer-in areas of the outer boroughs) can enjoy a car-free lifestyle. but far more people in the city DO have cars by choice or out of necessity. and pretty much everyone out in the burbs has a car or two or five. many of these suburbanites drive into the city on a frequent basis, such as those who want to party on thu/fri/sat nights and don't want to ride the train back to hicksville at 4am. that's assuming they even have the option of taking mass transit back to the suburbs at that late hour, which is far from a given.
what you end up with is a huge traffic mess that has no peer in this country as far as i'm concerned.
QFT.
You are right. There is this misconception that everyone in NYC takes the subway and the only vehicles on the road are taxis. It's just plain wrong.
People who say LA is the worst make me smile. Most people that visit NYC have never actually tried driving there for themselves (particularly during busy hours). They have no idea. lol. Manhattan average vehicle speeds are clocked consistently at around ~5 mph, the lowest in the country. From a city proper perspective,NYC (and Manhattan, especially) has far, far worse traffic than LA, Chicago, Atlanta, DC, Orlando (throw your favorite US city in there). And how wouldn't it? NYC only has more than twice the population of the next largest US city in a considerably smaller area... Let alone, far more workers commute to it than anywhere else in the nation.
Likewise, the NYC metro area has arguably the worst traffic in the entire country.When you also consider that, on the whole, the NYC metro area doesn't even have those huge 6,8 (or however many) lane highways that LA metro does, accommodating that traffic, LA metro, at best, can only come close to it. Compared to southern california, the driving infrastructure in the NYC metro is a joke.
Too many people rely on studies put out by organizations that use imperfect and highly subjective criteria rather than actually driving in the places themselves.
QFT.
You are right. There is this misconception that everyone in NYC takes the subway and the only vehicles on the road are taxis. It's just plain wrong.
People who say LA is the worst make me smile. Most people that visit NYC have never actually tried driving there for themselves (particularly during busy hours). They have no idea. lol. Manhattan average vehicle speeds are clocked consistently at around ~5 mph, the lowest in the country. From a city proper perspective,NYC (and Manhattan, especially) has far, far worse traffic than LA, Chicago, Atlanta, DC, Orlando (throw your favorite US city in there). And how wouldn't it? NYC only has more than twice the population of the next largest US city in a considerably smaller area... Let alone, far more workers commute to it than anywhere else in the nation.
Likewise, the NYC metro area has arguably the worst traffic in the entire country.When you also consider that, on the whole, the NYC metro area doesn't even have those huge 6,8 (or however many) lane highways that LA metro does, accommodating that traffic, LA metro, at best, can only come close to it. Compared to southern california, the driving infrastructure in the NYC metro is a joke.
Too many people rely on studies put out by organizations that use imperfect and highly subjective criteria rather than actually driving in the places themselves.
I've never had a more intimidating experience than being in a car in Times Square during rush hour (I have my mom to thank for that), and I've driven in L.A. before.
I'm shocked that Seattle wasn't part of the poll and hasn't been mentioned once. Anyone that's lived in Seattle knows that traffic is a nightmare in the mornings and evenings. It's easily in the top 10 for worst gridlock in the country.
I have been to every major city in the u.s. i have spent extensive time in n.y., l.a., boston, chicago, atlanta, and seatle. By far and I mean really far no city has traffic comparable to atlanta. When I'm in l.a. I have fortieth from compton to las vegas in less time than it took for me to get from griffin to atlanta which by definition should only be a 40 mile drive i have been stopped in eagles landing in the same spot for 3 hours i can and have gotten out of my car and layed on the hood fallen asleep for 2 hours gotten wokken up by a horn just to move a car length but the next cleanest would be l.a. but the traffic there is still light years ahead of atlanta in terms of less congestion
Denver during rushhour, why did you even bother to put LA? lol Houston/Dallas are definaint yes. Miami...Kinda,washington DC yesssss. And NYC i suppose.
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.
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.
