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.
This is most recent set of data but I think you’re right, seems like Atlanta falls of the list some years and then is back on during other years.
These studies, or rather the interpretation of them, is faulty at best. I don’t see how measuring average hours or money spent in traffic leads to the “most congested” title. There are so many factors that need to be taken into consideration. Lazy study.
A proper study would be one that measures the amount of time traffic flows at less than, say, 20 mph, on the greatest percentage of metro highways. That requires a ton of legwork and money but until a proper study is done, I usually dismiss ones like above.
There is no way DC traffic even comes close to what’s experienced daily in LA. Anecdotal, of course, but having lived in both areas, they aren’t on the same level.
I 100% agree that DFW has to improve its transit system but what kind of thinking is it that the expansion and improvements to highways and streets does not help deal with traffic? I'm 100% sure that traffic would be much worse here if we had the same road infrastructure as in the 1980s. 60% even if we invested all the money in buses and subways. The only argument is if the lack of improvements made people stop moving here altogether, presumably because of a lack of roads to accommodate them, but that's back to the problem of being too crowded.
I 100% agree that DFW has to improve its transit system but what kind of thinking is it that the expansion and improvements to highways and streets does not help deal with traffic? I'm 100% sure that traffic would be much worse here if we had the same road infrastructure as in the 1980s. 60% even if we invested all the money in buses and subways. The only argument is if the lack of improvements made people stop moving here altogether, presumably because of a lack of roads to accommodate them, but that's back to the problem of being too crowded.
LA was saying the same thing. They kept building more and more lanes and miles of highway. You think it's helped at all? Wait till Dallas gets even remotely close to LA's density and the traffic will be horrendous compared to LA since LA at least has a solid public transit system as well.
LA was saying the same thing. They kept building more and more lanes and miles of highway. You think it's helped at all? Wait till Dallas gets even remotely close to LA's density and the traffic will be horrendous compared to LA since LA at least has a solid public transit system as well.
That doesn't discredit anything. To your question, of course it helped. When DFW has 18 million people (something I doubt will ever happen, but whatever), regardless of how much PT there is-in the realm of realism and what is actually possible in our current world, having more streets will be better than having less. How is that even in question? Having less streets does not magically fix traffic unless the shortage is so bad that it just completely discourages people from living in a city. You think LA traffic is bad now, imagine what would happen if half the roads suddenly became blocked off.
Atlanta, Dallas and Houston can brag about their wide highways or miles per capita all they want, but widening the highways or building new ones isn't easing traffic woes in these areas.
Nobody in Atlanta does this. There is basically zero will here to build any new Freeways.
Nobody in Atlanta does this. There is basically zero will here to build any new Freeways.
This... I lived in Dallas traffic was bad in some areas but flows much better than Atlanta because there's simply more alternatives in the northern part of the metro area road network. In Atlanta there's no east-west expressway at all in the northern part of the metro area, not outer loop expressways period. They may toll you to death in Texas but at least they've provided an alternative. People in Georgia seem content on keeping the infrastructure as it is and expecting the problems to solve itself. I hear the "we full" talk a lot more in Atlanta than I ever heard it in Dallas. I agree Dallas overall has the best combination of transit/road network. The road system works well there due to the spread out nature of the jobs centers there. I think it would have to become much denser in the future for the DART to see a big increase in usage. At least they have planned and tried to keep up with the growth there though.
I think DFW has plenty of room to continue growing. The way the metro is designed and it's highway/arterial road infrastructure and expanding rail options and tons of available land give the area a lot of promise to continue growing and filling in.
Atl should focus on widening surface roads and build some additional alternative routes. DFW has done a great job with this. Plenty of choices and lots of 4 and 6 lane roads. One can get around Dallas much easier without getting on a freeway.
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.
