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.
Only about 2 dozen times, including every year for the past 10 years. I've found the traffic to be typical of a heavily populated region, especially at rush hour. I've never had any trouble getting to or from Virginia Beach from anywhere in the area, at any time of day, unless there's an accident on my route.
Those are usually car centric regions, which is why the traffic is probably similar. Independence and Virginia Beach Blvd has traffic no matter what time of the day it is. You are lucky when you aren't parked on I-64 or a bridge tunnel during rush hour. Everyone drives there and the traffic reflects that.
Those are usually car centric regions, which is why the traffic is probably similar. Independence and Virginia Beach Blvd has traffic no matter what time of the day it is. You are lucky when you aren't parked on I-64 or a bridge tunnel during rush hour. Everyone drives there and the traffic reflects that.
That was the point I was making.
Except more transit oriented regions don't have good traffic either. In general, areas with good transit tend to be on the more congested side, though that doesn't imply any causation of course. Subway / rapid transit system with frequent stops (needed if locals can walk conveniently to the station) average 20 mph, 25 mph at best. If it can compete at all with driving time-wise, average driving speed can't be that fast. The areas with the "best transit" or at least high volume systems tend to be places with low average driving speeds.
Those are usually car centric regions, which is why the traffic is probably similar. Independence and Virginia Beach Blvd has traffic no matter what time of the day it is. You are lucky when you aren't parked on I-64 or a bridge tunnel during rush hour. Everyone drives there and the traffic reflects that.
That was the point I was making.
OK (and I think this may be slightly off topic), but even having a good transit system doesn't make traffic vanish magically. To make a valid comparison, could we find a metro with an effective transit system the same size as Virginia Beach et al?
Except more transit oriented regions don't have good traffic either. In general, areas with good transit tend to be on the more congested side, though that doesn't imply any causation of course. Subway / rapid transit system with frequent stops (needed if locals can walk conveniently to the station) average 20 mph, 25 mph at best. If it can compete at all with driving time-wise, average driving speed can't be that fast. The areas with the "best transit" or at least high volume systems tend to be places with low average driving speeds.
Could you imagine how much worse the traffic would be in NYC if it didn't have the transit system it has? Then of course, all those commuters would need more places to park.
OK (and I think this may be slightly off topic), but even having a good transit system doesn't make traffic vanish magically. To make a valid comparison, could we find a metro with an effective transit system the same size as Virginia Beach et al?
Let the fun begin. LOL
I was pointing out a car centric city to Katrina, which was on topic, what you are suggesting would be completely off topic. So there will be no fun beginning with this.
OK (and I think this may be slightly off topic), but even having a good transit system doesn't make traffic vanish magically. To make a valid comparison, could we find a metro with an effective transit system the same size as Virginia Beach et al?
Let the fun begin. LOL
Yes, you could if you'r referring to metro population (1.7 million), though Virginia Beach is more decentralized than most. I'd assume Cleveland has a better transit system, Portland for sure. Vancouver much more so. All are a bit larger population than Virginia Beach, but only by a third. Vancouver has the worst traffic of these, though it's not as bad as many larger cities (despite misleading studies) A number of smaller Canadian cities have better transit. Plenty of European cities of the same population and much better transit. Of course, there are other big differences.
Could you imagine how much worse the traffic would be in NYC if it didn't have the transit system it has? Then of course, all those commuters would need more places to park.
Obviously, it would be gridlock. Malloric's link claimed removing the NYC transit system would add 49 hours / week to the average auto commuter's commute. In reality, those commutes would just disappear. A city that dense would need to sacrifice an enormous amount of space to function without transit. But regardless, the combination of light traffic and good transit isn't a common one. Regions with good transit don't really have much better traffic than completely car-centric ones.
Yes, you could if you'r referring to metro population (1.7 million), though Virginia Beach is more decentralized than most. I'd assume Cleveland has a better transit system, Portland for sure. Vancouver much more so. All are a bit larger population than Virginia Beach, but only by a third. Vancouver has the worst traffic of these, though it's not as bad as many larger cities (despite misleading studies) A number of smaller Canadian cities have better transit. Plenty of European cities of the same population and much better transit. Of course, there are other big differences.
Virginia Beach's "peer cities":
Austin (35), Nashville (36), Providence (38), Milwaukee (39). Two higher and two lower in MSA population. There are your comparison cities. Not Cleveland (29) or Portland (24).
Obviously, it would be gridlock. Malloric's link claimed removing the NYC transit system would add 49 hours / week to the average auto commuter's commute. In reality, those commutes would just disappear. A city that dense would need to sacrifice an enormous amount of space to function without transit. But regardless, the combination of light traffic and good transit isn't a common one. Regions with good transit don't really have much better transit than completely car-centric ones.
Well those commutes wouldn't disappear, they would just be spread throughout an even larger area as jobs decentralized to handle the parking demands.
Unfortunately in this country, I don't think we have any one city with truly good transit. NYC has the biggest system, and even that system is far behind what it should be to handle the 23 million people that live in and around NYC.
Except more transit oriented regions don't have good traffic either. In general, areas with good transit tend to be on the more congested side, though that doesn't imply any causation of course. Subway / rapid transit system with frequent stops (needed if locals can walk conveniently to the station) average 20 mph, 25 mph at best. If it can compete at all with driving time-wise, average driving speed can't be that fast. The areas with the "best transit" or at least high volume systems tend to be places with low average driving speeds.
Yup.
In defense of transit-oriented regions, they're usually so dense the traffic would be absolutely horrendous instead of just awful without transit. If people honestly expect transit to be better than DC or San Francisco because that's insufficient, it's just never going to happen in 99% of America. That doesn't mean you can't find a better happy medium. Much of the Bay Area is transitioning to be a bit more transit friendly, but by no means is it going to have better transit than San Francisco in the foreseeable future. A lot of it is still walkable, although you'll have to pick neighborhoods, and has alternatives besides just using the car. Are they going to be as fast as the car? No. The preferred alternative for most is still going to be the car. That doesn't mean there isn't an alternative. This idea that the car being the most expeditious and preferable way for most getting around meaning there isn't transit or it isn't walkable is ridiculous. Where I live transit is pretty much awful, no arguing that. It's still an alternative and one the area is actively trying to make a better alternative. They just aren't trying to usurp the car everywhere. Instead they're focusing on transit corridors and hoping that in the future those will develop and provide a transit-friendly core to an otherwise auto-centric area.
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.
