ATL has only 21st worst traffic in USA...LA first, Austin 4th (Atlanta: 2014, tax)

[ATLfromJAX]

Finally a study that backs up what I've been telling my friends that haven't lived in other major metros -- Atlanta's traffic is NOT as bad as people claim.

I've lived in California and traveled for business to other big cities - Seattle, Austin, NYC, LA, Washington DC.

And EVERY one of the cities above has the same or WORST rush hour traffic than Atlanta. And I agree with Austin ranking so high. I was caught in horrible rush hour jam there. Even though Austin is WAY smaller than Atlanta, the road infrastructure is NOT keeping up with population growth.

--------------------
Report: Atlanta traffic not among nation?s Top 10 worst - Atlanta Business Chronicle

Traffic Scorecard - Wasting Hours in Traffic

1) Los Angeles - 64 hours
2) Honolulu - 60 hours
3) San Francisco – 56 hours
4) Austin, Texas – 41 hours
5) New York City – 53 hours
6) Bridgeport, Conn. – 42 hours
7. San Jose, Calif. – 35 hours
8) Seattle – 37 hours
9) Boston – 38 hours
10) Washington, D.C. – 40 hours

[SAAN]

It all depends what direction you are trying to go traffic wise. No way ATL is #21.

If you are coming from the eastside, westside, or southside of town and have to go up to 285 to ashford dunwoody area or further up to Alpharetta, you are looking at 1hr to 1hr 20 mins daily and if your on the south side and have to come through downtown its even worse. Try to go from Alpahretta to Decatur/Lithonia or Western suburbs at 5pm and its 1hr 30-40 mins

Many jobs are on the north side (Cumberland, Perimeter, GA 400N, Duluth, Norcross) so unless you live on the north metro, your commute is hell each day.

Atlanta problem is trying to commute from suburb to suburb for or rather than going into downtown. If you dont have to touch the northside, outside of downtown traffic isnt too bad.

[ElleKaye]

I don't know if I agree with that. I looked at the methodology used by the company that conducted the study, Inrix: http://www.inrix.com/scorecard/methodology.asp.

It appears that they determine wasted hours and the ranking based on the difference between a typical commute in the given location and how often a longer than typical commute occurs. That does not really compare whether traffic is heavier or typically how long it takes to get the same distance in one location or the next.

If I'm sitting on a freeway (and surface streets for that matter which were not included) that are like a parking lot every day then that is the typical commute. We lose the value of the difference of longer than typical commutes (wasted hours) because quite frankly it could barely get any worse.

[atl1221]

I really find it hard to believe that 20 places have worse traffic than us. Of course I have no data to back this up, but if 20 places are worse than Atlanta, the US has some major infrastructure / mass transit issues that need to be addressed.

[atler8]

^^^ And that, in the last sentence above at 12:44 is indeed the case!^^^
Our funding of projects via the federal gasoline tax is broken. That tax was last raised in 1993 & is NOT indexed to inflation.
No wonder our infrastructure is broken!

[Parsec]

Originally Posted by atl1221

I really find it hard to believe that 20 places have worse traffic than us. Of course I have no data to back this up, but if 20 places are worse than Atlanta, the US has some major infrastructure / mass transit issues that need to be addressed.

This is exactly the reasoning the OP gave for Atlantans complaining about their bad traffic. Everyone always think "their traffic" is the worst in the country even if they've never lived and worked in another major metro. Believe it or not, other people DO have it worse than you.

I've lived and worked in 3 metro areas (NYC, Atlanta, Boston) and think all 3 have bad traffic in different ways. Atlanta compared to Boston (#8 on the list) is congested for longer periods of time, but during the main rush hour period, Boston is far worse. This is due to Boston having more white-collar jobs with typical 9-5 hours as well as being much denser than Atlanta. NYC (#5 on the list) is just a standstill all the time, period.

[ElleKaye]

Originally Posted by Parsec

This is exactly the reasoning the OP gave for Atlantans complaining about their bad traffic. Everyone always think "their traffic" is the worst in the country even if they've never lived and worked in another major metro. Believe it or not, other people DO have it worse than you.

I've lived and worked in 3 metro areas (NYC, Atlanta, Boston) and think all 3 have bad traffic in different ways. Atlanta compared to Boston (#8 on the list) is congested for longer periods of time, but during the main rush hour period, Boston is far worse. This is due to Boston having more white-collar jobs with typical 9-5 hours as well as being much denser than Atlanta. NYC (#5 on the list) is just a standstill all the time, period.

Aside from vacations and traveling for work, I don't have much experience with eaily NYC and Boston traffic. I do know that I find both less stressful than Atlanta, and I agree in that I think the congestion lasts longer. I'm not saying the rush hours may not be worse by whatever criteria in other areas, but that skews the results because the normal commute time is already a month of Sundays.

[Ant131531]

As long as you don't have to commute or live on the northside, your commutes are fine. It takes me 35 minutes to go from Conyers to Downtown everyday. Occasionally, there are traffic issues around 285, but it's not that bad anymore.

Problem is, this metro is so shifted towards the North that over half the metro population has traffic issues. The northern part is so built up compared to the South part.

And this is a problem going forward. Now you see why cities like New York, SF, Chicago have their high density jobs cores in one place as opposed to spread out across the metro.

[AnsleyPark]

Originally Posted by Parsec

I've lived and worked in 3 metro areas (NYC, Atlanta, Boston) and think all 3 have bad traffic in different ways. Atlanta compared to Boston (#8 on the list) is congested for longer periods of time, but during the main rush hour period, Boston is far worse. This is due to Boston having more white-collar jobs with typical 9-5 hours as well as being much denser than Atlanta. NYC (#5 on the list) is just a standstill all the time, period.

Hmm. I don't think white collar jobs are more typically 9 - 5. Most white collar folk I know work very long days. Other than that, your observations bear out my experiences as well.

[AtlantaIsHot]

Originally Posted by ElleKaye

I don't know if I agree with that. I looked at the methodology used by the company that conducted the study, Inrix: http://www.inrix.com/scorecard/methodology.asp.

It appears that they determine wasted hours and the ranking based on the difference between a typical commute in the given location and how often a longer than typical commute occurs. That does not really compare whether traffic is heavier or typically how long it takes to get the same distance in one location or the next.

If I'm sitting on a freeway (and surface streets for that matter which were not included) that are like a parking lot every day then that is the typical commute. We lose the value of the difference of longer than typical commutes (wasted hours) because quite frankly it could barely get any worse.

I agree with this doubtful post. I remember about 10 years ago, Atlanta was ranked #1 in traffic... How people forget. The AJC newspaper was filled with front page stories about "gridshock." How Atlanta's residents were spending more hours in traffic than any other place. How it was choking on it's own success. How it was all bringing ruination on the economic growth. How endangered children and the elderly were in metro Atlanta due to ozone. Etc. Etc. It went on and on. I urge caution when reading "studies" and statistics. Statistics can be manipulated to produce the desired result. There are lies, danged lies, and statistics. Liars tell statistics and statistics tell lies...