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.
I've been to both and I cannot see anyone putting Auckland in the same boat as L.A. as far as smog goes. I certainly didn't see that brown tinge to the sky in Auckland as I always see in L.A.
Traffic, however, was surprisingly bad when we were in Auckland. We thought there was some sort of accident or roadworks happening but no, we were told, that's just the way it is. I don't know anything about the public transport as we were only visiting and had a car.
Auckland has 1/20 the population the LA metro area has so it's on a much lower scale.
The traffic problems in Auckland to due to roads running every which way due partly to the topography and a lack of 4 lane roads and interstate type highways.
I heard Auckland is infamous for its lack of public transit
and traffic problems..
I lived in LA for awhile, and all the traffic and smog drove me back up north..
how does Auckland compare SMOG and TRAFFIC wise to Los Angeles?
thanks!
I lived in Auckland for 5 years up to 2002. The traffic was bad and is a standing joke in NZ. I left home for work at 6-30am for about a 40km road trip...took me an hour on the motorway. I had to cross the Harbour Bridge which tends to be a bit of a bottleneck. But pictures I see of LA seem to be much worse...but I think it is because of the freeways having more lanes clogged with traffic (Akld freeway has 3 lanes at the most on each side), and because of the smog problem (Akld is on a isthmus so smog is more easily blown out to sea). And of course LA is much larger.
I lived in Auckland for 5 years up to 2002. The traffic was bad and is a standing joke in NZ. I left home for work at 6-30am for about a 40km road trip...took me an hour on the motorway. I had to cross the Harbour Bridge which tends to be a bit of a bottleneck. But pictures I see of LA seem to be much worse...but I think it is because of the freeways having more lanes clogged with traffic (Akld freeway has 3 lanes at the most on each side), and because of the smog problem (Akld is on a isthmus so smog is more easily blown out to sea). And of course LA is much larger.
That still sounds a little "light" compared to Toronto if that's the worst of Aukland.
Here, 40 km at rush hour is "expected" to take nearly an hour...
say 45-50 min, and of those kilometres, 80+ % of them will be from driving on 100km/h speedlimit highways.
On a bad day, it's not too unusual to take 1.5 hours to cover 40 km of highway around Toronto.
* Is that worse than anywhere in Australian or New Zealand?
traffic is only bad if your'e in the rush hour commutes. otherwise your fine. it's nothing compared to LA. and although smog is not always clearly visible in Auckland, the air contains a very high amount of fine particles which are very bad for respiratory health. supposedly it is worse than Sydney or Chicago in terms of health risks. one thing you may find annoying about the roads in auckland is the stupid drivers and road rage. everyone is in a rush and angry.
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.
