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.
After looking up worst traffic, NYC usually falls at #4-6, with a few ranking it at #20-24. LA was either #1 or #2, falling behind Washington DC.
I often see LA behind DC too. Honestly, having lived just outside of DC (Kensington MD), I didn't think DC was much worse than many major cities in the country. Definitely not LA. Probably not even New York.
This is probably because NYC and its surrounding area has much better, more effective, more used mass transit than LA. If NYC had awful mass transit compared to what it actually has, it would be #1 in traffic. No question there IMO. The fact that 4/5 of it is an island makes it hell now, imagine it with no subways (MTA, PATH), trains (NJT, LIRR, MetroNorth), multiple ferry lines, and buses. I can't even imagine that. We'd need way more bridges and tunnels…
New York actually has longer commutes than LA. 51% of New York area commuters need more than 30 minutes to get to work. In Los Angeles, 45.3% of commuters need more than 30 minutes get to work.
There's really not much correlation between public transit and commute times. Dallas doesn't exactly have great public transit, but yet has the shortest commute times of the nation's 11 largest metros. Washington, DC has extenstive transit and has the longest commute times in the nation.
Here is the % of commuters by metro who have commutes in excess of 30 minutes.
Washington, DC - 56.3%
New York - 51.0%
Chicago - 49.2%
San Francisco - 48.2%
Atlanta - 47.9%
Boston - 47.5%
Houston - 46.2%
Miami - 45.4%
Los Angeles - 45.3%
Philadelphia - 43.6%
Dallas - 42.6%
And here it is by city proper.
New York - 67.6%
Chicago - 58.1%
Philadelphia - 53.4%
San Francisco - 52.5%
Boston - 51.4%
Los Angeles - 48.4%
Washington, DC - 45.6%
Miami - 40.7%
Houston - 40.5%
Dallas - 38.9%
Atlanta - 34.2%
On average, LA commuters have shorter commutes than commuters in much smaller metros like Atlanta, Boston and Houston.
More job centers spread around the metro and denser suburbs (getting more residents close to these job centers) is probably a big reason for this.
You've mentioned this before, I think the differences is that on surface streets NYC (and Manhattan especially) is more congested than Los Angeles. On freeways, Los Angeles is generally more congested. Just guessing here, but I would imagine the densest and most jobs-rich areas of Los Angeles probably have surface-street congestion similar to what you see in Brooklyn and Queens - Manhattan is in another stratosphere. The lone exception being surface streets in DTLA and on the Westside on both sides of the 405. It is strange seeing CBD-esque traffic in the quasi urban/suburban landscape of West LA / Sawtelle.
New York actually has longer commutes than LA. 51% of New York area commuters need more than 30 minutes to get to work. In Los Angeles, 45.3% of commuters need more than 30 minutes get to work.
There's really not much correlation between public transit and commute times. Dallas doesn't exactly have great public transit, but yet has the shortest commute times of the nation's 11 largest metros. Washington, DC has extenstive transit and has the longest commute times in the nation.
Hmm well my theory about job-sprawl holds true in this situation, but not the dense suburbs part... Perhaps it is because Dallas' jobs are spread even more thing throughout the suburbs and city while LA's are usually in relatively dense nodes - and this makes up for the fact that Dallas has really low-density suburbs.
For instance, because Pasadena is a relatively dense jobs-center, there is a rush-hour traffic crush getting in and out of this satellite city. Burbank is like this too and obviously Santa Monica.
More job centers spread around the metro and denser suburbs (getting more residents close to these job centers) is probably a big reason for this.
More job centers probably helps. More density probably doesn't. More density just means more traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
You've mentioned this before, I think the differences is that on surface streets NYC (and Manhattan especially) is more congested than Los Angeles. On freeways, Los Angeles is generally more congested. Just guessing here, but I would imagine the densest and most jobs-rich areas of Los Angeles probably have surface-street congestion similar to what you see in Brooklyn and Queens - Manhattan is in another stratosphere. The lone exception being surface streets in DTLA and on the Westside on both sides of the 405. It is strange seeing CBD-esque traffic in the quasi urban/suburban landscape of West LA / Sawtelle.
It's hard to say. Everybody has a different perspective on traffic (which can depend on what days and times they're commuting as well as direction). There might be data on which highways have more volume but that doesn't necessarily result in heavy congestion. In my personal experience, the DC region has the worst congestion in the nation, and the data seems to bear that out.
Hmm well my theory about job-sprawl holds true in this situation, but not the dense suburbs part... Perhaps it is because Dallas' jobs are spread even more thing throughout the suburbs and city while LA's are usually in relatively dense nodes - and this makes up for the fact that Dallas has really low-density suburbs.
I'm not a traffic engineer, but a lot of times congestion is caused by inadequate/outdated highway design. For example, the Woodrow Wilson Bridge (connects MD and VA) used to have a left turn lane from Indian Head Highway cutting over 4 lanes of traffic. And the bridge itself (which was a drawbridge) only had three lanes. MASSIVE congestion at all times of day. Now there's a new bridge with more lanes and an improved on ramp. Traffic now flows freely.
The Schuylkill Expressway in Philly is another stretch that's just outdated and terrible.
The thing is, once these roads are re-done to actually make sense, people quickly forget how bad traffic was. The Wilson Bridge was redone a long time ago and it's smooth sailing each and every time I cross it. Sharp contrast to what it was in the late 90s.
More density can mean shorter distances, so the increase in traffic at least partly cancels out.
But density doesn't necessarily put you closer to your job. If you live in Brooklyn, but your job is in Newark, then greater density is not really doing anything for you.
Just guessing here, but I would imagine the densest and most jobs-rich areas of Los Angeles probably have surface-street congestion similar to what you see in Brooklyn and Queens - Manhattan is in another stratosphere.
I don't think Brooklyn traffic is all that bad. Car commuting is not prevalent. And there aren't many large job centers.
I will take Manhattan traffic over DC traffic honestly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lrfox
I often see LA behind DC too. Honestly, having lived just outside of DC (Kensington MD), I didn't think DC was much worse than many major cities in the country. Definitely not LA. Probably not even New York.
Worse than New York. Driving through DC is the worst part of my trip when heading down south.
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.
) only had three lanes. MASSIVE congestion at all times of day. Now there's a new bridge with more lanes and an improved on ramp. Traffic now flows freely. 
