Worse traffic: Boston vs SF (cost, state, Los Angeles, Chicago)
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.
Here’s the 10 worst cities in the U.S. for traffic tie-ups according to the INRIX Global Traffic Scorecard, with average annual time spent in traffic and the average cost of congestion per motorist:
Boston, MA: 164 hours ($2,291)
Washington, DC: 155 hours ($2,161)
Chicago, IL: 138 hours ($1,920)
New York City, NY: 133 hours ($1,859)
Los Angeles, CA: 128 hours ($1,788)
Seattle, WA: 138 hours ($1,932)
Pittsburgh, PA: 127 hours ($1,776)
San Francisco, CA: 116 hours ($1,624)
Philadelphia, PA: 112 hours ($1,568)
Portland, OR: 116 hours ($1,625)
Here’s the 10 most congested stretches of ro
San Francisco's geography definitely creates a lot of challenges that lead to really long commutes, but the traffic in the Boston region seems to have greater intensity which is offset by commutes generally being shorter in distance than in SF.
Here’s the 10 worst cities in the U.S. for traffic tie-ups according to the INRIX Global Traffic Scorecard, with average annual time spent in traffic and the average cost of congestion per motorist:
Boston, MA: 164 hours ($2,291)
Washington, DC: 155 hours ($2,161)
Chicago, IL: 138 hours ($1,920)
New York City, NY: 133 hours ($1,859)
Los Angeles, CA: 128 hours ($1,788)
Seattle, WA: 138 hours ($1,932)
Pittsburgh, PA: 127 hours ($1,776)
San Francisco, CA: 116 hours ($1,624)
Philadelphia, PA: 112 hours ($1,568)
Portland, OR: 116 hours ($1,625)
Here’s the 10 most congested stretches of ro
Yeah I dont know about that. This report by INRIX and TTI was released in the last 30 days and is their latest data:
If we are talking MSA, this could very easily be correct. Oakland, SF, San Jose, and the Palo Alto area all have major congestion and sub-patterns to deal with.
But if we are talking traffic to and from Boston vs. San Francisco explicitly, Boston/Cambridge is worse. It is a nightmare. It is not uncommon for 5-10 miles to take 45-60 minutes off the highway.
Is Boston traffic as bad as leaving manhattan via the tunnel or George Washington bridge during rush hour?
Boston's main issues is the street layout isn't a grid, which creates the nightmare downtown headache. That being said, personally nothing short of LA's 405/10 or DC's 270/College Park - Beltway interchanges during rush hour is as bad as trying to get in/out of Manhattan via the GWB or Lincoln
If we are talking MSA, this could very easily be correct. Oakland, SF, San Jose, and the Palo Alto area all have major congestion and sub-patterns to deal with.
But if we are talking traffic to and from Boston vs. San Francisco explicitly, Boston/Cambridge is worse. It is a nightmare. It is not uncommon for 5-10 miles to take 45-60 minutes off the highway.
Uh it can take that long to drive from my office 4 blocks to the Bay Bridge-driving across downtown SF is a real nightmare at various points throughout the day and well into the night-and then there are the bridges and freeways. 880 at A street in Hayward carries 369,000 cars a day.
you cant really drive in Downtown Boston. If you do you really really shouldnt. Driving in and out of Boston on the highway is just bananas, take local routes out and hop on an interstate when you get to a nearby suburb.
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.
