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.
Name a Metro area of almost 6 million that doesn't have bad traffic. This is not unique to Atlanta. And we have zero appetite here for slicing and dicing up neighborhoods for Freeways. Look up 'Atlanta Freeway Revolts' for historic perspective.
DFW traffic is very manageable for a metro of 7.6 million.
I find downtown/uptown Charlotte to be pretty disconnected from surrounding neighborhoods due to it being surrounded on all sides by I-277 and I-77. It kinda feels like a two square mile urban island surrounded by six to ten lane limited access interstate on all sides. Walking to Southend, Wesley Heights, Midtown, or CPCC is not the most pleasant experience in the world. Don't get me wrong though as there are many things I like about Charlotte, but I would like to see I-277 capped down the line with greenspace and infill developments for a more continuous and connected urban core.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,547,924 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by omanchirda
DFW traffic is very manageable for a metro of 7.6 million.
That's because it's not dense. That 7.6 million is so spread out across 10k sq miles, and the area is built on more of a highway grid than most metros.
That's because it's not dense. That 7.6 million is so spread out across 10k sq miles, and the area is built on more of a highway grid than most metros.
Good regional traffic planning for growth helps. Also the vast majority of the traffic is in the urban area of DFW.
The cities that come across to me as "choked" are the ones with not enough highways and freeways to facilitate flow and mobility of traffic. So this thread is confusing.
If highways and freeways decrease stagnation, then the more the better.
That's because it's not dense. That 7.6 million is so spread out across 10k sq miles, and the area is built on more of a highway grid than most metros.
To be fair, most of 7.6 million lives in 3600 sq miles.
I think Atlanta fits this. Seems like they threw roads all over the place. Even in Buckhead where there's pedestrian crossing, you still have to cross like 6 lanes total. It's kind of a mess. But I guess this holds true for any boomtown city where there's lots of sprawl.
Interesting. You think Atlanta is most encircled by highways? I always felt that while ATL highways have a lot of LANES, there aren't that many highways for a city of it's size. Given it's population, it really should have another 2 outer loops. There's only 1 outer beltway in ATL. Unless I misinterpreted the question?
The cities that come across to me as "choked" are the ones with not enough highways and freeways to facilitate flow and mobility of traffic. So this thread is confusing.
If highways and freeways decrease stagnation, then the more the better.
Agreed, maybe the OP can clarify. Seems like conflicting questions are being asked: 1) which cities have too many highways, and 2) which cities are choked by traffic. Unless I misunderstood....
On paper I don't think "too many" highways is a bad thing. Insomuch as it takes away from public transit spending perhaps, but that wasn't the question.
Agreed, maybe the OP can clarify. Seems like conflicting questions are being asked: 1) which cities have too many highways, and 2) which cities are choked by traffic. Unless I misunderstood....
On paper I don't think "too many" highways is a bad thing. Insomuch as it takes away from public transit spending perhaps, but that wasn't the question.
Highways are terrible for urban cores because the retrofit the city center from something meant for pedestrians to something meant for cars only. They destroy large sections of the urban core (particularly wherever there are intersections or onramps/offramps) and ruin real estate values - usually leading to further demolitions - of existing urban buildings within a block or so. Even if there are underpasses with sidewalks, no one wants to walk under a freeway on foot unless they have absolutely no choice. As a result even if you have an intact neighborhood within reasonable walking distance (say 15 minutes or so) people will tend to drive to downtown rather than walk.
In a very large city with a robust transit system, this might not be quite as important. For example, it's not that big of a deal that Wicker Park is separated from The Loop in Chicago by 80, because it's a big city, no one would ever walk that far, and there's a subway to take you to The Loop anyway. But somewhere like Hartford is really badly impacted, because Downtown is surrounded by highways in all directions save for a few blocks by Bushnell Park, meaning there's not really even a feasible way for redevelopment to organically spread from downtown.
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.
