SF Bay Area - Worst Commutes in the NATION (San Francisco: live in, commuting to)

[jade408]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

But for a real commute, like Concord to San Francisco, it's as bad or worse than any of the normal SoCal commutes I can think of.

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Only because you have a tunnel and bridge to go through...

Which is precisely why so many people take BART

BART is shorter than the drive. Or worst case the same amount of time. IF going from Concord to downtown SF, it makes no sense to drive. More torturous: Concord to S. SF.

[04kL4nD]

haha he didn't even read his own article.

GREAT news source btw

[DocGoldstein]

Pleasanton to S.F: 1 hour 5 mins

Irvine to Los Angeles: 1 hour 5 mins

But yeah, I guess Bay Area commutes aren't that bad.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

Only because you have a tunnel and bridge to go through...

Which is precisely why so many people take BART

People in Fullerton take Metro. In fact one of the busiest metro stations is in Fullerton. Your point?

Commutes in the Bay Area are horrible and I'm glad this article finally proves it.

[04kL4nD]

No one claimed traffic here was pleasant. All anyone has said is that traffic in LA is worse. Which it is.

Sorry nobody agrees with you, and that you didn't even bother to read that poorly written article that's the basis of your ill-formed argument.

[sonarrat]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

No, that's the point, it's a myth that Bay Area traffic isn't as bad as DC or L.A. The list doesn't "mean much" to you because it doesn't support your inaccurate viewpoint of Bay Area traffic, but this study proves that commute times are longer in both time and distance than LA metro, and DC.

For instance, people claim the 405 in SoCal is full of traffic during peak hours. But is it worse than I80 east from 4pm to 7pm? No, it's about the same. After 7PM, both are relatively clear as well. Also the 680 and 101 during peak times in the South Bay? Probably worse than anything on the 405 until maybe the 405 meets the 10.

The Bay Area USED to be better than Los Angeles for traffic and commuting (back in the 90s), but the tech booms, and growth of silicon valley and S.F as tech job centers has forever changed that. Many commutes in the Bay Area are simply worse than L.A now which hasn't had the same type of rapid growth since the 90s.

You see more long-distance commuters in the Bay Area because of a combination of natural barriers (namely mountains and water) and high housing prices across a large geographical area. In terms of peak-hour delays, both the Los Angeles and DC areas are measurably worse than the Bay Area.

[04kL4nD]

That's not true! 2% of Bay Area commuters drive over 50 miles or spend more than 90 mins commuting! 2% is a HUGE number. It's higher than 1.25%. Almost double!

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

No one claimed traffic here was pleasant. All anyone has said is that traffic in LA is worse. Which it is.

It may be "worse", but the difference is so negligible that there really isn't a difference, which was my point.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

People in Fullerton take Metro. In fact one of the busiest metro stations is in Fullerton. Your point?

Commutes in the Bay Area are horrible and I'm glad this article finally proves it.

You mean a whopping 3.4% of workers in Fullerton take public transit? That impresses you? Concord it's 10%.

[DocGoldstein]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

That's not true! 2% of Bay Area commuters drive over 50 miles or spend more than 90 mins commuting! 2% is a HUGE number. It's higher than 1.25%. Almost double!

Exactly! In a metro area comprising millions of people, that can equate to tens of thousands of cars on the road at any given time. Thank you for finally understanding the point of the article.