Texas will become California (Houston, Dallas: construction, swimming, housing)

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

I’ll agree to disagree. If we look at rush hours in Texas alone, then we must do the same to LA. LA during peak times are nightmares. I definitely don’t feel the same way driving in Texas during rush hours.

That's because driving in Texas is not that bad (as evidenced by yet more information confirming that)


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...congestion.amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usn...%3fcontext=amp
(Above from 2020)

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

The long-distance commutes in SFBA, IMHO, are almost entirely driven by housing prices. Nothing like living in Manteca and working in Menlo Park, but hey, you can afford your house!

I've been on 71 plenty of times when it was hardly moving. Also, 183 in east Austin. Even when it wasn't strictly rush hour. And I avoid 290 coming in from Elgin, most anytime, because of traffic. And look, my tolerance is pretty high - I'm from Houston after all. Maybe I'm just really unlucky?

183 in E.Austin is a toll road now and is by far one of the most free flowing roads in the city, almost always you can do 80 - 85 between 290 and 71 today. Before they converted it, it was a bit of a pain.

290 in E.Austin between 183 and 130 never backs up, its a tollroad. East of 130 into Manor, it could use improvement... but the stop and go section is usually confined into the stop lights in Manor which is a fairly short section of its route through Austin metro.

71 in Austin proper gets backed up usually under I-35 because it reduces from 3 - 2 lanes after the Congress Ave exit which causes a bottle neck but after that it widens back to 4 - 5 lanes and is usually okay.

71 near the airport can become a snag though. I did forget that section .. but it usually takes event related traffic for that to happen. East of 130, 71 varies between surface arterial and grade separated intersections, most of it is usually okay, sometimes packed, but haven't ever experienced it crawling.

I-35 is the only freeway in Austin that I really have a problem with. That and the missing western section of Austin's bypass.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by ParaguaneroSwag

I’ll agree to disagree. If we look at rush hours in Texas alone, then we must do the same to LA. LA during peak times are nightmares. I definitely don’t feel the same way driving in Texas during rush hours.

I said LA is so bad that there's no TX comparison...more than once. Did you miss that? The disagreement issue seems to be comparing TX cities to other parts of CA.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

183 in E.Austin is a toll road now and is by far one of the most free flowing roads in the city, almost always you can do 80 - 85 between 290 and 71 today. Before they converted it, it was a bit of a pain.

290 in E.Austin between 183 and 130 never backs up, its a tollroad. East of 130 into Manor, it could use improvement... but the stop and go section is usually confined into the stop lights in Manor which is a fairly short section of its route through Austin metro.

71 in Austin proper gets backed up usually under I-35 because it reduces from 3 - 2 lanes after the Congress Ave exit which causes a bottle neck but after that it widens back to 4 - 5 lanes and is usually okay.

71 near the airport can become a snag though. I did forget that section .. but it usually takes event related traffic for that to happen. East of 130, 71 varies between surface arterial and grade separated intersections, most of it is usually okay, sometimes packed, but haven't ever experienced it crawling.

I-35 is the only freeway in Austin that I really have a problem with. That and the missing western section of Austin's bypass.

OK I don't have as much experience with the recently converted toll roads. I can see how those would help with congestion. I didn't know at all that 183 was toll all the way from 290 to 71 - seems like I was on that part of 183 within the last year or two, and it was just horrible.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by blameyourself

That's because driving in Texas is not that bad (as evidenced by yet more information confirming that)


https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fox...congestion.amp

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.usn...%3fcontext=amp
(Above from 2020)

So Houston is equal to Atlanta, a city known for easy driving. We should all feel much better!

[blameyourself]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

So Houston is equal to Atlanta, a city known for easy driving. We should all feel much better!

Look squirrel!

Last I checked, I was talking about California. Amazing that you're so argumentative that you can't simply agree to disagree (especially when you bring nothing but conjecture to the conversation and base things on your perception 26 years ago).

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

So Houston is equal to Atlanta, a city known for easy driving. We should all feel much better!

TBH having lived in the ATL I would still take Houston, not because traffic is that much better but because they have way more alternative routes. Katy Fwy backed up? Hop over to West Park Tollway. Issues with I-45? Hardy Tollway isn’t too far. Three loops, an actual grid system (Atlanta’s grid breaks up as soon as you leave downtown) and way better road planning. Atlanta does best Houston with MARTA rail though in terms of rail transit.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by blameyourself

Look squirrel!

Last I checked, I was talking about California. Amazing that you're so argumentative that you can't simply agree to disagree (especially when you bring nothing but conjecture to the conversation and base things on your perception 26 years ago).

I will agree that by the measures you quoted, Texas cities have less calculated delay than some California metros (I never disputed LA to begin with). But "not that bad"? I guess it's a matter of opinion, but yes, based on my personal experience and the data provided, Texas cities can actually be pretty bad. And I will conjecture to say that someone from the SFBA would generally agree with that. Maybe not so much someone from LA.

And to your earlier point, 200,000 additional residents in a metro of the physical and population size of the SFBA isn't going to make noticeable difference in congestion overall.

[LocalPlanner]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

TBH having lived in the ATL I would still take Houston, not because traffic is that much better but because they have way more alternative routes. Katy Fwy backed up? Hop over to West Park Tollway. Issues with I-45? Hardy Tollway isn’t too far. Three loops, an actual grid system (Atlanta’s grid breaks up as soon as you leave downtown) and way better road planning. Atlanta does best Houston with MARTA rail though in terms of rail transit.

Alternate routes are huge. But, why would you go to the Westpark Tollway during rush hour? It's often worse in the commute direction than the Katy Freeway. And both the infamous West Loop (most always terrible) and the West Beltway / Sam Houston can be painful ways to make the hop.

The Hardy Tollway is easily the best example of an alternate route in Houston. Honestly, alternate routes in Houston are usually surface streets, and then only very select ones.

[ParaguaneroSwag]

Originally Posted by LocalPlanner

I said LA is so bad that there's no TX comparison...more than once. Did you miss that? The disagreement issue seems to be comparing TX cities to other parts of CA.

That’s not the portion that I and most others here responded to. That would be the “they’re comparable at rush hours”.