Cities with the worst traffic

loftlover · PostFeb 11, 2006#12006-02-11T15:10+00:00

One list I'm glad we didn't make!

By the Texas Transportation Institute's reckoning, the cities having the worst traffic problems are:

1. Los Angeles, Long Beach, Santa Ana, Calif.

2. San Francisco, Oakland, Calif.

3. Washington, D.C.

4. Atlanta

5. Houston

6. Dallas, Fort Worth, Arlington, Tex.

7. Chicago.

8. Detroit

9. Riverside, San Bernardino, Calif.

9. Orlando, Fla.

11. San Jose, Calif.

12. San Diego

Read more:

http://biz.yahoo.com/weekend/traffic_1.html

Expat · PostFeb 11, 2006#22006-02-11T20:15+00:00

Oh yes! DC is #3. And believe me, it really is a serious quality of life issue. If I drive, it often takes an 1.5 hours to get to work. That is 3 hours a day squandered. And if things go wrong - accident, weather or whatever, it will take much longer. 2 hour commutes are more common than they should be. Not just time squandered, it is really stressful. The transit commute is less stressful but cost around $12.00 round trip. There is no escape - except moving to St. Louis.

The trip would take 35 minutes on Sunday morning. But, rush hour last all day and evening these days. I hate it.

People are always moving here thinking they will get a nice condo downtown. Until they realize the prices and end up living in a St. Charles style development 20plus miles out. Sorry about the rant - but this is a serious issue for me.

doug · PostFeb 11, 2006#32006-02-11T20:17+00:00

See I thought D.C. was a pretty bad town, at least it has some bad areas? I may be wrong?

Yeah, the traffic is legendary, I worked with a suburbanite from D.C. and he said it was horrible, and I wonder why?

Is there no mass transit in the capitol of the United States? How sad is that!

Expat · PostFeb 11, 2006#42006-02-11T20:22+00:00

pc - I will pm you about dc and bad areas later when I have a minute. Don't want to use these website as a forum for DC issues.

suburban lou · PostFeb 11, 2006#52006-02-11T20:24+00:00

Actually DC has a great transit system, but the metro area is so damn spread out that most people have to drive into DC instead of utilizing it.

xing · PostFeb 11, 2006#62006-02-11T22:01+00:00

When I lived in DC, it took us 45 minutes to get to school everyday. I liked the trip though.

hemanrulez · PostFeb 13, 2006#72006-02-13T21:40+00:00

Im surprised Seattle isn't on that list. There are only 2 bridges that connect the eastside to Seattle (5 lanes total) and during rush hour it gets really bad.

matguy70 · PostFeb 14, 2006#82006-02-14T02:57+00:00

St. Louis was 9th worst just a few years ago... hmmmm....

PostFeb 14, 2006#92006-02-14T03:02+00:00

Found the info:

http://www.ewgateway.org/pdffiles/libra ... ys/1-3.pdf

also... from Paul Harris:

Post DIspatch Headline in 2002

"Study Ranks Area Among Worst For Road Congestion."

It?s based on a new report from the Texas Transportation Institute about how much time we?re spending in our cars going to and from work everyday. According to this report, St. Louis is the 9th-worst metropolitan area for road congestion. You know it?s an important report because it?s not written in real, everyday English -- they call us "motorists" instead of "drivers," as in "motorists, use caution" rather than "drivers, be careful!"

The report says that St. Louis drivers lose an average of 44 hours a year to traffic delays -- or "more than one workweek." That sounds like a lot. Here?s where Mr. Perspective comes alive, applying simple math to the claim.

If you lose 44 hours a year on the road, that?s less than an hour a week. It actually works out to about 10 minutes a day. That?s five minutes in the morning, five minutes in the evening. Not so much anymore, is it?

doug · PostFeb 14, 2006#102006-02-14T15:09+00:00

Seriously, traffic really does not bother me anymore. At heavy traffic times, I might be delayed 5-10 minutes when compared to light traffic times. Living in the city, taking metrolink to UMSL, and working right off of 170, my traffic is pretty light.

The only time I really get angry is when I travel down 64 out past Chesterfield to visit my girlfriend. It is easy to see the traffic issues at 64 and 170, and 64 at 270. I guess I am just lucky that I don't have to make this trip everyday.

Now, living in South County and having to take 270 during rush hour, that would be a different story.

my name is not matt. · PostFeb 20, 2006#112006-02-20T18:28+00:00

Last I heard (not sure of the source, but it was on NPR a year or so ago), Chicago was 4th worst in the country. Even if it's not that bad, it still sucks.

That's one of the reasons I'm glad to be back in this smaller city. Commuting 90 minutes each way to work (yes, I took public transit) just plain sucks. Where I live now in StL, I can walk to work in a third of the time it took me to get to my job in Chicago on the train.

smsplanstu · PostFeb 20, 2006#122006-02-20T20:22+00:00

Where I live now in StL, I can walk to work in a third of the time it took me to get to my job in Chicago on the train.

Walking is healthy.

Rollin Stanley promoted vehicular congestion because it shows that mass transit is worth it instead of an easy commute to the burbs. Vehicular congestion means more residents living in the urban core. New York City is the perfect example of this. Chicago also benefits as the upswing in its population shows.

bastiat · PostFeb 21, 2006#132006-02-21T00:12+00:00

SMSPlanstu wrote:
Where I live now in StL, I can walk to work in a third of the time it took me to get to my job in Chicago on the train.

Walking is healthy.

Rollin Stanley promoted vehicular congestion because it shows that mass transit is worth it instead of an easy commute to the burbs. Vehicular congestion means more residents living in the urban core. New York City is the perfect example of this. Chicago also benefits as the upswing in its population shows.

Congestion is a result of road socialism. Space on roads scarce (try putting your car in the same physical spot as someone else's), and when you offer a scarce product essentially for free, you will have shortages (which come to fruit as traffic in the case of roads). A lot less people would commute if the government did not subsidize the building and maintenance of roads and they had to pay out of their own pocket.

It would be a lot easier to see that mass transit is worth it when people can actually see the difference in their pocket books (ie. Metrolink ticket costs less than highway toll, etc). As a result there would be a lot less cars on the road which would make it safer for pedestrians and less pollution as well.

Expat · PostFeb 21, 2006#142006-02-21T19:23+00:00

Frederic

, I get your point on this issue.

matt · PostFeb 23, 2006#152006-02-23T18:09+00:00

When I'm in other cities working, I have noticed over the years that many people do not work 8 hours a day anymore. They come in between 9-10 a.m. and leave about 4 p.m. unless they have evening plans like dining, concert or theater. I think this must be due to traffic and commuting. I'm always in a hotel within walking distance so arrive early and stay until 5 or 6. Anyone else notice anything similar in other cities?

st. louis texan · PostFeb 25, 2006#162006-02-25T19:37+00:00

I dunno in a way lots of traffic shows that there is a lot of buissness and people in your city. It wouldn't be bad to be somewhere on the bottom of the top 10 or 12 cities w/worst traffic.

But in those cities at the top are a lot of stupid drivers without any patience.