august948 Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 From the Chron... http://www.chron.com/news/transportation/article/Houston-isn-t-in-top-10-metros-with-worst-traffic-5293482.php?cmpid=hpfc#photo-5032009 Looks like we rank #20, down from #19 last year. Some highlights.... LA is #1...no surprise there.San Francisco is #3 and San Jose is # 8Austin is #4...good job Austin, you've got worse congestion than NYCNYC at #6Seattle is #9Vancouver is #12...hmmmPortland is #16...wait... how can a model city have such bad congestion?Houston is #20...down from #19 last year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luciaphile Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 From the Chron... http://www.chron.com/news/transportation/article/Houston-isn-t-in-top-10-metros-with-worst-traffic-5293482.php?cmpid=hpfc#photo-5032009 Looks like we rank #20, down from #19 last year. Some highlights.... LA is #1...no surprise there.San Francisco is #3 and San Jose is # 8Austin is #4...good job Austin, you've got worse congestion than NYCNYC at #6Seattle is #9Vancouver is #12...hmmmPortland is #16...wait... how can a model city have such bad congestion?Houston is #20...down from #19 last year But don't our guiding libertarian lights continually suggest that congestion is just a sign of affluence?So cities should be clamoring to be #1 on that list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 From the Chron...http://www.chron.com/news/transportation/article/Houston-isn-t-in-top-10-metros-with-worst-traffic-5293482.php?cmpid=hpfc#photo-5032009Looks like we rank #20, down from #19 last year.Some highlights....LA is #1...no surprise there.San Francisco is #3 and San Jose is # 8Austin is #4...good job Austin, you've got worse congestion than NYCNYC at #6Seattle is #9Vancouver is #12...hmmmPortland is #16...wait... how can a model city have such bad congestion?Houston is #20...down from #19 last yearAll those cities have better alternative modes of transportation than houston. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 All those cities have better alternative modes of transportation than houston.Wasn't livincinco talking about how mass transit isn't a big time saver or a congestion reliever? Well, this list supports that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Wasn't livincinco talking about how mass transit isn't a big time saver or a congestion reliever? Well, this list supports that. Evidently highway expansion isn't either. And the congestion would probably be worse if there was no grade separated mass transit at all. Interesting that #1 and #2 are undergoing massive rail expansion projects. The one thing about this list that I don't like is that it just takes overall hours, if they did overall hours in conjunction with percentage or number of people that actually drive, that would give you an idea of how bad traffic is for the average person. In that sense, Austin is terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted March 6, 2014 Share Posted March 6, 2014 Evidently highway expansion isn't either. And the congestion would probably be worse if there was no grade separated mass transit at all. Interesting that #1 and #2 are undergoing massive rail expansion projects. The one thing about this list that I don't like is that it just takes overall hours, if they did overall hours in conjunction with percentage or number of people that actually drive, that would give you an idea of how bad traffic is for the average person. In that sense, Austin is terrible. Well, considering that LA has already built up miles of rail, by your criteria, they should have less congestion, and your suspicion of the list, while legitimate, is a bit silly considering that you continually paraded Vancouver as having the "highest quality of life", "most desirable city", etc. etc. without question on other lists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cloud713 Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I don't see mass transit as a way of relieving traffic, I just see it as an alternate mode of travel that will be quicker than sitting in traffic on the highway.. Highways should continue to be reworked as long as possible. But widening of roads can't go on forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted March 7, 2014 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 I don't see mass transit as a way of relieving traffic, I just see it as an alternate mode of travel that will be quicker than sitting in traffic on the highway.. Highways should continue to be reworked as long as possible. But widening of roads can't go on forever. Though that's not techincally true as governments can and do use eminent domain to widen roads in congested areas, expansion really should be concentrated outside the core where most of the people and jobs are and where there is plenty of room for expansion. So, yes, you can go on widening roads (practically) forever. Just maybe not the roads in the core. But that's ok as it's better to spread out the job centers so everyone isn't heading to the same place at the same time during rush hour Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted March 7, 2014 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 All those cities have better alternative modes of transportation than houston. Including Austin? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
august948 Posted March 7, 2014 Author Share Posted March 7, 2014 Evidently highway expansion isn't either. And the congestion would probably be worse if there was no grade separated mass transit at all. Interesting that #1 and #2 are undergoing massive rail expansion projects. The one thing about this list that I don't like is that it just takes overall hours, if they did overall hours in conjunction with percentage or number of people that actually drive, that would give you an idea of how bad traffic is for the average person. In that sense, Austin is terrible. What will be interesting is to see if #1 and #2 remain in position as the worst even after their massive rail expansion projects. Anyone want to lay odds on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Pragmatist Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 I just got back from SF. Traffic was pretty much horrible the entire time I was there (yet again). Oddly enough, I ran into multiple miles gridlock on Tuesday between 8:45 and 9:30 at night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 What will be interesting is to see if #1 and #2 remain in position as the worst even after their massive rail expansion projects. Anyone want to lay odds on that? Los Angeles has the lowest number of freeway miles per person in the US (52 miles per million people as of 2000) and had less than half of the national average of freeway capacity per capita at that point. They have been investing in rail for 25 years and are #1 in traffic congestion. I'd also note that the worst congestion in the world was in European cities that are frequently lauded for having great rail systems. More than half of the 10 worst cities for congestion in the world are in Europe. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-25622364 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slick Vik Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 Los Angeles has the lowest number of freeway miles per person in the US (52 miles per million people as of 2000) and had less than half of the national average of freeway capacity per capita at that point. They have been investing in rail for 25 years and are #1 in traffic congestion.I'd also note that the worst congestion in the world was in European cities that are frequently lauded for having great rail systems. More than half of the 10 worst cities for congestion in the world are in Europe.http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-25622364LA is also one of the most populated areas in the country which mutates that number somewhat. Also though it has been investing in rail for 25 years the upcoming projects are the ones that will make a serious impact: Santa Monica, Crenshaw, and Westwood lines. Also though you mention European cities you don't mention the vast alternatives that are available to the general population: rail, intercity rail, intercity high speed rail, efficient bus service, trams, bicycling, and an overall more understanding awareness of pedestrians. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mollusk Posted March 7, 2014 Share Posted March 7, 2014 At the risk of demonstrating a startling grasp of the obvious, if people can afford private cars they will use them, almost without regard to how many others are out there. Then again, it certainly is helpful to have options. By my own example, I drive to work by myself. I could take a bus, but it would take twice as much time, even without factoring in the wait for it to show up. OTOH, once I'm at work if I've got somewhere to go that's within a moderate distance of a rail station, that's what I'll use and keep my car in the garage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dixiedean Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Austin you're pathetic. Worst traffic than Chicago, DC, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta... And you have the population of about 2 million, meaning you are dwarfed by the prior cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hasek Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Los Angeles has the lowest number of freeway miles per person in the US (52 miles per million people as of 2000) and had less than half of the national average of freeway capacity per capita at that point. They have been investing in rail for 25 years and are #1 in traffic congestion. I'd also note that the worst congestion in the world was in European cities that are frequently lauded for having great rail systems. More than half of the 10 worst cities for congestion in the world are in Europe. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-25622364 im surprised cities built hundreds or thousands of years before cars were invented have issues with congestion..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howard Huge Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 Los Angeles has the lowest number of freeway miles per person in the US (52 miles per million people as of 2000) and had less than half of the national average of freeway capacity per capita at that point. They have been investing in rail for 25 years and are #1 in traffic congestion.I'd also note that the worst congestion in the world was in European cities that are frequently lauded for having great rail systems. More than half of the 10 worst cities for congestion in the world are in Europe.http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-25622364Good point you bring up, could you imagine how bad the traffic would be WITHOUT the rail?? The streets would be unnavigable, complete and utter gridlock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigFootsSocks Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 No you don't understand; it's the rails that are the problem!... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subdude Posted December 10, 2014 Share Posted December 10, 2014 I think that one overlooked reason that Houston does well on congestion has nothing to do with rail or lack thereof - it's just physical layout. Houston is flat and without many natural barriers, and while the grid system is far from perfect, there are typically alternate routes to funnel traffic. So if Richmond is flooded or there's an accident, you can take Westheimer. You can sometimes avoid traffic on 59 by taking Richmond or Bissonnet for instance. On the other hand, in a city like Austin there aren't may alternative routes for major thoroughfares, and places like San Francisco, Seattle and Portland have bays and rivers running through them, restricting the number of routes that can carry traffic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.