1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Worst metro-area traffic

Discussion in 'Anything goes' started by PhilaYank36, Oct 15, 2007.

?

Out of the major metro areas in the country, which routinely has the worst traffic?

  1. Boston

    4 vote(s)
    5.0%
  2. NYC/NJ/CT

    7 vote(s)
    8.8%
  3. Philadelphia

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Baltimore-D.C

    15 vote(s)
    18.8%
  5. Atlanta

    18 vote(s)
    22.5%
  6. Miami

    1 vote(s)
    1.3%
  7. Chicago

    11 vote(s)
    13.8%
  8. Detroit

    1 vote(s)
    1.3%
  9. St. Louis

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. Dallas-Ft. Worth

    2 vote(s)
    2.5%
  11. San Diego

    1 vote(s)
    1.3%
  12. Los Angeles

    16 vote(s)
    20.0%
  13. San Fran

    1 vote(s)
    1.3%
  14. Denver

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  15. Seattle

    3 vote(s)
    3.8%
  1. Birdscribe

    Birdscribe Active Member

    Damn straight. Enough said is right.

    I've heard the horror stories about DC -- which makes it a wonderful winner of the bronze medal. I've driven various freeways in the Bay Area (101, 880) at 3:30 and it's pretty damn bad. Silver medal for you, Bay Areaites.

    You're all SoCal's bitches when it comes to horrendous traffic.

    Folks, there is nothing to compare a bump-and-grind on the 405 or 91 to. Nothing.

    And if something happens on one freeway, you can expect to suffer dearly if it is anywhere in the vicinity or there are major interchanges involved. Your road doesn't have to be involved at all and you become collateral gridlock.

    Exhibit A. Last year, there was a HAZMAT spill on the 210 freeway in Crescenta Valley. I don't come within 20 miles of this stretch of the freeway on my daily trek into work, but because they closed the 210 -- the interchange of which I drive past on the 5 every day -- it took me 2 HOURS and 35 minutes to drive the 60 miles into work.

    Exhibit B: the wreck in the truck tunnel that BuckWeaver referred to earlier. Since I was on the road last week, this didn't affect me, but I've already heard the horror stories about trying to get into LA and the Valley from the northern suburbs.

    There are plenty of stories about life on the 405, like the time it took me 3 HOURS to drive from Palmdale to the Forum in Inglewood (63 miles, if you're scoring at home) for a Laker game. But there isn't enough space or time to delve into all of them.
     
  2. FishHack76

    FishHack76 Active Member

    Plenty of votes for Chicago but no posts for it ... I guess people are still stuck in traffic. I'll put in my $.02 about it. The only thing really bad about Chicago traffic right now is there is construction on EVERY damn highway.
    I live about 50 miles from my current job, and I was once stuck in traffic for THREE HOURS to get to work. (And there were no accidents or flaming trucks). I mistakenly left after 3 p.m.
    I learned the hard way that I have to leave around 2 just to beat the start of "rush hour" traffic, which is around 3 or 3:30 and lasts until 7, 7:30 or 8 depending on where you live. I don't really know what is the worst highway right now. I would love to hear some thoughts. I thought the Eisenhower (290) was really bad then I experienced the Kennedy (90/94 toward Wisconsin and O'Hare). The Dan Ryan (90/94 toward Indiana) is notorious and is under major construction right now. The Edens (94 north toward Milwaukee) never gets mentioned, but it can get pretty bad as well. The Tri-State Tollway gets messy as does the Stevenson (55). I take Lake Shore quite a bit, and I know it's going to be a shitty day when it's backed up to North Avenue or Fullerton.
    I won't claim Chicago is worse than NYC, Boston, Philly or L.A. I had one experience with Los Angeles. I got on the highway, crawled along then got off and never used it for the rest of the trip. At least, L.A. seems to have more lanes for traffic. Chicago still has three lanes on most of its highways when it needs four or five to handle the volume.
    I lived in D.C. for a little while. The commute into the city wasn't bad until you got going toward Maryland (at around 2:30, 3 p.m.). Then it took 45 minutes to go about seven or eight miles.
    The Mixing Bowl at the bottom of the Beltway is absolutely one of the biggest cluster****s in America. There are basically four lanes of traffic trying to go right and four lanes trying to go left.
     
  3. old_tony

    old_tony Well-Known Member

    It's not on the list, but when I used to cover the NBA beat we referred to Charlotte out near the old Coliseum (I think it was Tyvola Rd) as "Boston in the Woods." Always backed up.

    Of course, trying to get anywhere in Boston during rush hour is futile.
     
  4. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

    Concur. It's L.A. It's not close. And someone mentioned that you can "cruise" once you're outside of L.A. ... um, no. It's a joke from Ventura to Redlands. And that's with the 210 now open. I don't miss it one bit.

    Denver is OK, now that I-25 has been fixed.
     
  5. MileHigh

    MileHigh Moderator Staff Member

    And it's only going to get worse in SoCal

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-geography16oct16,0,4456716,full.story?coll=la-home-center
     
  6. Piotr Rasputin

    Piotr Rasputin New Member

    Can't believe it took until page two for someone to mention the 91 in L.A. Every damn freeway in the area feeds into the 91 (or so it seems), and it's a constant nightmare of construction and closed lanes. But what really puts it over the top against the 405 is the fact the carpool lane inexplicably disappears scant miles into the drive from the South Bay toward Orange County. Whoever made that decision should be drawn and quartered.

    Orlando is another one; Harley is correct. The highway around Disney is full of tourists who realize too late they missed the turn, and they freak and cut acorss lanes recklessly. Throw in the fact that many people lose their minds when on vacation, and you have bad traffic in a town built solely to be a tourist trap.

    St. Louis is no trouble at all. What, you didn't want to put Indianapolis or Albuquerque on the list?

    Haven't driven in DC or Baltimore.

    That all said about LA, New York City is the worst I've ever seen, as far as gridlock just taking surface streets from Point A to Point B. There are certain times of day when the 405, 91, 110, etc. in LA are normal cruises - say, about 10-11 a.m. and 1-2 p.m. - while Orlando is always full of lost tourists and parts of NY are always packed with cars.
     
  7. buckweaver

    buckweaver Active Member

    I will say ... I have been stuck in traffic in Albuquerque. Once. ... (And Indy, too, for that matter. But that doesn't count, because it was race day.)

    And I submit that the 91-215-60 interchange in Riverside, Calif., is the most clusterfucked intersection in the nation. There is no doubt in my mind.
     
  8. FileNotFound

    FileNotFound Well-Known Member

    I've had some nasty experiences on 270, and one of the scariest moments as a (then-)very young driver was trying to make sure I stayed on I-55 across the Mississippi River without winding up in Sauget. (Or, wait, maybe I WAS trying to go to Sauget. Anyway ... ) St. Louis's traffic is no better or worse than any other major city.

    I rented a car in DC once. I'll NEVER make that mistake again. Take the Metro and walk, no matter what the weather.
     
  9. Football_Bat

    Football_Bat Well-Known Member

    The tollway is open almost all the way to Deion Sanders' mansion now. But the real godsend is the partial opening of 121. What used to be a 2-lane country road is now a main tollway for 8 miles and the access roads have 3 lanes each. It used to be a full hour from Frisco to the Mid-Cities and it's now half that. The twin traffic lights at Sandy Lake and Grapevine Mills are still a PITA, though.
     
  10. Dirk Legume

    Dirk Legume Active Member

    I had to sit through 2 cycles of the traffic signal at my town's busiest intersection on my way home yesterday. TWO CYCLES!!

    But that's probably not the same thing. ;)
     
  11. Big Buckin' agate_monkey

    Big Buckin' agate_monkey Active Member

    St. Louis traffic is a walk in the park ... until a Cardinals pitcher drives home drunk and nails a stalled car on the outside lane. (WHAT?!?!? Too soon?)

    Chicago has its moments; you just have to be comfortable behind the wheel, comfortable with your decision making behind the wheel, and aware of your surroundings.

    I was concerend about Boston's traffic when I went this summer. It wasn't too bad, but I also made a point to avoid rush hour in and out. Arrived a little before noon, left after 7 p.m.
     
  12. The biggest problem with Chicago traffic is that one day it might take you an hour to get somewhere and the next day on the same route could take you three hours. There's no logic to it. You're forced to account for the longer time so you wind up spending nearly as much time commuting each day as you do in the office. Plus, right now every north-south route (and several east-west ones, too) is under construction with no alternate routes easily accessible.

    And as mentioned earlier about Charlotte, try going north on I-77 around 4 p.m. Won't get anywhere.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page