U.S. Cities with most frustrated drivers

[NYC4Life]

Another Forbes list. This one for the cities with the most frustrated drivers.

Full Article:
http://autos.yahoo.com/news/10-citie...224755443.html

TOP 10 CITIES:

10. Philadelphia, PA
Annual Hours of Commuter Delay: 48
Gas Cost Versus National Average: -2.71%
Population Per Square Mile: 11,379
Overall Motorist Frustration Score: 58.2

9. Portland, OR
Annual Hours of Commuter Delay: 44
Gas Cost Versus National Average: +15.16%
Population Per Square Mile: 4,375
Overall Motorist Frustration Score: 55.1

8. Honolulu, HI
Annual Hours of Commuter Delay: 45
Gas Cost Versus National Average: +17.28
Population Per Square Mile: 5,573
Overall Motorist Frustration Score: 51.3

7. Oakland, CA
Annual Hours of Commuter Delay: 61
Gas Cost Versus National Average: +5.38
Population Per Square Mile: 7.004
Overall Motorist Frustration Score: 49.4

6. Washington, D.C.
Annual Hours of Commuter Delay: 67
Gas Cost Versus National Average: -3.07
Population Per Square Mile: 9,856
Overall Motorist Frustration Score: 48.9

5. Boston, MA
Annual Hours of Commuter Delay: 53
Gas Cost Versus National Average: +3.04%
Population Per Square Mile: 12,793
Overall Motorist Frustration Score: 48.7

4. Los Angeles, CA
Annual Hours of Commuter Delay: 61
Gas Cost Versus National Average: +7.24%
Population Per Square Mile: 17,179
Overall Motorist Frustration Score: 36.1

3. San Francisco, CA
Annual Hours of Commuter Delay: 61
Gas Cost Versus National Average: +5.75%
Population Per Square Mile: 17,179
Overall Motorist Frustration Score: 36.1

2. Chicago, IL
Annual Hours of Commuter Delay: 51
Gas Cost Versus National Average: +30%
Population Per Square Mile: 11,842
Overall Motorist Frustration Score: 29.1

1. New York City, NY
Annual Hours of Commuter Delay: 59
Gas Cost Versus National Average: +7.67%
Population Per Square Mile: 27,012
Overall Motorist Frustration Score: 23.2

[Segun]

Los Angeles just severely spiked in density!!

[fflint]

Yeah, that's San Francisco's density plugged in for both SF and LA.

Sloppy, sloppy work from a source that has become a recurring joke.

[Dr Nevergold]

Just another list; however, I generally think most the cities in this list do have worse traffic problems than average.

[JDRCRASH]

YEAAA these numbers are BS.

[someone123]

The fact that they included density is interesting.

One thing people don't seem to acknowledge is that, all else being equal, the effective travel distances required are shorter in a more densely built up environment, because there are more things (homes, shops, businesses) within a given distance. Even if traffic is 1/4 as fast on an urban street as on a suburban highway, the urban traffic may be more efficient in terms of getting people where they need to go.

There's more stuff in the bottom half of Manhattan than there is in plenty of metropolitan areas that take half an hour to drive across. Some people in NYC may choose to live with longer commutes but in exchange for that they get more employment options etc. than any other city in the US. It's kind of silly to compare that with people driving to their Wal-Mart jobs in a small town.

[CastleScott]

Interesting list although I believe Denver drivers should be up there, it seems as though you can get a Colorado Drivers License out of a CrackerJacks box here!! Yes they are bad here and road rage is rampid in these parts...

[dc_denizen]

The suburban development patterns around many eastern metrolopi are frustration-inducing. Compared to the orderly grids you find out west.

[10023]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

The suburban development patterns around many eastern metrolopi are frustration-inducing. Compared to the orderly grids you find out west.

Yes, but they're much more interesting. The LA Basin is pretty damn boring to look at or drive across.

[bobbyv]

Originally Posted by 10023

Yes, but they're much more interesting. The LA Basin is pretty damn boring to look at or drive across.

Yes driving through the burbs of Atlanta and DC is so much more exciting

[Dr Nevergold]

A suburb is a suburb no matter where it is, and we're a suburban nation. IMO its no different living in a suburb here in Buffalo relative to one in a place like Charlotte, or DC, or Houston, or LA, or Seattle. The only difference is climate and the slightly different stores you find in each place. Some places are more grid like, but who cares when you have to get around by automobile and have no choices its all the same. I suppose a palm tree makes it look warmer, and a spruce tree makes it look seasonal. That's the real difference.

America's biggest problem isn't suburban traffic, its the fact that the only urban choices for real urban living are so expensive most people can't live in urban environments.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Brandon716

A suburb is a suburb no matter where it is, and we're a suburban nation. IMO its no different living in a suburb here in Buffalo relative to one in a place like Charlotte, or DC, or Houston, or LA, or Seattle.

it would not be possible for me to disagree more strongly with you. not all suburbs are created equal. living in an old gridded streetcar burb built out in the 1920's complete with neighborhood retail strips is a very different experience than living in a 1980's cul-de-sac development where all land use is strictly segregated and not even remotely interconnected.

as a general rule, most americans do seem to prefer to raise a family in a single family home. that's a cultural thing that probably won't be changing in any of our lifetimes. the problem isn't the single family home per se, it's how we build communities of single family homes. before the war america was still quite adept at building communities of single family homes that could still function somewhat well on the lower ends of the urban spectrum. but after the war, virtually all community building became enslaved to accommodating automobiles. and that was the beginning of the end.

[10023]

Originally Posted by bobbyv

Yes driving through the burbs of Atlanta and DC is so much more exciting

Who said I was referring to Atlanta and (presumably) Northern Virginia?

[10023]

By the way, if you dropped Oakland for Seattle (and maybe Honolulu for, say, Miami or Austin) this would basically be my top 10 list for American cities.

[MNMike]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it would not be possible for me to disagree more strongly with you. not all suburbs are created equal. living in an old gridded streetcar burb built out in the 1920's complete with neighborhood retail strips is a very different experience than living in a 1980's cul-de-sac development where all land use is strictly segregated and not even remotely interconnected.

as a general rule, most americans do seem to prefer to raise a family in a single family home. that's a cultural thing that probably won't be changing in any of our lifetimes. the problem isn't the single family home per se, it's how we build communities of single family homes. before the war america was still quite adept at building communities of single family homes that could still function somewhat well on the lower ends of the urban spectrum. but after the war, virtually all community building became enslaved to accommodating automobiles. and that was the beginning of the end.

I don't think he was referring to "first ring" or older suburbs...I am pretty sure he just meant "modern suburbia" more or less?

[bobbyv]

Originally Posted by 10023

Who said I was referring to Atlanta and (presumably) Northern Virginia?

Well then please clarify for me where I can find these exciting suburbs you talk of, IMO LA and the bay are 2 of the metros with the best suburbs in the nation, definitely more to see and do than most cities, I just don't see how someone can use the burbs of LA and its set up against it when its one of its strong points.

[rs913]

Dear Forbes: Stop making lists. Wow, the 4 cities on top of the list are the 4 largest metros. As Gilbert Gottfried's character said in Aladdin, "Am I surprised? Am I surprised? I'm about to die of a heart attack of 'not surprised'".

Even if they added surveys asking drivers how frustrated they are, I doubt the results would be particularly enlightening. Every American driver thinks traffic is "the worst" in their city and that their city has the most stupid drivers, except for themselves, of course.

[Rizzo]

I've noticed, especially in places like Chicago, that better signalling can do wonders to alleviate traffic congestion. Drivers got all upset when a lane was knocked out for a cycle track, yet congestion was actually alleviated when dedicated Left Turn signals were added. the biggest source of congestion in cities is turning cars queued up at intersections, especially when they bunch up out of turn lanes into thru-lanes. A crowded intersection with pedestrians probably means one vehicle will make a turn on a yellow-red light.

Better signalling of course only works when there's a fixed number of parking spaces in a downtown location. Essentially demand is restricted by the number of taxi medallions and available garage spaces. You keep that number static and it's theoretically possible to achieve free-flow on surface streets, and not susceptible to induced demand. Longer distance circulation routes and freeways are a totally different matter.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by someone123

The fact that they included density is interesting.

One thing people don't seem to acknowledge is that, all else being equal, the effective travel distances required are shorter in a more densely built up environment, because there are more things (homes, shops, businesses) within a given distance. Even if traffic is 1/4 as fast on an urban street as on a suburban highway, the urban traffic may be more efficient in terms of getting people where they need to go.

There's more stuff in the bottom half of Manhattan than there is in plenty of metropolitan areas that take half an hour to drive across. Some people in NYC may choose to live with longer commutes but in exchange for that they get more employment options etc. than any other city in the US. It's kind of silly to compare that with people driving to their Wal-Mart jobs in a small town.

Density is a particularly good measure. Just not p/km2. Maybe gross kilometres usage per square kilometer. How much are people driving and how many are trying to do it in any given square kilometer.

[jcchii]

boooooooooooooooo