LexBob2

I saw this from Cars.com. Inrix puts out an annual Global Traffic Scorecard which lists the average number of hours spent in traffic. Not really any surprises, but here are the most congested cities in the U.S. by average hours spent in traffic: 1. Los Angeles, 2.New York, 3. San Francisco, 4. Atlanta, 5. Miami, 6. Washington D.C., 7. Dallas, 8. Boston, 9. Chicago, 10. Seattle.

Hoovey689

iTrader: (16)

LA and SF.. big surprise

mmarshall

Depends on who actually does the study....there are several organizations in that business. Depending on the year and the company (and how they collect and analyze the data), the L.A. region usually ranks first, and Atlanta fourth, but second and/or third are usually shuffled between D.C., Chicago, NYC, and San Francisco.

Given the fact that NYC, especially in and around Manhattan, is probably the most physically congested city in the country terms of the number of buildings and persons per square mile, one would expect it to rank either first or second on a consistent basis. But, NYC is unique in one sense......because of the extremely high cost of driving and parking there (EVERYTHING is a fee or toll), and associated taxes, many persons in the area simply do not own or drive private cars. They utilize the city's enormous cab, Uber, bus, and subway transit systems.

jmtamu

I stumbled across this today. Traffic in Dallas/Plano/Frisco is starting to get ridiculously bad. All these new people are great for my home value, but horrible for my traffic related anger.

http://www.dallasnews.com/business/r...ents-open-year

dseag2

That's why I live in the Dallas Metroplex. I moved here 10 years ago from Miami, so traffic is all relative. I can still make it 30 miles from DFW to our house in 45 minutes in rush hour. Not bad. However, when I go up to Plano to visit my mother I can't believe the traffic jams coming up the Tollway. Gotta love "urban sprawl".

mmarshall

I don't know if Texas has a real estate tax on property-values each year (I know they don't have an personal income tax). But keep in mind that if they DO have a real estate tax, each time they reassess your home's value and it goes up, that's just more tax you are paying on it each year, out of your pocket. I caution people about that all the time when they get so elated about home values going up. Unless they actually SELL the house and make money, the more that the house and property is worth, the more taxes one pays, although those taxes are deductible on the Federal return.

Back to the traffic mess, yes, Dallas-Ft. Worth has had a lot of growth, but, Austin's, on a percentage-related basis, has probably been even more, even though it is still overall a smaller metro area than DFW. Austin has become like a magnet...it has had explosive growth for years. Its suburban sprawl now stretches from Georgetown to Buda......though for sheer suburban sprawl, L.A/SoCal and the D.C.-Baltimore areas take the cake. D.C/Baltimore is basically now one large city from the Chesapeake Bay to the Appalachians....and I won't even get into L.A.'s LOL. L.A., though, at least, has a huge, well-developed freeway system that can handle traffic....something that this area (and maybe DFW?) lacks.

LexBob2

Houston too. It's now the 5th largest metro area in U.S. right after DFW which is 4th.

dseag2

You're right about Austin... the traffic is terrible. It is one of the most desirable cities to live in in the US, and the growth in population proves it.

Yes, Texas does base property taxes on real estate values. I hired a company to dispute my taxes for a few years, but at some point you have to cave and admit your home value has crept up considerably. Yes, our taxes have increased quite a bit. And we own our home, so we pay the lump sum out-of-pocket, not as part of a mortgage payment. I have to save up all year for it, so soon I will be driving a Kia Niro!

You're also right about home value appreciation only benefiting you if you sell your house. We sold two houses in Miami in 2006 at the top of the real estate "bubble" and moved to Dallas, which was undervalued at the time, so we got a lot for our money. I'm considering selling our house and moving into an apartment until the real estate market here cools off. ;-) J/K

mmarshall

Houston's been a traffic mess, though, for years.....that's nothing new.

Fizzboy7

Los Angeles.... Here's what's been going on for the last 25 years. SoCal is a MOTOR CAR society. But instead of pouring in money and resources for freeway expansions, new freeways, and freeway improvements, they have been dumping money into bus and light rail systems. These tend to serve the inner city and the poor, and do nothing to help the middle class get around. It's the new way for California. Middle class suffers while the poor and illegal citizens prosper. Soon, we will all be poor here anyway.

mmarshall

L.A.'s freeways, though, with their many choices and widespread coverage, are already superior in many ways to those in other metropolitan areas....especially the woefully inadequate ones in the D.C. area where I live, where NO freeways actually go completely through the city at all. That's because, decades ago, NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) forces managed to block freeway construction and/or expansion through downtown D.C. And there is only one freeway (the infamous I-495 D.C. Beltway, which many consider the most frustrating road in the country to drive on) to carry both local AND major East Coast traffic and commerce around the city....a complete mess.

Fizzboy7

Apparently they are not superior, if we ranked #1 on the list. As I mentioned, L.A. was built around the automobile. But for decades, nothing has been done to sustain that.

mmarshall

My point was that if the L.A. freeway system was not as good as it is, conditions in the area, bad as they are now, would be unfathomable. We would love to have L.A.'s freeway system here in the D.C. area, but the forces that were, over the years, simply did not allow it. We basically have one Beltway that surrounds the city, I-66 coming in from the west, I-95 running north and south, and NO freeways at all completely through the city (although I-295 skirts parts of the city's SE edge, and U.S. 50 east of town is more or less like an Interstate. Compare that to L.A. huge freeway system that runs virtually everywhere. And that's why our gridlock is almost as bad as L.A.'s even though we have a lot lower population.

riredale

I grew up in LA (Arcadia, next door to Pasadena) and loved the freeways. Dropped out of college for five years back in 1973 and drove a concrete truck all over Southern California for most of those years. I was proud of my intimate knowledge of the freeway system.

Now, decades later, we live in the Pacific Northwest. For fun, I sometimes look up the LA freeway traffic congestion on Google Maps. Man, things are much worse now than back even in the 80's. And it's true that the libs have decided to stop doing freeways and put money into subway lines that can only help a little. Meanwhile, I am impressed by Phoenix (where my sister lives). New and expanded freeways going in all the time. If it just weren't so crazy hot for half the year...

One other thing: Seattle's main artery, I-5, runs north/south and includes a couple of extra lanes that can be switched from north to south as traffic demands. So why is it that I almost always get stuck going in the direction that is not using those extra lanes? Karma?

SubieChik

iTrader: (1)

San Antonio is the second largest city by population in the state of Texas (behind Houston) and we don't really have a traffic problem at all lol. Which baffles me because our highways have been under construction for like 50+ years it seems like