  Devinc Member Username: Devinc Post Number: 32 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.14.138.74 |
Detroit was number 8. I wonder if this includes metro detroit? Probably not, otherwise i could see it being in the top 5. http://biz.yahoo.com/weekend/t raffic_1.html | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3172 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
I'm pretty sure this is for metropolitan areas. It's pretty apparent if you look at the names of the "cities." I'm actually surprised to see Metro Detroit even at number 8. The sprawl must really be getting to the area, because Detroit proper is probably one of the least traffic-chocked big cities. | ||
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy Post Number: 1715 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 67.149.62.7 |
It kind of caught me off gurad too. There seem to be so many different ways that a Detroiter can squirm his/ her way to their destination. It's not like other cities where they rely solely on one major thoroughfare. heck, look at how well we've even managed things like Lodge-ability and the closing of certain freeways. I think we do okay. | ||
Devinc Member Username: Devinc Post Number: 33 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 69.14.138.74 |
Yeah, it's just hard to believe there are 7 cities above the Detroit Metro come 3 o clock- 7 o clock that are worse, considering they have an actual mass transit transportation system to help out. | ||
Dove7 Member Username: Dove7 Post Number: 1962 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 24.5.195.127 |
Are you serious? You find it hard to believe? Man I live in the Bay San Fran area and it is a nightmare. Detroit on it's worst day is everyday here. From the entire bay area all the way to Modesto Ca. which is 2 hours away. It's just that bad. L.A. not surprising. NYC, not surprising at all. The king of nightmare. And we all know that Chitown is worst than Detroit. I94 Chicago is bad, especially during rush hour and 5 o'clock. The bay area is unpredictable. Try taking the Bay Bridge on any day. Worst than the Ambassador bridge. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3173 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
Mass transit doesn't necessarily make less congested roads. In fact, I think it's pretty clear that it doesn't. Seriously, Devin, what point are you trying to make? I assume you've driven in Metro Detroit, including Detroit proper, right? | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 2327 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 199.74.87.131 |
Um, cities with mass transit are more congested because they have more people living in those cities. Chicago and New York have nearly over 10 million people in their metropolitan areas!!! The reason the traffic in the Detroit is so bad because most of the congested areas are out in the suburbs (think I-275, I-696, northbound I-75, Hall Road). They don't have the diverse thoroughfares that Detroit proper has. The city of Detroit was made to move people in and out of neighborhoods. That's why you hear arguments about widening I-75. I oppose the idea because you are only encouraging people to live out in the exurbs and increase traffic problems too. | ||
Dove7 Member Username: Dove7 Post Number: 1963 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 24.5.195.127 |
metro detroit ranking is a deserving one indeed. it sucks. congested. no transit doesn't rid of bad traffic. it's just a convinence from all of the nightmare traffic. for it's size, san fran. is just as dense as NYC. traffic is terrible. the number 2 dense city imo. | ||
Dove7 Member Username: Dove7 Post Number: 1964 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 24.5.195.127 |
Detroit city use to be just as bad as NYC and the other major cities. I remember as a kid during the 70's how bad it was going down woodward ave. it was far worst in detroit than what it is on the royal oak side. No contest. Detroit was a true hustle and bustle city back then. | ||
Machoken Member Username: Machoken Post Number: 1125 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.85.155.145 |
I don't believe that we are just one notch below Chicago. Chicago traffic is bad every day but Sunday, and any time of day. Our traffic is only bad during rush hour. | ||
Livernoisyard Member Username: Livernoisyard Post Number: 38 Registered: 10-2004 Posted From: 69.242.223.42 |
Dove7: The good old days when traffic lights downtown stopped vehicles other than buses. | ||
Atl_runner Member Username: Atl_runner Post Number: 1813 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.209.118.72 |
Interesting that NY is not even in the top 10. Could that be because they have the best Mass Transit in the country? I think so. | ||
Iheartdetroit Member Username: Iheartdetroit Post Number: 83 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 69.246.111.79 |
DevinC you must have never driven in other cities!! In DC, Atlanta and LA complete gridlock is a daily occurence....expressways are parking lots. It happens in Detroit sometimes if there was an accident or something, but normally even in the worst of traffic the cars are still moving at least. It's really weird that NYC isn't on there. Makes me wonder how they came up with the list. | ||
Thewack Member Username: Thewack Post Number: 194 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 71.125.246.158 |
You don't need a car in NY. That is another reason why I love the fact I just moved to NYC. I save a lot of money now that I ditched the car. Unfortunately, I have to pay more for rent, but that is another story. | ||
Funkycarrie Member Username: Funkycarrie Post Number: 177 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 68.79.80.163 |
you must not travel at all outside of Michigan if you think Detroit should be higher on the list. LA is a nightmare....no argument there the Bay area is congested ALL DAY LONG. DC is the same way, I lived there when I was a kid, so I can't even imagine what it is like now, the beltway is a nightmare. I've never been to Dallas or Houston Atlanta was a mess when we drove through 2 years ago. And Chicago, because of the toll booths, is complete stop and go. 94 is a complete mess, don't ever drive through on a Friday at 2pm thinking you can beat rush hour to get into Wisconsin. Thank God they built that Ferry. The thing that makes Detroit different is our congestion doesn't always go in both directions, its one or the other. And our congestion is out in the burbs, like was previously stated. I fly to and from work on 96 (live downtown, work in Livonia) everyday in rush hour, its never backed up unless there is construction. I'm suprised we're so high on the list. I'm really suprised that NYC isn't ON that list. It took us 8 hours to drive 100 miles out of the city 3 summers ago. | ||
Ltorivia485 Member Username: Ltorivia485 Post Number: 2330 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 199.74.87.131 |
Funky, thank god Chicago has the Skyway. Much quicker route than going through I-94. | ||
Lghart Member Username: Lghart Post Number: 95 Registered: 03-2004 Posted From: 24.90.243.145 |
Live in NYC right now and traffic is worse than Detroit by a mile, and when I lived in Miami it was as well. I always found that there were ways around the heavy traffic areas in Detroit, while in others there are not many alternatives. NYC should easily be top five imo. | ||
Rusty Member Username: Rusty Post Number: 377 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 71.194.127.158 |
I've spent years dealing with both Detroit and Chicago traffic. IMO, Chicago is much worse. Very common to have a 20 mile commute take 1 to 1.5 hours each way. | ||
Islandman Member Username: Islandman Post Number: 67 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 68.42.171.59 |
Yeah, I think it has to with the "width" of your rush hours. Traffic sucks around here during accidents and our 2-3 hours of rush hour. Places like LA, DC, and Chicago have a rush hour that goes on for hours in the morning and afternoon, with a couple of hours between thrown in for good measure. Just think, 2 of the places I mentioned do have a reliable and well used regional transit system. Imagine if they didn't. If this place ever turns around this will be the elephant in the room. (Message edited by Islandman on February 12, 2006) | ||
Smogboy Member Username: Smogboy Post Number: 1722 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 67.149.62.7 |
I think Deroit traffic is much more navigable because we have alternate paths to take and they really don't take that much more time. Prime example is if southbound I-75 is locked up to get to downtown, dart over to Woodward Avenue. Or from the west side, there are other avenues like Grand River to take as opposed to I-96. There might be more lights to deal with, but they still seem to move as opposed to some of those other cities where there isn't much of an alternative. I still think San Fran & LA are MUCH much worse than anything we have here. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 120 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 68.2.191.57 |
I'd be curious what effect adjacent bodies of water or mountains have on traffic flow. It might make an interesting simulator project. I'd guess shoreline traffic would be more dense if only because vehicles don't swim well. Detroit, L.A., and certainly Chicago should have some such edge effect. I guess the article did touch on that. A traffic simulator might show an even more profound boundary effect if 3D traffic were allowed, e.g., flying cars. Was surprised Denver didn't appear in the top 12. They post signs there demanding you must remove vehicles from freeway accident scenes. (Message edited by Jimaz on February 12, 2006) | ||
Ilovedetroit Member Username: Ilovedetroit Post Number: 2059 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 68.40.173.250 |
I can't believe that I-94 and 75 didn't make it alone! | ||
Jfwaterburry Member Username: Jfwaterburry Post Number: 35 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 64.108.212.139 |
what? I don't get it, jimaz? Seriously, not trying to be rude. | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 124 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 68.2.191.57 |
Sorry, I think I got carried away dreaming about simulators. Just ignore me. | ||
Jfwaterburry Member Username: Jfwaterburry Post Number: 36 Registered: 04-2005 Posted From: 64.108.212.139 |
Ha... okay. I usually dream about different things... but that's just me. I will do as instructed. | ||
Islandman Member Username: Islandman Post Number: 69 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 68.42.171.59 |
ILD, If you think I-94 and I-75 should be on that list, you obviously haven't sat in LA, Chicago, or NYC (especially living the city on Friday) traffic. They don't even come close. But, if I were to pick one freeway in Metro Detroit, it would be 696, my own private hell. | ||
Detroitwonk Member Username: Detroitwonk Post Number: 103 Registered: 10-2005 Posted From: 69.89.100.18 |
Interestingly enough, although we made #8 on Forbes's list of worst traffic...we didn't make any of the Forbes top 10 for worst intersections / choke-points: http://www.forbes.com/feeds/20 06/02/06/cx_bm_0207trafficslid e.html?partner=rss | ||
Ilovedetroit Member Username: Ilovedetroit Post Number: 2061 Registered: 02-2005 Posted From: 68.40.173.250 |
Actually Islandman I am in those cities (and some quite often) they at least have public transport as an option. Here we are trapped in a car with little to no choice. Yes, 696 west bound in the AM is bad (why I use the Lodge to go to work in the burbs) but 75 and 94 is plain awful all the time and needs more lanes. | ||
Mikeydbn Member Username: Mikeydbn Post Number: 295 Registered: 04-2004 Posted From: 35.11.141.32 |
Chicago should be higher. Detroit itself is not bad, but can you say 696? I agree with the rest of the cities rankings. | ||
Ray Member Username: Ray Post Number: 631 Registered: 06-2004 Posted From: 68.41.160.200 |
Dove7, interesting obseravations. I was just thinking how much easier the traffic on the peninsula is than in Oakland County, when I read your post. I will say, the Bay Bridge is ferocious. But I am never really bothered by the taffic in the Bay Area, at least outside of peak rush hour. I left Palo Alto for Oakland at 8:00 am the other day and noted that the Dunbarton Bridge (eastbound) was moving at about 65, which is well above the speed limt. Of course, NB 880 was slow, to your point. I wish the morons who run Michgan's road system would spend a couple of weeks driving around Santa Clara County. It just seems so pretty and well laid out. There aren't as many billboards and ugly strip retail centers. The utility lines don't seem so visually obtrusive. There's also mass transit everywhere. Even though the Bay Area is very far flung, you can get a bus our train easily. (Message edited by ray on February 13, 2006) | ||
Dove7 Member Username: Dove7 Post Number: 1967 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 24.5.195.127 |
Ray, I'm never bothered by the traffic niether. I am used to it because I lived in the metro Detroit area. But I also realize the big difference between the two. It's like night and day. 880 and 590 via Richmond Bridge, God forbid. It's crazy. Even 99 heading towards Modesto is a nightmare. And that's 2 hours away. I always take the short cut I-5 south. The L.A, route Tell them Ray. the Detroit area just don't know how bad that they need a transit and how it benefits. | ||
Jerome81 Member Username: Jerome81 Post Number: 910 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 64.142.86.133 |
Never seem to get stuck too much here in Palo Alto. Though there are times when I do try to get to San Francisco and 101 is backed up off the bridge. Or come back from Tahoe on a sunday and you're crawling from north of Berkeley. South bay gets busy, but I don't think its "horrid", just that 880 and the bridges probably drag the whole area down. Central Expressway is my fav  Chicago is hell. Try getting to and from OHare. Some days a 25 minute normal drive takes an hour and 25 minutes. Eisenhower sucks too. I've had more than one experience when I check travel times, decide its better to drive than train it, and while I'm on my way traffic turns to hell. Chicago should be higher. I'd say its worse there than the bay area by my seat of the pants feel. Anyway. Who cares. I guess I just don't like to hear people in Detroit bitch about horrible traffic. IMHO, the entire area just isn't all that bad. Go to another metro and see what you think of Detroit traffic. Makes you think the I75 expansion is totally unnecessary. | ||
Danny Member Username: Danny Post Number: 3689 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 141.217.174.223 |
If want to hear the worst traffic. You should check on the a 3 mile car pile up from Muskegon. | ||
Genesyxx Member Username: Genesyxx Post Number: 428 Registered: 02-2004 Posted From: 209.69.165.10 |
That sounds about right. 94, 696, 275 | ||
Dove7 Member Username: Dove7 Post Number: 1968 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 24.5.195.127 |
jerome? chicago is bad, but san fran is worst. i've lived near chicago and i know the crazy traffic. but chitown is predictable. san fracisco traffic is like l.a. it can be all day. chicago is pretty much dead at night. not the bay area. i live in berkeley. took my car to school for the first time. god, took me an hour to get into the city. and i know that i was on the early easy part of the traffic flow. san francisco is 7 days a week traffic. | ||
Metrodetguy Member Username: Metrodetguy Post Number: 2292 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 71.144.94.155 |
"Yes, 696 west bound in the AM is bad (why I use the Lodge to go to work in the burbs)" "Ilovedetroit", didn't you previously claim to work in the city? At least you're consistent...at being inconsistent. | ||
Dove7 Member Username: Dove7 Post Number: 1969 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 24.5.195.127 |
Yeah I took 696 to work today too, god it is awful. | ||
Tomoh Member Username: Tomoh Post Number: 76 Registered: 11-2004 Posted From: 68.40.205.183 |
All I have to add is that traffic in Dallas, having lived there, is pretty bad but similar to Detroit, except getting around on regular streets (off the freeways) is much harder. There's also tollways you have to deal with, whereas Michigan promotes freeway sprawl further by not having tolls. | ||
Crash_nyc Member Username: Crash_nyc Post Number: 519 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 24.193.39.60 |
NYC traffic within the borough of Manhattan is so consistently bad that that our local radio traffic reports don't even bother mention it (they could play the exact same tape everyday, and no one would know the difference). At best, they might put out what they call a "Gridlock Alert" on days when there are big events at the United Nations (not that Manhattan doesn't already get gridlock every day -- even on Sundays!). Whatever NYC offered to this survey came from the congestion on the major outer-borough and suburban arteries, not from street-level traffic in Manhattan. Traffic on the outer-arteries can get very bad, but Manhattan is ALWAYS heavily congested during business hours. At the height of rush-hour in Manhattan, you can usually walk faster than crosstown traffic moves along 34th St. They do give bridge & tunnel reports going in & out of Manhattan though, and it's not at all unusual to hear casual announcements on our local radio rush-hour traffic reports like "...and there's a 90-minute delay getting into the outbound Holland Tunnel...". Happens all the time. That's why I live within the NYC subway system. | ||
Lghart Member Username: Lghart Post Number: 97 Registered: 03-2004 Posted From: 69.203.21.20 |
Crash_nyc, somehow I think they either eliminated NYC from the list completely or simply forgot. But the traffic problems are entirely different in many ways, as most of the highways you don't get over 40-45 mph anyway when there is no traffic(even 10+ miles from Manhattan) and actually in Manhattan and the other boroughs there is traffic 24/7 on surface streets causing crawls. I think most of the analysis was done on interstate type of roads, etc. in the other cities and it is hard to compare the two. Even in my area in Queens, the Van Wyk can be a 10 minute ride or a 75 minute depending on the time. That said I always hated the 275/696 interchange going north at rush hour when I lived in the D. | ||
Dove7 Member Username: Dove7 Post Number: 1972 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 24.5.195.127 |
LgHart, you can compare San Francisco to NYC. For it's size, it is just as dense in downtown. It's just that bad in San Francisco during rush hour. San Fransico is a mini NYC. | ||
Nip Member Username: Nip Post Number: 45 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 67.38.2.62 |
As someone who has lived in LA, Chicago and now back here in Metro Detroit, I can say that the worst by far is LA, who rightfully wins the #1 spot. With that being said, Chicago traffic also "SUCKS BALLS". I think Chicago should be higher on the list. The gridlock here is nothing compared to Chicago. Anytime of day the f&*king 290 is grid locked, both E and W. Part of the problem is the design of the freeway, which I feel is pathetic. The Eastbound exits at Harlem and Austin really f&*k up the flow of things. This is underscored by the countless assholes that don't understand the concept of "Merge". I was raised here in Metro Detroit and after being away for over ten years, I've noticed that people here can be really aggressive, riding your ass. In Chicago, they don't drive quite as aggressive, but them mofo's like to push the limits on lane closures (getting over at the last minute) and have no idea how to "merge" into on-coming traffic. As for LA, whatever, they’re completely screwed... Glad I’m long out of that schitt. Traffic here doesn’t bother me so far, although I do think there is a lot of road rage, more so then the aforementioned cities. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3189 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
LA is indeed a monster where just about anything goes on the freeways. I can't imagine having to deal with that stressful day after stressful day if I was a commuter out there. Michigan drivers are some of the more aggresive I've encountered. I'd even say I'm one, but they are generally better versed and self-aware on freeway etiquette, even if they don't always show it. It always surprises me on how apparent it is when you cross the border into Indiana or Ohio oh much the traffic flow changes. It's like being shot out of a gun (Michigan), and hitting jello (Ohio, Indiana...) | ||
Crash_nyc Member Username: Crash_nyc Post Number: 524 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 24.193.39.60 |
LA definitely gets the gold medal for freeway traffic. Last time I was out there, I left Santa Monica over 3 hours before my flight was scheduled to leave LAX (maybe 10 miles away?). Like a dumbass, I decided to get on the 405. Needless to say, I missed my flight. Never making that mistake again! The difference I see between the aggressiveness of drivers in Metro Detroit and NYC is that it's much more in-your-face in NYC. Driving around Detroit, you'll get tailgated like hell & cut-off without warning, but then the agressor just speeds away at 90 MPH. In NYC, where traffic obviously moves MUCH slower, you get cut-off like crazy (by people who look you in the eye while they do it), and if you keep your foot on the brake less than a quarter-second after a light turns green, you'll hear a 10-second-long orchestra of blaring car horns behind you (even if you have a police car stopped in front of you). I also see drivers screaming obscenities out of their windows a lot more around here...but things like blaring car horns and screaming "Move it, asshole!" are so engrained in 'NYC culture', that most people don't really take offense, and just grin & bear it. Those who don't grin, throw down (usually pretty entertaining to watch). You definitely see a lot more fist-fights between drivers around here -- and on rare occasions, shootings... ...But I guess that's where LA also out-scores everyone: road-rage shootings. Haven't heard much about it recently. Is this still a problem in LA? | ||
Jimaz Member Username: Jimaz Post Number: 132 Registered: 12-2005 Posted From: 68.2.191.57 |
Exactly. Great metaphor! I've always thought of Michigan drivers as not so much aggressive but more "aware of their driving skill" (and expecting that others stay equally skilled and alert). If a Michigan driver makes a snap lane change at the last minute, I just assume he's confident that he can do so safely, not that it was done out of aggression or poor planning. This is in contrast to driving out west (well, excluding L.A.). With higher speeds over longer distances, western drivers naturally change lanes more smoothly and leave more space between cars. I just switch driving modes accordingly and try to stay out of the way! LOL (Message edited by Jimaz on February 15, 2006) | ||
Nip Member Username: Nip Post Number: 46 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 148.87.1.170 |
Quote: "LA definitely gets the gold medal for freeway traffic. Last time I was out there, I left Santa Monica over 3 hours before my flight was scheduled to leave LAX (maybe 10 miles away?). Like a dumbass, I decided to get on the 405. Needless to say, I missed my flight. Never making that mistake again!" Next time, take La Cienega. When I lived out there, heading to LAX from Glendale took me no time at all. | ||
65memories Member Username: 65memories Post Number: 242 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 68.252.132.113 |
Just keep me away from Rochester and Avon roads, anytime between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m. Nightmare city. | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 279 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 207.200.116.139 |
Driving to and from Detroit/Las Vegas as I do every year, here's a couple of oddball city observations...... Leaving LV, traffic at Hoover Dam can be a real bitch. Don't even try it on a Sunday evening when all the AZ folks are trying to get back home. Fortunately, a new by-pass bridge south of the dam is under construction to just about eliminate that logjam. Target date: 2007. Flagstaff, AZ: The worlds greatest speed trap. If the sign sez "45", don't do 46. Nasty uphill climb getting there, too. Albuquerque: Both I-40 and I-35 have been under construction for a decade. Jammed up all day, particulary nasty during rush hour. Amarillo: Pretty smooth trip through town, but keep your windows up. Huge stockyards.... Oklahoma City: Traffic not too bad, but they have the curviest urban freeways in the world. Longest straight stretch is a quarter mile. Or so it seems. Tulsa: Not bad, but backups on the tollway collection gates can catch you off guard. St. Louis: Everyone who works in St. Louis lives in Illinois. And with only two auto bridges across the Mississippi, I-44, I-70, and I-55 are snooze time most of the day. Horrible. Indianapolis: Nice beltway around the town with traffic moving most of the day. I-69 to the north of town can easily bog down, though. Going back via the northern (I-70) route, the Chicago area can be a bear as noted by others, but except for Denver, it's pretty much smooth sailing all the way. But Iowa, Nebraska, and eastern Colorado can sure get boring. Oh, yeah. Las Vegas. Well, it gets tied up at rush hour. Of course, being a 24 hour town, rush hour lasts 20 hours each day......... | ||
Sf_mike Member Username: Sf_mike Post Number: 1 Registered: 02-2006 Posted From: 69.181.23.101 |
I just moved to San Francisco 6 months ago after living in metro Detroit my whole life and the traffic here in the Bay Area is much worse. I had to learn all these new things like "carpool lanes" and "metering lights". Having grown up NEVER using public transportation, I learned quickly here that even though it is possible for me to drive places, it is quite often faster to take the bus or subway. (Message edited by SF_Mike on February 15, 2006) | ||
Dove7 Member Username: Dove7 Post Number: 1986 Registered: 11-2003 Posted From: 24.5.195.127 |
ray1936, man i had forgot about Vegas. been there twice so far. it is a bitch. the traffic can rival the bay area. vegas should've made that list too. sf_mike, welcome to the bay area. i'm a newbie here too. i came out here for school 3 years ago and moved here after my first summer. transit is the only way to go living in the city. transit is pretty good in the city. | ||
Lmichigan Member Username: Lmichigan Post Number: 3193 Registered: 10-2003 Posted From: 67.172.95.197 |
Though Las Vegas can be bad at times, I don't think you can even mention in the same name as many of those listed above. For instance, regardless of the time of day, I-15 through most of town is usually always swiftly moving, barring an accident in the "Spaghetti Bowl." The only real choke point I can see, now, is US 95 through the westside of the city, and that's only because they are widening it, and expanding the "Rainbow Curve." And the new beltway really takes a load off of the main system. | ||
Crash_nyc Member Username: Crash_nyc Post Number: 525 Registered: 08-2004 Posted From: 24.193.39.60 |
Man, I forgot about Vegas too. They have the strangest rush-hour ever. It's all dependant on casino shift-changes. If I remember correctly, 3:PM traffic is far worse than 6:PM. Not to mention traffic jams late at night. Took us 45 minutes to drive from The Rio to The Mirage one night last June. | ||
Treelock Member Username: Treelock Post Number: 87 Registered: 03-2005 Posted From: 68.77.166.98 |
I feel Chicago traffic has become remarkably maddening to the point where I no longer wish to ever, ever drive there again. The last time I was there, in summer 2004, there was construction on the skyway that closed it down to one lane — OK, it's predictable that this will snarl things up. It took us probably two-and-a-half hours to get through the metropolitan area on our way to Wisconsin. Misery. On the way back home on a Sunday afternoon, however, the traffic jam started at the Illinois state line. No joke. This was exacerbated by the toll booths, which occur seemingly every two miles and serve as nothing more than a long series of stop signs. (Whereas I once looked favorably at the state's toll booths, reasoning that Illinois' roadways are in a hell of a lot better shape than Michigan's, I have now reconsidered my position.) And altering our route proved no better than our inbound trip. A trip from Detroit to Madison, which should normally take about 8 hours, ended up being closer to 12. Do your brain cells a favor and take Amtrak to the city or bypass it on the car ferry, which is a pleasant, restful experience. | ||
Bongman Member Username: Bongman Post Number: 933 Registered: 12-2003 Posted From: 198.111.56.128 |
I don't think anything is worse than where I-80, I-90, & I-94 merge together East of Chicago. You catch that area at the wrong time and you could miss a meal or two. North going towards Madison Wisc. can bog down big time too....damn tollbooths every few miles. D.C. traffic from Virginia sucks too. You would think the 18 or so lanes would be enough, but that just allows people to drive like idiots. Florida by Ft. Myers and Tampa sucks major ass too. You could watch the sun rise and set on that one bridge that accesses the area. All the blue-hairs don't help either. ...and I-90 into New York is never fun. | ||
Ray1936 Member Username: Ray1936 Post Number: 280 Registered: 01-2005 Posted From: 207.200.116.139 |
Treelock, when I lived in Detroit, I made an annual trip to Green Bay, WI, to visit an old buddy and take in a Packers game. The first year I took I-94 thru Chicago. Every year thereafter, I crossed Big Mac and came down through the yooper. Longer in miles, shorter in time and temper. Prettier drive, too. |
