ABC's 20/20 looking for horrible commute stories
mcne...@my-deja.com
trying to pinpoint the country's worst commute. We're looking for
frustrated motorists who sit in traffic for at least 40 minutes to and
from work. Our focus is on the top three congested cities: Seattle, Los
Angeles and Washington, DC.
We're looking for motorists who live in one of the above. If you think
you're spending more time in traffic than you do at the office, we want
to hear from you. Some of the things we want to know: How many miles
do you travel? How long does it take and why do you do it?
Please contact Susan Welsh at 212-456-1437 or Susan....@abc.com or
post your story to the list.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Jeff Henjes
time at 34 minutes, a minute or two longer than the average commute in LA.
<mcne...@my-deja.com> wrote in message news:8qgjrr$ujf$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
Aron Nopanen
> You're missing the boat. Atlantans have the nations longest average commute
> time at 34 minutes, a minute or two longer than the average commute in LA.
True, but that's a different metric...LA is considered more congested, probably
due to it's size--there's more to congest. What Atlanta has is indeed horribly
clogged, but there's much less of it than in LA. Still, I think it should be
considered, as should the Bay Area.
--
"My opinions are mine alone"
Rahul Dhesi
>Jeff Henjes wrote:
LA should not be included, because people *CHOOSE* to live in that
area. The SF Bay Area should be included because people are forced
to live there.
--
Rahul
David Jensen
c.c....@98.usenet.us.com (Rahul Dhesi) wrote in
<8qj1gs$1e9$1...@samba.rahul.net>:
>Aron Nopanen <anop...@westwave.com> writes:
>>True, but that's a different metric...LA is considered more congested, probably
>>due to it's size--there's more to congest. What Atlanta has is indeed horribly
>>clogged, but there's much less of it than in LA. Still, I think it should be
>>considered, as should the Bay Area.
>
>LA should not be included, because people *CHOOSE* to live in that
>area. The SF Bay Area should be included because people are forced
>to live there.
When did the Bay Area become a prison camp?
Kokopeli
the island for saying this:
>ABC News' 20/20 is doing a story about traffic congestion and we're
>trying to pinpoint the country's worst commute. We're looking for
>frustrated motorists who sit in traffic for at least 40 minutes to and
>from work. Our focus is on the top three congested cities: Seattle, Los
>Angeles and Washington, DC.
>
>We're looking for motorists who live in one of the above. If you think
>you're spending more time in traffic than you do at the office, we want
>to hear from you. Some of the things we want to know: How many miles
>do you travel? How long does it take and why do you do it?
>
>Please contact Susan Welsh at 212-456-1437 or Susan....@abc.com or
>post your story to the list.
>
I'm in Seattle and commute 12 miles to Kirkland across the 520 bridge.
It ranges from 20-40 minutes in the morning, 30-60 in the evening. It
can be bad, but it could be a lot worse because:
1. I'm a techie and don't *have* to be at work most days til 10. I
usually leave the house by 8:30 to be in by 9.
2. I'm coming from Northgate, not Queen Anne/Fremont/Magnolia/Ballard,
so I don't have to do the Mercer Weave. 3/4 of a mile to cross five
lanes of traffic to get off onto Mercer.
Seattle traffic is bad 7 days a week. I have heard stories about
Atlanta from locals down there, and it sounds like theirs is even
worse.
dw
Dylan Wilbanks
Seattle, WA
Proud netizen since 1992
"So join the struggle while you may/The revolution is just a T-shirt away" -- Billy Bragg
SA
(Rahul Dhesi) wrote:
> Aron Nopanen <anop...@westwave.com> writes:
>
> >Jeff Henjes wrote:
>
> >> You're missing the boat. Atlantans have the nations longest average
> >> commute
> >> time at 34 minutes, a minute or two longer than the average commute in
> >> LA.
>
> >True, but that's a different metric...LA is considered more congested,
> >probably
> >due to it's size--there's more to congest. What Atlanta has is indeed
> >horribly
> >clogged, but there's much less of it than in LA. Still, I think it
> >should be
> >considered, as should the Bay Area.
>
> LA should not be included, because people *CHOOSE* to live in that
> area. The SF Bay Area should be included because people are forced
> to live there.
It might be included, except the traffic is worse in L.A., since we have
more than twice as many people, but not twice as many roads. See how
that works?
I commute 9 miles from Playa del Rey to UCLA. It takes me 40 min to get
there and somewhat longer to come back. The return is unpredictable,
it's anywhere from 40 min to 1:10. The problem really is the west L.A.
which is more severely congested than anywhere I have ever been (even
Manhattan). In fact, the 3 or 4 miles betwen UCLA and National Blvd
takes the bulk of my commute (about 30 min). I take the surface streets
in this area. If I took the freeway, trying to get on the 405 at
Wilshire, it would take 20 min longer. I would venture to say, it would
take me 35 min to transverse the 1 or 2 miles between the Wilshire Blvd
onramp and the 10 interchange. In fact, my worst story is 4 days after
the earthquake, when UCLA asked us to come in to look for spilled
chemicals with the hazmat crew. Every single traffic light was blown
out, the freeways were closed, and it took me 4 hours to get there and 4
1/2 hours to get back... I spent 15 min there but it was still a full
days work!
The problem is historical, the valley was not expected to grow because
there was no water, and the Beverly Hills freeway (to run from the
101/405 interchange to the main interchange downtown) was never built.
Of course, this does not explain why no improvements have been made to
the 405 since it was built. One can also not explain why no freeway
actually goes into the Airport and a gargantuan backup on Sepulveda Blvd
is instead created. Nor why the 405 narrows from 5 to three lanes at the
10 interchange, a design flaw which guarantees a gargantuan backup even
if it's a national holiday and gas prices have gone up to $10/gallon.
Never mind we pay the highest registration and gas taxes in the country.
In L.A. severe congestion ranges from 7:30 to 9:30 and 3:30 to 7:30 pm.
It also occurs unpredictably on weekends. To make matters worse there
are a lot of aggressive drivers, mostly driving SUVs. Plus, it is
extremely dangerous congestion, it can speed up from 0 to 45 mph in no
time and back again for no apparent reason. Every time you go to make a
lane change and check your blind spot to run the risk of rear ending
someone. And if you get in an accident prepare to pay through the nose.
If you are at fault and you break a single finger on someone's dominant
hand dont be surprised when your insurance pays $25K in personal injury
damages for this. Needless to say this kind of insurance isn't cheap.
Sigh, actually the traffic is the main reason I plan on moving from L.A.
next year. Actually, I love the place, the people, the weather, but the
commute is deadly, and it has only gotten worse in the last few years.
Exile on Market Street
> LA should not be included, because people *CHOOSE* to live in that
> area. The SF Bay Area should be included because people are forced
> to live there.
Since when have people been forced to live in the Bay Area?
I can understand that term being used to describe someone who relocates
because his or her current employer is also relocating or has reassigned
him/her to a particular location.
But for everyone else, you can hardly say it's a forced decision.
My brother, who worked for a St. Louis-based PR/marketing firm with several
California offices, was put in charge of end-user support for the company's
California offices. The offices are located in San Francisco, San Diego,
Sacramento and Los Angeles, and he had the option of making any one of
those four his home.
Guess which one he moved to?
(He's since bailed out of that company and works for a San Francisco-based
firm.)
I guess there's a sense in which people are "forced" to live in a certain
area if they want the widest range of job opportunities in an industry that
is concentrated in that area. But even there, it's not a completely
fitting term: there are very few industries that are located entirely in a
single region, and given that, then choice remains -- it's just that those
choosing not to locate in the area of greatest concentration may have to
wait longer or look harder for their desired opportunity or settle for
something other than their first choice. Both are legit tradeoffs and
hardly examples of "force."
--
Sandy Smith, University Relations / 215.898.1423 / smi...@pobox.upenn.edu
Managing Editor, _Pennsylvania Current_ cur...@pobox.upenn.edu
Penn Web Team -- Web Editor webm...@isc.upenn.edu
I speak for myself here, not Penn http://pobox.upenn.edu/~smiths/
"I have friends who live in Denver...They gnash their teeth when I tell
them that Denver is Wichita with mountains..."
-------"Captain Billy" in the _Salon_ "Table Talk" thread on Kansas City--