U.S. cities with lighter traffic
 

I am currently living in metro Atlanta, which holds its title with the third worst traffic in the nation, and sits in first place as the most expensive city to commute in. So with our sweltering summers that necessitate setting the car a.c. at at a high speed, and with our three minute long traffic light wait times and congestion, on top of all of the suburban sprawl, driving around here can be a huge pain in the behind, to put it lightly. Can anybody tell me of any cities where traffic isn't such an aggravating issue?

Certainly not here (chicago), I'd like to know as well, the traffic where I live has become completely out of control, it is a miracle anyone gets anywhere. I haven't driven in awhile (I'm downtown with no car) but I did the other day, I drove in from the burbs to the city during the morning rush hour, and about ripped out my hair, I don't know how people do it everyday without going completely bonkers.

DFW is far worse and the officials have no clue.
M

Cleveland, OH is decent with respect to traffic. Not too huge to navigate; I spent 6 years living on one side of town and having to cross 480 twice a day at rush hour, and it wasn't bad at all...know plenty of people who live in far outlying suburbs & commute across town or into downtown...sure, an accident can bring things to a standstill, but usually thing motor right along.

The downside...you have to live in northeast Ohio. And good luck finding a job in that economy these days.

Buffalo, NY - We moved here from Alexandria, VA and our stress level has plummeted. You can get from any suburb to the city in under 20 minutes.

I think the only cities that don;t have really awful traffic - are the ones that aren't really cities (just technically). Traffic is part of what makes a city.

Austin Texas- we by no means have the lightest traffic in the world, but I lived in Houston for 3 years and it is much better mostly because we are not such a huge metropolis. I know people from L.A. who say that traffic is easy compared to L.A., but I am not sure if that is really saying much.

Austin has the worst traffic and Buffalo does not see the sun for three or more years in a row.
M

I'll kindly take issue with that Buffalo comment - we had several days over 90 degrees this summer. Of course this was abnormal for the region, but normally our summers are very pleasant with temps in the high 70's/low 80's. Plus just because there is snow on the ground doesn't mean that it can't be sunny out...

Rochester, NY -- "Commuting Heaven" compared to other areas. I almost moved to Atlanta last year due to a job transfer, and decided against at the last minute. However I spent quite a bit of time in Atlanta ... Nice area, but what a commuting headache! So much of life ends up revolving around commuting and time in the car, or trying to travel at weird times to beat the rush ... really can affect your quality of life after a while.

We have a "20 minute rule-of-thumb" ... that is it is generally 20 minutes from the suburbs to the downtown area, or to go from one suburb to another.

Even in the winter, the communities are very equipped in snow removal quickly, so the roads are generally clear by the time you're heading off to work (unless it's an exceptionally bad storm that's still hitting during the "rush" hour).

I have to agree with Austin having awful traffic. It's not just the traffic but the drivers in general. It's not unusual to see people doing 50 mph in the middle lane, and merging seems to be a totally foreign concept. I won't even get into all the cell phone usage. And I'm from Florida...I never in a million years would have thought that anything could be worse than the drivers in Florida!

madison, WI (the city in which i went to college) has decent traffic. and great quality of life, all-around.

I lived in Indy for 10 years and though rush hour can be like any other city, for the most part you are at last moving ~ and there are alot of different routes that one can take to get to a final destination. It's a great city and very under-rated.

I just returned from a week long visit and am amazed at what great houses you can buy on large, tree-lined lots for not that much $$.

Another area that I highly recommend and travel to often, are the NW burbs of Milwaukee - traffic moves pretty quickly there also.

Of course, both of these places are in the good ol' midwest - snow, sleet, rain........

Milwaukee is an easy city to get around.

We have good regional theater, lots of interesting restaurants, professional sports, symphony, ballet, a good park system, and Lake Michigan.

Utica, NY.
Topeka, KS
East Podunk
Bumphuk, Egypt

but why, "metalbird", are you planning a no-traffic vacation?????

I recall a columnist in the new yorker once stating that any city worth living is difficult to park in. I'm inclined to agree, but I still hate the traffic.

I was stunned by the lack of traffic in San Diego, even during rush hour. It's weird. There are tons of cars on the interstate but none on the city streets.

rbtravelerx: The real reason I'm seeking a place with lighter traffic is so that I can move there. The maximum length of a traffic light should only be a minute. In Atlanta, the reason so many people run red lights is because it is a three minute wait if you miss them, and it seems like the lights only give you 7 seconds to go through them before turning yellow! I am not justifying running red lights; it is dangerous. But that is why people run them.
Of course vacationing somewhere with light traffic is also a plus! Imagine sitting in traffic just to go to the beach! But I guess Florida is like that sometimes. I was surprised at the amount of cars on the road in St. Augustine. Maybe everybody there drives because it is too hot to ride a bike!

Rather than moving somewhere just because the traffic isn't bad, wouldn't it be better to find a city you love, then set up your life so you live close to your job and the activities you enjoy? Or find a city with great mass transit? I live in Seattle, and people who live far from their jobs constantly complain about the traffic, but I live in a neighborhood with lots of shopping/restaurants, etc, and great bus service to my job downtown, so I don't ever experience the traffic.

After all, if people are going to move to other cities to avoid traffic, yet continue to commute in their cars, you're just making the situation in that city worse.

christy, I'll carry your point one step further. I'm always amazed by people who live outside those traffic laden cities and say "I'd never live in the city, the traffic would get to me". Yet they drive back and forth through it every day when they work in the city. I guess it never sinks in with them that if they lived IN the city, they wouldn't be in all that traffic every day.

I spend a little over a month in Portland, OR and found traffic to be very light compared to my area. Even when there were reports of 'heavy' traffic, it was much lighter than DC metro.

I'm not sure about the cost of living in Atlanta, but often that's the reason why people do not live in the "city". When I lived in Alexandria, VA I cursed my commute but couldn't afford to live in DC. Then I got a job in another suburb of VA and my commute was even worse because I had to travel the Capital beltway for about 15 miles.

Christy1- I know, I know, I would make the situation worse by moving to the suburbs and commuting to the city. But I don't think I could live inside of a big city. I admit I haven't travelled as much as a lot of other people have, but I don't know of that many cities that have an abundance of forest and wooded lots within their centers. Plus, it would drive me crazy to hear cars passing under my apartment all night long. However, if I could find a pristine, wooded city without a lot of cars, then I would live closer to the center of it.

I agree with a previous post about San Diego. I've been there twice and am amazed about how easy it was to get around considering it is one of our 10 largest cities. Even the interstate's at rush hour were not horrible. I'm not sure how they do it but it should be copied and used in every metro area.BTW I know it is not because of public transportation because my sense was people who live there drive themselves. If I were to move this would be my first choice for a large city and traffic would be just a small part of the decision.

Yup, I agree with Rochester NY. We moved from Boston and it is great here. If you can find a job in Roch, you won't have ANY trouble getting to it (from a great, cheap house no less!). Are the winters fun? No, but we don't have hurricanes, tornadoes, or earthquakes either.

I live in San Diego and think the traffic here is horrendous. The freeways are always crowded and so are the streets. In my mind, the traffic has gotten as bad as Los Angeles.

Funny, I never had a problem with Atlanta traffic. But then I lived in a nice house in Midtown and worked downtown and took the bus.

Now Freaknic was another matter . . .

In NYC traffic is a non-issue for most commuters. The subway is wonderful - I finish a book about every two weeks. There's tons of commuter rail lines and express buses and ferries from the 'burbs. I believe there are four people in my office (out of 150 or so) who actually drive in every day.

I refuse to live anywhere where I'd have to drive through awful traffic to get to work.

Kansas City has one of the countries lowest ratios of vehicles to freeway miles. Traffic is not even in the same class as other metro areas where I have lived.

The down side is there isn't much public transit infrastructure, because so few people want to use it.

Keith

I don't drive everywhere in the USA so I can't compare all, but can honestly say that it has become exponentially worse where I am in Chicagoland. It is almost beyond endurance and into places that are 50 miles away. No amount of trains, buses, new roads etc. seem to improve the situation. It's almost gridlock all the time- rush hour is no longer a time period as people are doing reverse communtes and its 24/7 bumper to bumper by me. Joliet outskirts meet Chicago Suburban outskirts meet IN. The spaces are almost all gone.

In MI, even in the larger towns like Kalamazoo or Grand Rapids etc. I feel like I'm the only one on the road in comparison. I'm ready to leave because of this factor alone, as I love the cold weather when it comes.

It is not Chicago. Detroit is bad too, but not as bad. Atlanta was TERRIBLE- not as dense but faster and out of control. All of Florida, much lighter traffic but WORST traffic because of the crazy drivers. Boston was bad.

Ironic- we even got stuck in traffic jams in Sedona & in the Napa Valley while going to wine taste.

Milwaukee was very much lighter and drivers' from WI drive much slower.

It's true you won't find vast extents of "pristine" forests in any big city, but there are plenty of cities where single family homes are the norm (esp. Western cities) and that have beautiful parks and greenbelts. I've never lived in an apartment on a busy road in all my years living in the city.
In any case, maybe you can find a rural area you like that has access to mass transit on the periphery of the urban area? Then at least you can be productive or relax (reading, etc) on your commute.

I really think this depends on your occupation. Obviously people commute to where the jobs are. If you can be self-employed, you can think commute free. Some jobs lend themselves to more remote areas. Perhaps you should think about changing your job in order to change your commute.