I saw this on City-data forums, but I've been wanting to start a thread like this for a while.
Which cities do you find easiest to drive in? This isn't directed at highways, but mainly arterial roads, and minor roads. It can include freeways, Blvd's, etc.
I think Phoenix, Des Moines, and pretty much any grid planned city, are easy to get around, sense they all branch off the major roads.
I find cities without grids are a lot harder to get around.
Y'alls opinions?
BigMatt
I found Waukesha, WI far more confusing than I thought it was going to be. Still managed to get through, but had to rely on Google Maps to get from where we were staying near I-94 to I-43.
DC was confusing at first but I managed to get it straight in my head after being there a full day. The problem with DC is the shoddy signage; if everything were well signed it would be much easier.
Manhattan is likely an exception to the grids being easy rule.
I've always had a tough time with suburban layouts that are planned to be labyrinths. I happen to live in one right now, and I still to this day cannot instinctively grasp which roads are north-south and which are east-west, because a lot of roads are ... both.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=mira+mesa+blvd+at+camino+ruiz&aq=&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=29.440076,54.84375&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Mira+Mesa+Blvd+%26+Camino+Ruiz,+San+Diego,+California+92126&ll=32.910433,-117.152624&spn=0.030408,0.053558&z=14
note the almost-a-grid layout.
Boston is the stereotypical example of a city without a grid. I've never had any problems with it but likely it is because I grew up there, so I just knew, from the time I was very young, that Tremont Street was supposed to intersect Tremont Street, and that is the way things are.
New York is tough because there are so many grids that have mutually perpendicular arrangements of which are the streets and which are the avenues. Brooklyn's main grid and "E" grid are at diagonals to each other, for example. That said, Manhattan to me is the easiest borough to navigate - Queens and Brooklyn are tougher, but still not too bad for me.
Honestly I found that suburb in San Diego interesting. It looked hard-thought of, if that makes sense.
It's cool how there's all the houses around, and then there's all these businesses in the middle. I looks very hard to navigate though..
BigMatt
Quote from: BigMatt on July 14, 2011, 07:08:08 PM
Honestly I found that suburb in San Diego interesting. It looked hard-thought of, if that makes sense.
It's cool how there's all the houses around, and then there's all these businesses in the middle. I looks very hard to navigate though..
BigMatt
the radial street (Reagan Road) is nice but I wish all the others were in an organized grid. the subtle 30 degree arcs and bends are Hell on navigation.
I would say that the Manhattan grid is an exception in terms of ease of navigation (for those who are just passing through, not people that live there and drive there on a regular basis) simply because oftentimes many streets, for whatever reason, won't allow a turn, not to mention the heavy pedestrian traffic that can make turning a pain in the butt.
For example, the other week, when I drove in Manhattan for the first time, I was on Broadway and wanted to make a left turn on to 40th but the turn was prohibited; frankly I didn't see why that was necessary, it didn't seem like a particularly difficult intersection traffic wise compared to many others in Manhattan.
Also, there are some interruptions in the grid in certain places. Biggest of course is Central Park; for out-of-towners, it's difficult to know which streets go through if you're an out of towner.
Due to their rigid grids, both Chicago and Milwaukee are a breeze to find ones' way around in and to find addresses.
I'd think that most of Los Angeles would be pretty easy to navigate, with its grid, too.
OTOH, if you are not from there, Boston can be a total confusion.
I also agree, it is very easy for out-of-towners to get lost in central Waukesha, WI, with its non-grid of streets, especially on a cloudy day and with no electronic navigational aids. Ditto central Oshkosh, WI, with those several major streets that parallel the Fox River at a sharp angle to the grid while interfacing with the 'grid' in the downtown area.
Mike
Salt Lake City deserves the obligatory mention for easiest city to navigate, as does any other city laid out by Mormons. 600 North, 500 West, etc.
San Angelo, it's the worst mix of city construction, and city planning ever.... Streets here change names all the time, dead end in the stupidest places, and in College Hills, the area of town that is named after different colleges, the street signs are stolen all the time, usually A&M, Tech, Rice, LSU, Sul Ross, and maybe Oxford. Not to mention College Hills' somewhat complicated streets. But not San Angelo's used these sticker-like things so you can't steal it.
But back on subject, San Angelo is just now falling into the "subdivision pit". So those streets keep getting harder to drive.
For a city of 1,000,000+ San Antonio is actually easy to get around in, on arterial roads and minor roads.
BigMatt
Quote from: CL on July 14, 2011, 11:22:13 PM
Salt Lake City deserves the obligatory mention for easiest city to navigate, as does any other city laid out by Mormons. 600 North, 500 West, etc.
Sure its boring, but amazing how its like they planned for auto traffic with those huge streets. My ex still went the wrong way cuz of the rail tracks.
Quote from: texaskdog on July 15, 2011, 12:24:55 AM
Quote from: CL on July 14, 2011, 11:22:13 PM
Salt Lake City deserves the obligatory mention for easiest city to navigate, as does any other city laid out by Mormons. 600 North, 500 West, etc.
Sure its boring, but amazing how its like they planned for auto traffic with those huge streets. My ex still went the wrong way cuz of the rail tracks.
You mean the light rail system? Huh. Well... she is your ex.
interestingly, Washington DC also has very wide boulevards, but I consider it difficult to navigate because of all the roads that run at strange angles. it's a great layout aesthetically, and it works very well in an early 19th century context, but for vehicular traffic it makes no sense.
(not to mention all those I-95 trailblazers which are just blatantly wrong.)
Easiest: I've always found Las Vegas to be extremely straightforward. The street grid is pretty regular, and there are always visible landmarks.
Difficult: Pittsburgh and it's not even close.
Quote from: CL on July 14, 2011, 11:22:13 PM
Salt Lake City deserves the obligatory mention for easiest city to navigate, as does any other city laid out by Mormons. 600 North, 500 West, etc.
I've always found the Mormon addressing scheme to be almost
too sterile. It doesn't help that 500 North and 500 South are both generally major streets, as well as 500 West and 500 East! Easy to lose track of if you don't have a concrete idea in your head of which street is what.
I prefer an arrangement like Oklahoma City's, where the major north side and south side streets do not conflict: going north from Reno the major streets are NE 10th St, NE 23rd, NE 36th, NE 50th, NE 63rd... whereas going south they're SE 15th St, SE 29th, SE 44th, SE 59th... If someone just refers to "15th St" you generally do not have to guess whether they mean N 15th or S 15th... N 15th will be a minor residential road that wouldn't be used for most navigational purposes. And you have no conflict with the N-S streets because they're named.
SLC for good, Atlanta for bad. Freeways curve & just end. St Paul & Austin both have roads that change names all the time. Minneapolis is a classic grid.
Quote from: CL on July 15, 2011, 01:03:42 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on July 15, 2011, 12:24:55 AM
Quote from: CL on July 14, 2011, 11:22:13 PM
Salt Lake City deserves the obligatory mention for easiest city to navigate, as does any other city laid out by Mormons. 600 North, 500 West, etc.
Sure its boring, but amazing how its like they planned for auto traffic with those huge streets. My ex still went the wrong way cuz of the rail tracks.
You mean the light rail system? Huh. Well... she is your ex.
Yes she screamed at me :)
In terms of difficult cities to navigate, I would say Philadelphia outside of the immediate Center City area is tough. North of Spring Garden St. the city just turns into a mish-mosh of grid and named streets going off in all directions...it's very confusing for someone not used to driving on the streets.
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 15, 2011, 10:51:16 AM
I've always found the Mormon addressing scheme to be almost too sterile. It doesn't help that 500 North and 500 South are both generally major streets, as well as 500 West and 500 East! Easy to lose track of if you don't have a concrete idea in your head of which street is what.
I prefer an arrangement like Oklahoma City's, where the major north side and south side streets do not conflict: going north from Reno the major streets are NE 10th St, NE 23rd, NE 36th, NE 50th, NE 63rd... whereas going south they're SE 15th St, SE 29th, SE 44th, SE 59th... If someone just refers to "15th St" you generally do not have to guess whether they mean N 15th or S 15th... N 15th will be a minor residential road that wouldn't be used for most navigational purposes. And you have no conflict with the N-S streets because they're named.
By the time you exit the city core, the same situation applies to Salt Lake. If I were to say 32nd, 53rd, 106th, or 7th, most would know I'm referring to 3200 West, 5300 South, 10600 South, or 700 East. There are no other major roads that clash with those coordinates. But of the situation you mention (the 500s), you're absolutely right.
Paterson, NJ is a surreptitiously tricky city to get around. There's a little bit of topography around the south end that results in strange connections. There's a lot of one-way gridding in the west/middle that then gets upset by the river and newer roads. People are always getting lost due to lack of signs to anywhere you'd want to go (mostly the Great Falls).
Providence is only difficult to get around for one reason - Memorial Boulevard curves in a circle. You can never tell which direction you're facing when you head toward downtown, compounded again by lack of signs for any through route and little continuity for Interstate signing.
Washington, DC is quite easy to drive in, once you get the N/W/S/E system. Just make sure you know the quadrant of your destination. Baltimore is also quite easy due to the grid.
Minneapolis - I found - was rough. Sure its a grid, but the grid is angled with respect to North. Too many one-way streets as well.
Montreal is a grid... sometimes. And with lots of exceptions and prohibited turns, kind of like NYC. Except that streets and avenues aren't numbered, and the grid probably has even more exceptions. To help, the said grid stops before West Island. If you go there, well, I suggest you bring a map. Dead ends, circles, etc. And a large airport in the middle of that. On the East of the island, there's an abandoned oil refinery, also taking up a lot of space and making navigation a bit difficult.
I've heard bad things about Boston...
Quote from: yanksfan6129 on July 15, 2011, 12:25:27 PM
In terms of difficult cities to navigate, I would say Philadelphia outside of the immediate Center City area is tough. North of Spring Garden St. the city just turns into a mish-mosh of grid and named streets going off in all directions...it's very confusing for someone not used to driving on the streets.
I grew up there, so I generally didn't have a problem...however, once you get out of either North or South Philly (Great Northeast, West Oak Lane, SE Philly) you're gonna have issues. If you know the main drags you should be OK. (Yes, Ridge and Germantown Avenues tend to break up the nice symmetry in North Philly.)
Now Orlando, on the other hand...other than SR 50 and SR 436, the roads go all over the place!
What do you guys think of European cities? Has anyone ever driven there?
To me, northern Europe (including Germany) has the easiest traffic. The Netherlands has a lot of cyclist swerving around intersections, which can be pretty intimidating for first-time drivers. The craziest traffic inside cities is generally in southern Europe, with Italy and Greece probably being the worst. Traffic safety records are poorest in eastern Europe and Belgium, though a lot of improvement is made in eastern Europe. One upside of communist urban planning is that they created wide boulevards, which makes driving much easier than southern Europe. The downside is they often lack a freeway network, which makes these cities more congested than they have to be.
Quote from: Master son on July 16, 2011, 06:40:43 PM
Minneapolis - I found - was rough. Sure its a grid, but the grid is angled with respect to North. Too many one-way streets as well.
Try Saint Paul then. 7th becomes 9th and then becomes 8th.
Quote from: Chris on July 17, 2011, 09:26:35 AMWhat do you guys think of European cities? Has anyone ever driven there?
I have driven around the UK and Ireland, and been driven around Italy, Portugal (Lisbon only), Germany, France, Switzerland, Turkey, and Spain.
QuoteTo me, northern Europe (including Germany) has the easiest traffic. The Netherlands has a lot of cyclist swerving around intersections, which can be pretty intimidating for first-time drivers. The craziest traffic inside cities is generally in southern Europe, with Italy and Greece probably being the worst. Traffic safety records are poorest in eastern Europe and Belgium, though a lot of improvement is made in eastern Europe. One upside of communist urban planning is that they created wide boulevards, which makes driving much easier than southern Europe. The downside is they often lack a freeway network, which makes these cities more congested than they have to be.
I have found that the difficulty of navigating in European cities increases with size, as is also true in American cities, but not in quite the same way. Because American cities tend to be built on a grid plan, they tend to follow that grid as they expand. In Europe, large cities tend to arise from the coalescence of small communities which grow over time and often embody different ideas about city layout. In Madrid, for example, the historic part of town (near the Plaza Mayor) is a small warren of narrow streets laid out in a spiderweb pattern around the Puerto del Sol, while the districts on either side of Paseo de la Castellana developed later and are laid out in a rectilinear pattern, and there is also the Ciudad Lineal out near the periphery (this is an actual neighborhood in Madrid--not just an internationally famous town-planning construct). In Barcelona you can find a similar distinction between the Barri Gòtic near the harbor and the Eixample. Elsewhere, some cities have had their central areas replanned on a grid (partially as a result of monarchical absolutism) while street plans outside of it tend to follow landform contours--you see this in Turin (the former Savoy capital) and Lisbon (the Baixa Pombalina was comprehensively replanned after the Lisbon earthquake). There is also the
haussmannien model in Paris: reorganizing districts by razing huge boulevards through existing development.
These distinctions are not rigid. For example, greater Washington, DC and Boston have followed similar patterns of growth through coalescence, and the difficulties in navigating through them are comparable to large European cities like London and Madrid. In DC's case, L'Enfant's grid does not extend through the suburbs in either Maryland or Virginia, so it requires a considerable degree of local knowledge to handle the transition from the suburban street plans to the DC grid.
In Europe the city I have personally found most difficult to navigate in is Istanbul. If you stay just in one district you are all right (I got to know Eminönü reasonably well), but if you try to travel from district to district, it becomes very hard and you have to rely on well-known landmarks like Taksim Square. In comparison, Ankara, which was master-planned while Atatürk was president of Turkey, has a reputation for ease of navigation which is not entirely deserved because it has some hills which distort the street layout, but it is still much easier to deal with than Istanbul.
Quote from: mgk920 on July 14, 2011, 09:44:10 PM
Due to their rigid grids, both Chicago and Milwaukee are a breeze to find ones' way around in and to find addresses.
I'd think that most of Los Angeles would be pretty easy to navigate, with its grid, too.
OTOH, if you are not from there, Boston can be a total confusion.
I also agree, it is very easy for out-of-towners to get lost in central Waukesha, WI, with its non-grid of streets, especially on a cloudy day and with no electronic navigational aids. Ditto central Oshkosh, WI, with those several major streets that parallel the Fox River at a sharp angle to the grid while interfacing with the 'grid' in the downtown area.
Mike
Being originally from Oshkosh, I would say that except for maybe 5 blocks of Algoma/High in downtown, Oshkosh is easy. You got to remember though, like Milwaukee, Oshkosh was at one point 3 towns. That's why there are so many name changes when you cross the Fox.
As far as worst, I hated Boston's layout but then again that city was layed out along paths that had similar elevations back in the 1700s.
Chicago is one of the easiest places to navigate, because Chicago is based off an easy grid with major streets almost every half mile. The suburbs aren't too bad either because the major roads aren't confusing and are generally straight.
Quote from: Chicagosuburban on July 20, 2011, 02:42:00 PM
Chicago is one of the easiest places to navigate, because Chicago is based off an easy grid with major streets almost every half mile. The suburbs aren't too bad either because the major roads aren't confusing and are generally straight.
Once we tried to get on the tollway and PAY and we couldnt get on. It took us back a few miles and somehow we would up at the same intersection 45 minutes later. They have a grid but the tollway is a nightmare.
Quote from: mgk920 on July 14, 2011, 09:44:10 PM
Due to their rigid grids, both Chicago and Milwaukee are a breeze to find ones' way around in and to find addresses.
I'd think that most of Los Angeles would be pretty easy to navigate, with its grid, too.
OTOH, if you are not from there, Boston can be a total confusion.
I also agree, it is very easy for out-of-towners to get lost in central Waukesha, WI, with its non-grid of streets, especially on a cloudy day and with no electronic navigational aids. Ditto central Oshkosh, WI, with those several major streets that parallel the Fox River at a sharp angle to the grid while interfacing with the 'grid' in the downtown area.
Mike
Gotta agree with you on Boston..I've lived here for just over three months from Atlanta and been here several times, but..... Towns in Massachusetts only sign their main streets from the town square or center of town outwards and only once, but an abundance of side streets are signed. I guess they figure the locals just know. If it's a state route, you've got a better chance.
Quote from: texaskdog on July 20, 2011, 10:20:29 PM
Quote from: Chicagosuburban on July 20, 2011, 02:42:00 PM
Chicago is one of the easiest places to navigate, because Chicago is based off an easy grid with major streets almost every half mile. The suburbs aren't too bad either because the major roads aren't confusing and are generally straight.
Once we tried to get on the tollway and PAY and we couldnt get on. It took us back a few miles and somehow we would up at the same intersection 45 minutes later. They have a grid but the tollway is a nightmare.
Yeah they are weird because most of the tollway interchanges don't serve all directions...
Metro Phoenix is one of the easiest because of the large area that follows a grid pattern. Major streets follow section lines, there are ample freeways to get around, and you know that there will be an exit every mile. Very easy to plan a route from point A to point B.
I've never had any major problems there, but Nashville can be difficult to navigate in. Very few streets follow the straight compass points, and the further out you get from downtown, particularly in the south part of town, the less semblance of a pattern there is. Streets turn off at odd points-where the road you are on with the same name turns off, while continuing straight ahead puts you on a different street. For a good example, try following Old Hickory Blvd. in the Antioch area(SE part of town).
I'd agree that Waukesha, WI is difficult to navigate, and I even grew up near there. The downtown has streets goining every which way.
Another city that can be confusing is Madison, WI. The downtown and the Isthmus is laid out in a grid, but outside of there, the main streets go in all different directions. The lakes being in the middle of the city definitely complicate things, as they can make trips accross the city a lot longer. Going from the west side to the east side through the city is terrible slow, and there is no high-speed route through the downtown and Isthmus area. Though I don't think I'd want one through there, it would spoil the beauty of the city and the lakes.
Quote from: tchafe1978 on July 26, 2011, 11:53:23 AM
I'd agree that Waukesha, WI is difficult to navigate, and I even grew up near there. The downtown has streets goining every which way.
Another city that can be confusing is Madison, WI. The downtown and the Isthmus is laid out in a grid, but outside of there, the main streets go in all different directions. The lakes being in the middle of the city definitely complicate things, as they can make trips accross the city a lot longer. Going from the west side to the east side through the city is terrible slow, and there is no high-speed route through the downtown and Isthmus area. Though I don't think I'd want one through there, it would spoil the beauty of the city and the lakes.
Eau Claire, WI has the same problems as Madison in that regard - no routes that go straight through the city and no cohesive grid due to the Chippewa River and its irregular valley. WisDOT just got done building several bypass routes around the city to handle crosstown traffic.
As for Madison, WisDOT will, within the next couple of decades, have no choice than to 1) upgrade much of the Beltline to eight lanes and 2) construct a north beltline freeway, both to simply handle crosstown traffic.
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on July 26, 2011, 01:25:11 PM
Quote from: tchafe1978 on July 26, 2011, 11:53:23 AM
I'd agree that Waukesha, WI is difficult to navigate, and I even grew up near there. The downtown has streets goining every which way.
Another city that can be confusing is Madison, WI. The downtown and the Isthmus is laid out in a grid, but outside of there, the main streets go in all different directions. The lakes being in the middle of the city definitely complicate things, as they can make trips accross the city a lot longer. Going from the west side to the east side through the city is terrible slow, and there is no high-speed route through the downtown and Isthmus area. Though I don't think I'd want one through there, it would spoil the beauty of the city and the lakes.
Eau Claire, WI has the same problems as Madison in that regard - no routes that go straight through the city and no cohesive grid due to the Chippewa River and its irregular valley. WisDOT just got done building several bypass routes around the city to handle crosstown traffic.
As for Madison, WisDOT will, within the next couple of decades, have no choice than to 1) upgrade much of the Beltline to eight lanes and 2) construct a north beltline freeway, both to simply handle crosstown traffic.
Mike
Madison will get its own "big dig"