:> Can *YOU* show me a 2005 article that says the Seattle metropolitan area :> with :> a population of 3.8 million has as much traffic as Chicago areas 9.2 :> million?
: See, that's one thing wrong with your believing those articles. I *CANNOT* : show you a 2005 study, because, guess what, 2005 isn't over, and : peer-reviewed : scientifically-valid studies (like the Texas A&M one) aren't cherry-picked : over a portion of a year, a particular area, etc., and take a year or more : to be prepared and peer-reviewed.
Well.. the point is... your article published in 2002 is based on 2001 or earlier data... the articles from 2005 are published with earlier data too, but later than what you've quoted... so your question of how can CNN have
2 different stories on their website... it's easy... just look at the years that are embedded in the URLs or at the top of the stories... you knew your data was older from the start, yet you posted it to counter newer data.: I have driven in Chicago, and agree that it's traffic is nasty. At least : some : of the people are, too, IME. But we have nasty traffic and people, too. : A higher percentage on the roads, possibly, as we have *proportionally* : less mass transit, so the yahoos with junkers and a bad attitude are on : the roads rather than on the L.
Eh... I don't buy it... a town (yes a town) of 600k can't compete with the traffic woes of cities like New York, Los Angeles or Chicago... sure we have the L, but the traffic pattern isn't like it used to be with everyone working in the loop... the burb roads are as bad as the Kennedy now, except the Kennedy is still as bad as ever...
But... it's quite easy to drive a stick shift car daily in those environments, even in the snowy envirnments of New York or Chicago...
So... are there more comfortable cars out there to commute in... sure, but don't blame it on the commute, just admit your a wuss that went for comfort ;-)
It's ok... but accept responsibility instead of blaming the car or the city...
;-)