New England looks pretty bad in this article but I beg to differ albeit I am biased.
I live around Boston and while I agree I will say that Boston like the rest of New England is extremely seasonal and even then it's week by week and based on weather. I'm typing this while on my iPhone after just traveling to Cape Cod this Friday evening and it only took 1.25 hours and left at 4pm.
I hope to make two points:
1. you can see hell of lot more interesting things in 5 hours or less from Boston than almost any other city in the Midwest or even California.
2. Boston is extremely high variance particularly because it is a college town and has "4 seasons". If you know what you are doing you can use this to your advantage.
> 1. you can see hell of lot more interesting things in 5 hours or less from Boston than almost any other city in the Midwest or even California.
Within 5 hours of LA, I can get to both the lowest and highest point in the continental USA, I can see deserts and forest mountains, not to mention oceans, surfing, beachside houses that make cape code look cheap. Vegas is only 4 hours away, at most 5...
I have no doubt you can see many things with no traffic in LA in 5 hours or less. Every time I have been there it's been horrendous that it makes Boston traffic look like a joke.
With New England it's not necessarily the traffic its the fact that the roads are smaller and not straight shots.
As far the Cape looking cheap which was a poor taste comment I would take it over any pacific beach :P .
The pacific coast beaches while do have surf are for some reason so cold with the some minor exceptions.
Over all I meant certain parts of cali and not LA specifically.
My overall argument wasn't that Boston is so special (albeit clearly it is as this article shows at the top). Its that the high congestion cities are far more compact and there are more things to do in less mileage (ignoring nature activities like hiking).
I'm annoyed that I said "parts of California" at all and probably should have said Texas (I clearly got downvoted for mentioning Cali didn't have things to do).
Lol @ the assumption that most of these cities don't have "4 seasons".
Also lol @ the assumption that there's only interesting things within 5 hours from the epicenter of Boston (I couldn't even type that with a straight face).
> Lol @ the assumption that most of these cities don't have "4 seasons".
I didn't say that. But for sure Boston has much more dramatic seasonal change than many of the cities on the list.
> Also lol @ the assumption that there's only interesting things within 5 hours from the epicenter of Boston (I couldn't even type that with a straight face).
I picked Boston but it applies to the top cities (from the article) as they are more compressed:
1. Boston - has intense seasons
2. Los Angeles - do noes not really have seasons
3. Miami - ditto
4. Chicago - extreme seasons like Boston
5. San Francisco - mild seasons
6. San Diego - no seasons whatsoever
I only picked Boston because I know it well. I don't want to get into the all natural hiking granola see the earth shit. Yes clearly areas like Las Vegas win at that.
The article even sort mentions my point: "Twenty miles might not seem like much, but in tightly packed New England, it’s the difference between being stuck in Massachusetts or escaping to neighboring Rhode Island or New Hampshire."
Otherwise why the hell do you think its so congested? More people and more stuff = more compact. Often this equals more things to see and do.
People in Massachusetts do not have to drive 60 miles to get to their job because stuff is more compact. In Atlanta they do!
I pick Atlanta because I have lived there and let me tell you have to drive quite a bit even to get to a reasonable body of water (Lake Lanier) let alone the ocean.
Not sure what point you're trying to make — I live in Boston and the map seems generally accurate. Sometimes it takes longer, sometimes shorter — that's why we use averages.
There's also a reason traffic to the cape is high during the summer months — the cape sucks in the winter. Not sure how you're using that to your advantage.
> Not sure what point you're trying to make — I live in Boston and the map seems generally accurate. Sometimes it takes longer, sometimes shorter — that's why we use averages.
Yes the map is correct! I'm saying what most people probably missed is that New England is highly compressed and has many factors such as complicated roads and seasons.
However because its compressed you do not need to travel 5 hours! Five hours gets you past NYC even with traffic.
> There's also a reason traffic to the cape is high during the summer months — the cape sucks in the winter. Not sure how you're using that to your advantage.
No its exactly as the article points out that timing is big deal and I was saying its even more of a big deal seasonal. I said I left at 4 pm. to the Cape Not 5 pm. That is a big deal for Boston as the article clearly shows. In other cities it is not. In other cities such as Atlanta for example you still have to drive 4 hours to get Savannah.
However cursory look of the article makes it appear cities like Atlanta are great commuting cities because of how far you can drive regardless of the time.
I live around Boston and while I agree I will say that Boston like the rest of New England is extremely seasonal and even then it's week by week and based on weather. I'm typing this while on my iPhone after just traveling to Cape Cod this Friday evening and it only took 1.25 hours and left at 4pm.
I hope to make two points:
1. you can see hell of lot more interesting things in 5 hours or less from Boston than almost any other city in the Midwest or even California.
2. Boston is extremely high variance particularly because it is a college town and has "4 seasons". If you know what you are doing you can use this to your advantage.