Top 10 Angriest cities in the U.S., find your city

[ZTAngel]

Originally Posted by ShaedyKD

Orlando is number one because every single road is perpetually closed down to one lane due to construction and there are a zillion tourists on those roads who don't know where they're going. And that's during the summer months. During the winter months, you have the snowbirds who know where they're going, but they can't see over the steering wheel, and drive like 14 mph on the interstate, where the speed limit is 70.

Haha. So true. Also, every highway is a toll road. There's a toll plaza every 3 miles or so and this backs traffic up onto the surface streets.

[DeltAlum]

Where is Denver. The link took me to numbers 51-100.

[jitterbug13]

Charleston's not on here, but Columbia's 40. I think they're mad because they lost their baseball team and the promises of an SEC football championship hasn't come true.

[honeychile]

Pittsburgh's #90. I guess a Super Bowl win will do that!

[Scandia]

WHAT?

The 4 biggest Florida cities are in it?!?!

Tampa is number 12. Man, this is an angry state.

My auto insurance increased a lot when I moved from Jax to Tampa. But my health insurance went down.

I am not shocked in the least bit about the reasons for Orlando. But Tampa is NOT a tourist mecca. It's more touristy than Jax- but practically any other place is.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Note: New Orleans is/was underwater because of Hurricane Katrina. You probably heard about it. It was on the news.

Actually, New Orleans was underwater because much of it is below sea level. Of course, I also heard on the news that had the levees been maintained and improved properly, Katrina would not have put nearly as much of New Orleans under water.

Funny how its usually impossible to blame just one thing.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by MysticCat81

Actually, New Orleans was underwater because much of it is below sea level. Of course, I also heard on the news that had the levees been maintained and improved properly, Katrina would not have put nearly as much of New Orleans under water.

Funny how its usually impossible to blame just one thing.

I blame anyone who decided living/working/building below sea level was a good idea.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

I blame anyone who decided living/working/building below sea level was a good idea.

Tell that to the Dutch.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by MysticCat81

Tell that to the Dutch.

Yes, but the Dutch have this funny thing about being practical and built the Maeslant Barrier to keep the flood waters down. They tried to do the same thing for Venice, and Venice, being more vain then practical decided that they would rather have the Adriatic Sea in their living rooms then have the Dutch build them a sea wall 20 miles from shore because the sea walls are ugly. I saw on the Discovery channel that Venice is conceding, however, and building up walls, but they have to stay under the sea until flood time.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by AlphaFrog

Yes, but the Dutch have this funny thing about being practical and built the Maeslant Barrier to keep the flood waters down. They tried to do the same thing for Venice, and Venice, being more vain then practical decided that they would rather have the Adriatic Sea in their living rooms then have the Dutch build them a sea wall 20 miles from shore because the sea walls are ugly.

Those vain Venitians.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by MysticCat81

Those vain Venitians.

Seriously, they interviewed the City Mayor, and he was talking about how sea walls that would keep Venice from being completely underwater in the next 20 years are too ugly for a beautiful city like Venice. Who cares how pretty a city is if it's soon to join Atlantis??

[MysticCat]

^^^^ There's something about that one has to admire, though. "We would rather perish than become unattractive." So very Italian, in some way. Crazy, but admirable.

Seriously, though, I think your comments about the practicality of the Dutch proves my point. It's not deciding to live/work/build below sea level in and of itself was isn't a good idea. It's failing to take the practical steps to make living/working/building below sea level viable that isn't a good idea.

[AlphaFrog]

Originally Posted by MysticCat81

Seriously, though, I think your comments about the practicality of the Dutch proves my point. It's not deciding to live/work/build below sea level in and of itself was isn't a good idea. It's failing to take the practical steps to make living/working/building below sea level viable that isn't a good idea.

But I would argue that we should have waited UNTIL those steps were taken to start building there...and I realize that when it was first inhabited, we probably didn't have enough facts to realize that there is major flooding potential, but as soon as that was discovered, building should have halted and steps taken. But then again, that would be the logical, practical thing to do...not the Capitalistic thing to do.

houston is #17, i knew it had to be up here with all the traffic and construction

[RU OX Alum]

Originally Posted by f8nacn

Richmond, VA #65

we're mad at the river