7 ms·
Before we ask about methods...has any American city ever fixed a traffic problem? No, I'm serious: has any city in the US ever had traffic at some (bad) level,
by ahh 10y ago
Before we ask about methods...has any American city ever fixed a traffic problem?
No, I'm serious: has any city in the US ever had traffic at some (bad) level, implemented some set of new policies, then had traffic drop substantially while maintaining the same population density (i.e. I won't count the abandonment of Detroit.) I certainly don't know of any, which makes me doubtful about anyone's proposals to fix traffic.
- Tiktaalik 10y agoVancouver, BC a "North" American city has had the same traffic volumes entering/exiting its downtown core since the 1960s even though the amount of jobs and people living in the area has massively increased during that time. This was accomplished by: 1. Never building a freeway and never expanding any road capacity at all. (This is a strong disincentive to drive to downtown) 2. Building rapid transit. 3. Building residential housing in and adjacent to downtown so that people can just walk to work.
- oftenwrong 10y agoSee also: Canadian Cities American Cities: Our Differences Are the Same http://www.jtc.sala.ubc.ca/newsroom/patrick_condon_primer.pdf http://www.jtc.sala.ubc.ca/newsroom/patrick_condon_primer.pd...
- m-j-fox 10y agoNYC supposedly fixed some of their problems in the 50s if you believe Jane Jacobs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_American_Cities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Death_and_Life_of_Great_Am... She teaches that the key to getting rid of traffic is getting rid of roads. Not everyone buys this theory, but in LA's case, why not try dynamiting the freeways and let's just see if things get better? It's not like they can get any worse.
- ghaff 10y agoYeah, but Manhattan traffic hasn't actually improved has it? The volume wasn't allowed to grow indefinitely but that's a different matter.
- m-j-fox 10y agoThe account in the book says traffic improved in the neighborhood where they removed the roads. It was a small-scale experiment. Subsequently NYC built a bunch more roads and traffic got worse. True believers point to a cause-and-effect relationship, but cities are complicated so it's hard to be sure. The ideal plan for Jacobs might be Amsterdam. No cars, no traffic. It's so simple.
- ghaff 10y agoYeah. A lot of people on here tend to elevate Jabobs (who I admire). But her objective wasn't to fit more people in or move more traffic through a space. It was to create a more vibrant city even if that meant that more people couldn't live or work there. A lot of people who remember Jacobs' preference for cities that don't require cars to get around ignore the fact that she didn't necessarily favor central planning and high rises either.
- Tiktaalik 10y agoTraffic may not have improved, but that's measuring the wrong thing. What is important is whether people and goods are moving effectively regardless of the transportation mode.
- ghaff 10y agoThe Big Dig did significantly improve certain aspects of Boston traffic though traffic certainly didn't drop and I won't pretend the current situation is in any way good. I'm not sure you're ever going to significantly decrease traffic due to induced demand. Probably the best you can do is cap building and force the construction of alternatives and changes in behavior because past some point traffic can't get worse indefinitely.