4 ms·

I don't think any major city has traffic solved. Even places with very little zoning like Houston have traffic problems. urban sprawl seems to be the default wh

• javagram 8y ago
  Solving traffic problems seems nearly impossible in the US as people will get on the roads and drive until gridlock stops them. But in my experience places like NYC (Manhattan in particular) have done a fairly successful job of allowing people to opt out from the traffic problem by using public transit, walking, or uber/taxi instead. A lot of other cities could play catch up there.
  • jeffreyrogers 8y ago
    That's true, Manhattan has the benefit that you can't spread outwards so they just build up, which makes it easier to get around without a car.
    • JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > Manhattan has the benefit that you can't spread outwards We overflow into Brooklyn, Queens and New Jersey quite easily. In any case, most of uptown is relatively low density. The density exists because of the demand in a few concentrated areas and because it's permitted.
• JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > I don't think any major city has traffic solved There are some that manage it better than others. Constraining sprawl is one requirement. But public transportation is another. Silicon Valley has trapped itself at a density where it's high enough to produce traffic, pollution and all the downsides of an urban environment, but not high enough to merit lots of public transport. As a result, I end up Ubering from Cupertino to Mountain View--and back--every day I'm in the Bay Area, along with thousands of other people with a virtually-identical commute.