3 ms·
This anecdote is basically another way of saying the incentives of urban design align and become self-fulfilling prophecies. Suburban dwellers stuck in the aut
by dangus 3y ago
This anecdote is basically another way of saying the incentives of urban design align and become self-fulfilling prophecies.
Suburban dwellers stuck in the automobile mindset automatically assume that big cities must have the most horrendous traffic. It's seems like a logical conclusion: if traffic in my 50,000 person suburb is horrendous, it must be downright horrific in the big city.
But that's not really how it works. In NYC one two track subway tunnel can handle 15 lanes-worth of car occupants.
Ironically, making transit, cycling, and walking more convenient than driving and "punishing" the automobiles actually makes traffic and driving more pleasant.
I think a lot of suburban folks would be really surprised that a two-lane 25mph road can comfortably handle traffic for neighborhoods that have 10x the density of a typical automobile-designed connected with large arterial roadways. When you design a place to only accommodate vehicles, vehicles are what you get.
- cyberax 3y ago> Suburban dwellers stuck in the automobile mindset automatically assume that big cities must have the most horrendous traffic. Have you driven in Manhattan?
- dangus 3y agoWhy would I drive in Manhattan? "Traffic" isn't just cars, it's also bikes, walking, and transit – it's the flow of people moving from one place to another.
- toast0 3y agoI've not driven in NYC. But I've driven in LA, SF, San Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Milwaukee, maybe a bit in Dallas. Big cities do have horrendous traffic in high density areas. Even if it's free flowing, there are intersections so often and pedestrians everywhere and so speeds are necessarily quite low. You wouldn't drive through there unless you don't have a choice; maybe the ferry lets off downtown and you need to get to the freeway from there, but usually you're driving through downtown to get to somewhere downtown, which means you need to park, which is also terrible. Of course, NYC is bigger than I think, and there might be some parts where density is relatively less, but the only reasons to have a car there are if you're a cab/limo driver or if you're doing the cannonball run.
- sylens 3y agoTo be fair, none of those cities have the transit infrastructure that NYC has. In fact some of them (LA, Dallas, maybe even Seattle) are cities I would classify as “car first”
- CSMastermind 3y agoI have driven in pretty much every major North American city and NYC isn't even in the top 10 of worst traffic or places to drive, there are some times and specific areas where it can get bad but I'd happily drive in NYC every day than have commute in Seattle. I think at least in part that's due to the fact that bad drivers are scared away by New York so don't even attempt to drive there, or if they do they give up quickly. NYC also has the only public transit system in the US that I don't mind taking so I'm sure that play a role as well.
- donatj 3y agoMilwaukee is in my experience one of the best driving cities in the US. I've spent a significant amount of time there and very rarely encountered any kind of jam.