If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   Ten worst cities in North America for traffic congestion delays. Vancouver comes in as a big number 2 in yet another category   (cbc.ca) divider line 52
    More: Obvious, North American, Vancouver, traffic congestions, Montreal, Toronto, TomTom  
•       •       •

9687 clicks; posted to Main » on 13 Oct 2012 at 2:43 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



52 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-12 09:44:47 PM
What a shock, the top three cities are ones that have basically turned their back on any new major freeway construction:

1. Los Angeles 34%
2. Vancouver 33%
3. San Francisco 29%


Assuming they mean LA as a city, that doesn't surprise me. LA is an incredibly dense city with freeways designed for the traffic levels of the '60s and '70s. Because of EPA rulings they can't do much other than add HOV lanes or more mass transit, so they're pretty well going to have the worst traffic.

Vancouver and SF decided a while ago that they didn't care if you were sitting in traffic, so those make sense as well. The only thing that surprises me about this is that Seattle is above NYC and Chicago. I knew traffic in Seattle was a pain in the ass (especially I-5 through downtown) but didn't realize it was that bad.
 
2012-10-12 10:32:49 PM
I occasionally have to commute into Toronto for work. If I had to do it every workday like many of my neighbours, I'd probably quit my job. I can get to Milton in 25 minutes, but the remaining drive (another 20 minutes, if traffic is okay) can easily take an hour or more.

Can't imagine trying to get to downtown from one of the outer areas every day.
 
2012-10-13 12:21:05 AM

davidphogan: What a shock, the top three cities are ones that have basically turned their back on any new major freeway construction:

1. Los Angeles 34%
2. Vancouver 33%
3. San Francisco 29%

Assuming they mean LA as a city, that doesn't surprise me. LA is an incredibly dense city with freeways designed for the traffic levels of the '60s and '70s. Because of EPA rulings they can't do much other than add HOV lanes or more mass transit, so they're pretty well going to have the worst traffic.

Vancouver and SF decided a while ago that they didn't care if you were sitting in traffic, so those make sense as well. The only thing that surprises me about this is that Seattle is above NYC and Chicago. I knew traffic in Seattle was a pain in the ass (especially I-5 through downtown) but didn't realize it was that bad.


Vancouver's problem is being wedged between the mountains and the sea, with significant waterways to cross. The unavoidable traffic over the Lion's gate bridge is enormous, and one of the funnels where these traffic issues manifest.
 
2012-10-13 12:21:57 AM
Vancouver, Washington or Vancouver, BC?
 
2012-10-13 12:49:47 AM

Bathia_Mapes: Vancouver, Washington or Vancouver, BC?


Vancouver Washington doesn't count as a city. It's a parasite of Portland.
 
2012-10-13 01:01:39 AM
The study compares travel times during non-congested periods with those during peak hours. The difference is expressed as a percentage of increased driving times.

No wonder New York isn't higher on that list -- it takes forever to drive anywhere no matter what time of day.
 
2012-10-13 01:21:11 AM
San Francisco isn't that bad. You just need the following criteria:

1. Ride a motorcycle (lane splitting to the front)
2. Ride a bicycle (plenty of dedicated lanes and the damn city is only 7x7 mi)
3. Born and raised (knowing 1000's of alternate routs for #1, #2 and even cars)
 
2012-10-13 02:02:29 AM
Pardon me while I adjust this onion on my belt, and say: when I got my license in 1978, I could drive from Maple Ridge to Granville Street (where Star Wars was still running) in 35 minutes if I hit all the lights.

Vancouver is now a hellish, Blade Runneresque dystopia where the living envy the dead, and at night the CHUDS rise from the sewers to chew on the entrails of those foolhardy enough to leave their fortified steel towers.

This is why I never leave the Island.
 
2012-10-13 02:04:45 AM

davidphogan: . LA is an incredibly dense city with freeways designed for the traffic levels of the '60s and '70s. Because of EPA rulings they can't do much other than add HOV lanes or more mass transit, so they're pretty well going to have the worst traffic.


How exactly do you expect mass highway construction to happen given these problems:

1) Expansion of current highways will only restrict already overused roads, leading to even worse traffic.
2) I'm willing to bet you can't widen many of the highways without mass land clearance, which isn't as easy as it used to be given the past tendency to use it to clear out minority neighborhoods.
3) The same problem as above applies to clearing existing buildings for totally new highways.
4) The state of California has no money to fund mass construction, since years not being able to raise taxes has starved the state of revenue.
5) The US government already underfunds highway budgets by about half compared to required amounts to keep up with road decay. This is why one in three bridges are structurally unsafe to drive on. Where are they going to get the money from?

Instead, what you sound like is a child who wants what you want and doesn't give a fark how it happens. There's a reason new highway construction is rare.
 
2012-10-13 02:17:32 AM

Rusty Shackleford: Pardon me while I adjust this onion on my belt, and say: when I got my license in 1978, I could drive from Maple Ridge to Granville Street (where Star Wars was still running) in 35 minutes if I hit all the lights.

Vancouver is now a hellish, Blade Runneresque dystopia where the living envy the dead, and at night the CHUDS rise from the sewers to chew on the entrails of those foolhardy enough to leave their fortified steel towers.

This is why I never leave the Island.


I believe that successive City councils in Vancouver have worked very hard to not allow the city to develop naturally, to drive up their property values and those of their friends (because the way to make money in municipal gov't is to have real estate holdings and then make rules that benefit such holdings).

Unfortunately it chokes the traffic, and most people hate the mass transit system.

/as I live in Surrey, I hardly ever go to Vancouver.
 
2012-10-13 02:57:10 AM
There's some people out there who actually commute from Chilliwack or Abbotsford to Vancouver every day. Friggin' nutcases.
 
2012-10-13 03:08:14 AM

davidphogan:
Vancouver and SF decided a while ago that they didn't care if you were sitting in traffic, so those make sense as well. The only thing that surprises me about this is that Seattle is above NYC and Chicago. I knew traffic in Seattle was a pain in the ass (especially I-5 through downtown) but didn't realize it was that bad.


Most of the growth in Seattle over the past ten years has occurred on the east side of the city. The problem is, there is a huge f'n lake between downtown and Redmond/Bellevue.
 
2012-10-13 03:16:46 AM
They only did 26 cities? That's... really kind of low.
 
2012-10-13 03:17:39 AM
Shocking that a Canadian site is comparing horse-mounted traffic to automobiles.
 
2012-10-13 03:21:58 AM
EDveryday I is in Seattle. So yeah. Mo good
 
2012-10-13 03:22:17 AM

davidphogan: I knew traffic in Seattle was a pain in the ass (especially I-5 through downtown) but didn't realize it was that bad.


The last time I drove down I-5 through Seattle, I amused myself by estimating the cost in wasted time and fuel of the decision to build the convention center over the Interstate in the mid-1980s. This choked the busiest highway in the state down to two lanes, leaving no practical way to expand it in the future.

Assume a quarter million vehicles per day use the highway, and let's say that 10% of them will experience delays of at least 20 minutes due to the convention-center bottleneck. (At rush hour it takes about 45 minutes longer than it should to drive through town on I-5 due to the choke point... but the worst-case delay only happens for about two or three hours a day, and the traffic throughput will be lower under those conditions.)

Multiply 8000 lost driver-hours per day by 25 years (and counting) and you get close to eighty million man-hours, or over 100 human lifespans.

This is why it takes so long to get anything done in Seattle: our bureaucrats are well-intentioned morons who practically worship the God of Unintended Consequences. It's necessary for everyone who might even be vaguely affected by public policy to scream bloody murder in this state, especially so within the Seattle limits. When the city and state planners get together to conspire against reality, and nobody throws a screaming walleyed fit, we get things like the Washington Trade and Convention Center.
 
2012-10-13 03:36:04 AM

GAT_00: davidphogan: . LA is an incredibly dense city with freeways designed for the traffic levels of the '60s and '70s. Because of EPA rulings they can't do much other than add HOV lanes or more mass transit, so they're pretty well going to have the worst traffic.

How exactly do you expect mass highway construction to happen given these problems:

1) Expansion of current highways will only restrict already overused roads, leading to even worse traffic.
2) I'm willing to bet you can't widen many of the highways without mass land clearance, which isn't as easy as it used to be given the past tendency to use it to clear out minority neighborhoods.
3) The same problem as above applies to clearing existing buildings for totally new highways.
4) The state of California has no money to fund mass construction, since years not being able to raise taxes has starved the state of revenue.
5) The US government already underfunds highway budgets by about half compared to required amounts to keep up with road decay. This is why one in three bridges are structurally unsafe to drive on. Where are they going to get the money from?

Instead, what you sound like is a child who wants what you want and doesn't give a fark how it happens. There's a reason new highway construction is rare.


San Diego somehow was able to keep expanding and improving freeways while building out a mass transit system. Their citizens voted to pay an extra sales tax to fund those projects. The federal government has kept on matching them so far, and they somehow don't cause worse traffic jams. In fact, most of them ended up improving things exactly like the system models said they would.

In Canada, it may not be easy to clear out neighborhoods. In California it's not easy, but if it's budgeted in for San Diego seems to pull it off a bit. Their population has different priorities apparently.

LA is more complicated, but basically because of air quality issues they can't get any federal matching funds that San Diego was eligible for unless they're for carpool lanes or transit improvements. That's part of why I-5 narrows at the LA County line, for example. Maybe the EPA has loosened up on them, but that was an issue the county faced when I lived in San Diego.

And I'm not sure what I personally said that was so childish. I prefer cities that I don't need to drive around. I was making the observation that the list is pretty obvious because one city can't expand it's freeways (and meant to imply with the density part that it would be difficult in many neighborhoods.) I also pointed out the other two chose another route. What was childish about it?
 
2012-10-13 03:36:54 AM

The Onion is prophetic: The study compares travel times during non-congested periods with those during peak hours. The difference is expressed as a percentage of increased driving times.

No wonder New York isn't higher on that list -- it takes forever to drive anywhere no matter what time of day.


That makes sense, in San Francisco, parts of the city nearly gridlock as 9 to 5 office workers enter and leave the city. Other times of the day you can get here an there without much hassle.
 
2012-10-13 03:37:22 AM

davidphogan: Bathia_Mapes: Vancouver, Washington or Vancouver, BC?

Vancouver Washington doesn't count as a city. It's a parasite of Portland.


I'm still willing to bet that Vancouver doesn't burn itself to the ground when it loses to the Bruins.
 
2012-10-13 04:26:07 AM

davidphogan: What a shock, the top three cities are ones that have basically turned their back on any new major freeway construction...

...Vancouver and SF decided a while ago that they didn't care if you were sitting in traffic, so those make sense as well. The only thing that surprises me about this is that Seattle is above NYC and Chicago. I knew traffic in Seattle was a pain in the ass (especially I-5 through downtown) but didn't realize it was that bad.


Vancouver has this problem of basically being a group of islands in a major river mouth. Frisco has this problem to a different extent as it's built around the Bay - the bulk of traffic needs bridges.

Bridges are expensive, and they're bottlenecks. "build more freeway" is like suggesting a Phillip's screwdriver to use with a nail.
 
2012-10-13 04:29:12 AM

davidphogan: Bathia_Mapes: Vancouver, Washington or Vancouver, BC?

Vancouver Washington doesn't count as a city. It's a parasite of Portland.


Its where Portland keeps its Republicans.
 
2012-10-13 04:36:05 AM
Moved to Vancouver a little over a year ago. Luckily I don't go through Massey or Lion's Gate but the traffic is still really bad everywhere. Too few bridges and a population that is really spread out is a bad idea here.
 
TKM
2012-10-13 05:34:27 AM
"North" America... pfftt.

Like any of us are going overseas.
 
2012-10-13 05:39:47 AM

nikku88: Moved to Vancouver a little over a year ago. Luckily I don't go through Massey or Lion's Gate but the traffic is still really bad everywhere. Too few bridges and a population that is really spread out is a bad idea here.


I was driving up there on vacation about a decade ago. Vancouver B.C. has surprisingly dickish drivers compared to Seattle and Portland, IMHO. The "polite Canadian" mythical stereotype was put to rest, at least for me....

/ the bad Asian driver stereotype that I have in my head was sadly reinforced up there...
 
2012-10-13 06:09:30 AM
"Ten worst cities in North America for traffic congestion delays driving during rush hour."

Still not sure how NYC didn't come up higher. Driving from Brooklyn to NJ through Manhattan takes 30 minutes in the middle of the night. At least 2 1/2 hours during rush hour.
 
2012-10-13 06:26:22 AM

Man On Pink Corner: davidphogan: I knew traffic in Seattle was a pain in the ass (especially I-5 through downtown) but didn't realize it was that bad.

The last time I drove down I-5 through Seattle, I amused myself by estimating the cost in wasted time and fuel of the decision to build the convention center over the Interstate in the mid-1980s. This choked the busiest highway in the state down to two lanes, leaving no practical way to expand it in the future.

Assume a quarter million vehicles per day use the highway, and let's say that 10% of them will experience delays of at least 20 minutes due to the convention-center bottleneck. (At rush hour it takes about 45 minutes longer than it should to drive through town on I-5 due to the choke point... but the worst-case delay only happens for about two or three hours a day, and the traffic throughput will be lower under those conditions.)

Multiply 8000 lost driver-hours per day by 25 years (and counting) and you get close to eighty million man-hours, or over 100 human lifespans.

This is why it takes so long to get anything done in Seattle: our bureaucrats are well-intentioned morons who practically worship the God of Unintended Consequences. It's necessary for everyone who might even be vaguely affected by public policy to scream bloody murder in this state, especially so within the Seattle limits. When the city and state planners get together to conspire against reality, and nobody throws a screaming walleyed fit, we get things like the Washington Trade and Convention Center.


well the upside is that seatlle and the convention center will probably be leveled by a catastophic earthquake and they can start over from scratch
 
2012-10-13 07:14:56 AM
Did they just look at Canadian and American cities, or did they do Mexico as well? Because Mexico City is (or at least used to be) infamous for its traffic...

davidphogan: What a shock, the top three cities are ones that have basically turned their back on any new major freeway construction:

1. Los Angeles 34%
2. Vancouver 33%
3. San Francisco 29%

Assuming they mean LA as a city, that doesn't surprise me. LA is an incredibly dense city with freeways designed for the traffic levels of the '60s and '70s. Because of EPA rulings they can't do much other than add HOV lanes or more mass transit, so they're pretty well going to have the worst traffic.


Building highways (especially elevated ones) in those cities is also not really a good idea:
www.aeronauticpictures.com 
LA

www.vibrationdata.com
SF (OK, Oakland)
 
b3x
2012-10-13 07:46:48 AM
I would have expected Rochester, NY to be on this list. On some mornings, would you believe it takes me almost 30 minutes to drive my 23 mile commute. Sheeeeesh.
 
2012-10-13 08:03:09 AM

skabbo: "Ten worst cities in North America for traffic congestion delays driving during rush hour."

Still not sure how NYC didn't come up higher. Driving from Brooklyn to NJ through Manhattan takes 30 minutes in the middle of the night. At least 2 1/2 hours during rush hour.


Its taken me over 2 hours to get across the GW bridge from NJ at 11 at night on a Sunday. I imagine it was all the people trying to get back into NY after spending a summer weekend on the shore.
 
2012-10-13 09:14:39 AM

bob_ross: knowing 1000's of alternate routs for #1, #2


Gross.
 
2012-10-13 09:20:49 AM
list is total fail/BS if Atlanta isnt in the top 3.

NY isnt even in the same league as Atlanta, I went from NY to atlanta and just moved back after being born and raised in LA. Those two (LA and NY) dont even come close to the cluster fark of atlanta.
 
2012-10-13 09:28:42 AM
Vancouver used to be a great city.

It's still good, but no longer great.
 
2012-10-13 09:58:17 AM

b3x: I would have expected Rochester, NY to be on this list. On some mornings, would you believe it takes me almost 30 minutes to drive my 23 mile commute. Sheeeeesh.


wat?

23 miles in 30 minutes means you're driving an average 45 mph. Which is fast in the city, a bit slow on the freeway, and given you probably use both, not too shabby at all.
 
2012-10-13 10:08:37 AM
Wow, three of the top five are in Canada... That's pretty screwed up.
 
2012-10-13 10:30:38 AM

Rusty Shackleford: Pardon me while I adjust this onion on my belt, and say: when I got my license in 1978, I could drive from Maple Ridge to Granville Street (where Star Wars was still running) in 35 minutes if I hit all the lights.

Vancouver is now a hellish, Blade Runneresque dystopia where the living envy the dead, and at night the CHUDS rise from the sewers to chew on the entrails of those foolhardy enough to leave their fortified steel towers.

This is why I never leave the Island.


No, you never leave the island because you're already dead and in purgatory. Or something. I didn't really get the ending, did you?

BTW, have you seen Walt, perchance?
 
2012-10-13 10:50:48 AM

spqr_ca: Wow, three of the top five are in Canada... That's pretty screwed up.


We weren't prepared for those fancy, high-born foreigners and their new-fangled "auto-mobiles". The roar of the engines drives the sled dogs nuts...
 
2012-10-13 10:50:54 AM
Baggs, Wyoming

Yes, that's Rush Hour

Hahahahahahaha

www.takemytrip.com 

Cities

Bah
 
2012-10-13 10:51:56 AM
It doesn't help that most of the thoroughfares in Vancouver consist of only two narrow lanes: the driving lane and the parking lane. You have to remember when you'll be blocked by park cars, and when you'll be blocked by some idiot trying to turn left off a major road with no turning lane, no lights, and an endless stream of traffic coming the other way.

And then there's Kingsway: a 150-year-old goat path with a grid system thrown across it. Not a single right-angle intersection anywhere.
 
2012-10-13 10:53:48 AM

4 lives down 5 to go: list is total fail/BS if Atlanta isnt in the top 3.

NY isnt even in the same league as Atlanta, I went from NY to atlanta and just moved back after being born and raised in LA. Those two (LA and NY) dont even come close to the cluster fark of atlanta.


This is bone deep truth

The End will begin in Atlanta.
 
2012-10-13 10:54:50 AM

FunkOut: There's some people out there who actually commute from Chilliwack or Abbotsford to Vancouver every day. Friggin' nutcases.


I used to commute from Chilliwack to Yaletown every day. Stupidest two years of my life.
 
2012-10-13 11:20:21 AM

davidphogan: What a shock, the top three cities are ones that have basically turned their back on any new major freeway construction:

1. Los Angeles 34%
2. Vancouver 33%
3. San Francisco 29%

Assuming they mean LA as a city, that doesn't surprise me. LA is an incredibly dense city with freeways designed for the traffic levels of the '60s and '70s. Because of EPA rulings they can't do much other than add HOV lanes or more mass transit, so they're pretty well going to have the worst traffic.

Vancouver and SF decided a while ago that they didn't care if you were sitting in traffic, so those make sense as well. The only thing that surprises me about this is that Seattle is above NYC and Chicago. I knew traffic in Seattle was a pain in the ass (especially I-5 through downtown) but didn't realize it was that bad.


Okay, assuming you're not trolling and just incredibly slow, how do you explain why New York City isn't higher, but has significantly less highways? Oh yes, it is because they have an efficient mass transit system to move people through the city quickly and efficiently.

LA has more highway per capita than almost any other city in the world, yet has some of the worst traffic. Highway building is a zero-sum game. If LA built more highways, when the population increases more people would flock to those highways, hence continued gridlock.

I'm not saying that we should never build highways, but putting all of your eggs in one basket is not good transportation planning. You need to divert some of those car trips on to alternative forms of transportation such as bicycles, buses, and trains in order to keep a city from choking on its own congestion.

/Vancouver has a well run transit system, but hasn't developed as much as it needs to
//San Francisco has a developed transit system, but is run very poorly
 
2012-10-13 11:32:06 AM

davidphogan:

Assuming they mean LA as a city, that doesn't surprise me. LA is an incredibly dense city with freeways designed for the traffic levels of the '60s and '70s. Because of EPA rulings they can't do much other than add HOV lanes or more mass transit, so they're pretty well going to have the worst traffic.


Blame it on the EPA and not the complete lack of :

Electrify: davidphogan: What a shock, the top three cities are ones that have basically turned their back on any new major freeway construction:

1. Los Angeles 34%
2. Vancouver 33%
3. San Francisco 29%

Assuming they mean LA as a city, that doesn't surprise me. LA is an incredibly dense city with freeways designed for the traffic levels of the '60s and '70s. Because of EPA rulings they can't do much other than add HOV lanes or more mass transit, so they're pretty well going to have the worst traffic.

Vancouver and SF decided a while ago that they didn't care if you were sitting in traffic, so those make sense as well. The only thing that surprises me about this is that Seattle is above NYC and Chicago. I knew traffic in Seattle was a pain in the ass (especially I-5 through downtown) but didn't realize it was that bad.

Okay, assuming you're not trolling and just incredibly slow, how do you explain why New York City isn't higher, but has significantly less highways? Oh yes, it is because they have an efficient mass transit system to move people through the city quickly and efficiently.

LA has more highway per capita than almost any other city in the world, yet has some of the worst traffic. Highway building is a zero-sum game. If LA built more highways, when the population increases more people would flock to those highways, hence continued gridlock.

I'm not saying that we should never build highways, but putting all of your eggs in one basket is not good transportation planning. You need to divert some of those car trips on to alternative forms of transportation such as bicycles, buses, and trains in order to keep a city from choking on its own congestion.

/Vancouver has a well run transit system, but hasn't developed as much as it needs to
//San Francisco has a developed transit system, but is run very poorly


What a lot of people don't realize is that LA's traffic gridlock is a direct product of it's housing practices. Unlike New York, which has to make due with a relatively small area and thus can make an efficient and widely used mass transit system, LA developers, instead of building up, decided instead to build houses in what had previously been bumfark nowhere. Because you can't build a subway from Temecula to the Miracle Mile (well, you can, but it's heinously expensive), the result is people buy cars and only add to the traffic problems. If California and other big cities actually want to start solving their traffic issues, what they need to do is start building up instead of out.
 
2012-10-13 11:33:12 AM
California is not a big city, but I meant LA and San Fran and San Diego by extension.
 
2012-10-13 12:30:49 PM

unyon: Vancouver's problem is being wedged between the mountains and the sea, with significant waterways to cross. The unavoidable traffic over the Lion's gate bridge is enormous, and one of the funnels where these traffic issues manifest.


Not to mention the entire downtown area is basically two lane in each direction roads. Your going nowhere fast in the morning and evening rush. Its complete insanity. Leave two hours to get to work early and pray there isn't an accident. Honestly, it's probably why people use the SkyTrain.
 
2012-10-13 12:36:21 PM

Clemkadidlefark: Baggs, Wyoming

Yes, that's Rush Hour

Hahahahahahaha

[www.takemytrip.com image 448x300] 

Cities

Bah



upload.wikimedia.org

^ Opportunities. Hahahahahahaha
 
2012-10-13 01:51:40 PM
When I drove from West Hastings to Lynn Valley it usually took me around 22 minutes, I found that when you're in Vancouver you just have to time your drives to avoid the surges.

I miss that city.
 
2012-10-13 02:37:48 PM

Electrify: LA has more highway per capita than almost any other city in the world, yet has some of the worst traffic. Highway building is a zero-sum game. If LA built more highways, when the population increases more people would flock to those highways, hence continued gridlock.


That's completely untrue. As of 1999, they were 32nd in the US for lane miles per capita. Link. Oh, and notice NY is 33rd or 38th, so that kind of blows apart your statement that NY has a lot less freeways than LA.

Yaxe: What a lot of people don't realize is that LA's traffic gridlock is a direct product of it's housing practices. Unlike New York, which has to make due with a relatively small area and thus can make an efficient and widely used mass transit system, LA developers, instead of building up, decided instead to build houses in what had previously been bumfark nowhere. Because you can't build a subway from Temecula to the Miracle Mile (well, you can, but it's heinously expensive), the result is people buy cars and only add to the traffic problems. If California and other big cities actually want to start solving their traffic issues, what they need to do is start building up instead of out.


The bigger problem is they were built in different eras. Long Island is the NY equivalent of Riverside County to LA. NY had to be built around the mode of travel at the time, which was subways and trains, as opposed to LA which was built around freeways that have never changed since they were built, and the transit was pretty much removed because at the time it was cheap and easy to build enough freeways to replace them.

Now, LA's kind of stuck being the second densest city in the US without the transit infrastructure already being there, and it's a lot more expensive to build a subway now than it was a hundred years ago when many of NY's were getting underway.
 
2012-10-13 04:44:23 PM

davidphogan: Now, LA's kind of stuck being the second densest city in the US without the transit infrastructure already being there, and it's a lot more expensive to build a subway now than it was a hundred years ago when many of NY's were getting underway.


I think it's the benefit differential isn't as high. If you have no freeways or cars, building a subway produces a huge return on investment. Especially since older cities are dense, so a short section of subway serves a lot of people. One thing to consider in the two population centers of California is that originally they were collections of small dense towns with a lot of open space between them. We built roads, trollies, and then freeways between them, which was fine until all those spaces filled in with low density post war tract homes.

So it's a problem. The cities aren't very dense which makes subways relatively expensive. And the freeways tend to block cross traffic forcing it through choke points where the roads go over an under the freeways. That said LA is building a subway. But it's going to take 50-100 years for it to be fully developed.
 
2012-10-13 05:06:24 PM
Boston not in the top ten? RECOUNT!!!! That city - hell, all of southern New England for that matter - is the entire textbook on the dangers of NIMBYism in regards to highway building.

\seriously, three weeks ago right now I was cursing my way home after getting stuck in rush hour traffic. On a Saturday.
 
2012-10-13 07:20:40 PM
Living in montreal, all i can say is that these stats were taken during the low traffic months. Imagine in icing conditions, bumper to bumper.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report