Best cities that have solved their traffic problems

veryangryman

We hear alot of

"build high rise"
"more trains, metro etc"
"more cycle lanes"

But you then look at London, Paris, NY etc. Huge cities that have decent Infrastructure on all 3 counts. Yet they are choked at rush hour and beyond.

With this in mind, are we being a bit mean when we refer to the planners of (for example) the Galway bypass/transport plan.

Can we just agree that there's too many people?

hans aus dtschl

Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Munich: big populations, good infrastructure, not choked with traffic.

Edit: OK Munich isn't perfect but I don't think it's as bad as Irish or UK cities.

i think if your bar for "solved traffic" is 'no traffic at rush hour' then there isnt a city in the world you will be able to offer as example

Losty Dublin

Deleted User wrote: »

i think if your bar for "solved traffic" is 'no traffic at rush hour' then there isnt a city in the world you will be able to offer as example

Pyongyang? :pac:

LeinsterDub

veryangryman wrote: »

We hear alot of

"build high rise"
"more trains, metro etc"
"more cycle lanes"

But you then look at London, Paris, NY etc. Huge cities that have decent Infrastructure on all 3 counts. Yet they are choked at rush hour and beyond.

With this in mind, are we being a bit mean when we refer to the planners of (for example) the Galway bypass/transport plan.

Can we just agree that there's too many people?

Ever heard of induced demand?

ED E

The underground transports more people than there are in Ireland. Every day. Huge cities will never flow like a permanent off peak. Even Tokyo is mad and they've a Shengasai(sp?) every 3 mins.

Copenhagen is probably a good comparitor for Dublin.

strandroad

veryangryman wrote: »

We hear alot of

"build high rise"
"more trains, metro etc"
"more cycle lanes"

But you then look at London, Paris, NY etc. Huge cities that have decent Infrastructure on all 3 counts. Yet they are choked at rush hour and beyond.

With this in mind, are we being a bit mean when we refer to the planners of (for example) the Galway bypass/transport plan.

Can we just agree that there's too many people?

NY infrastructure is actually breaking down, and ridesharing made its traffic situation even worse with cruising cars now added to the mix.

No point comparing with megacities like the three above either; Dublin can be compared to Copenhagen, Stockholm or Amsterdam or a bunch of smaller French or German cities instead. They are all dense with 6-8 stories blocks typically and good rail transport over and underground, with pedestrianised city centres. It's not rocket science, it's a simple and successful blueprint executed on in numerous locations in Europe.

vicwatson

Boston, the big dig, like a new city since it was completed

afatbollix

Alot of the European cities you talk about were bulldozed to the ground a few years ago which helped the planning departments.

strandroad

afatbollix wrote: »

Alot of the European cities you talk about were bulldozed to the ground a few years ago which helped the planning departments.

That's an urban myth and a handy excuse. Rotterdam or Warsaw perhaps, but the ones I named all have their historical centres and in many cases their transport predates the war anyway.