Quote Originally Posted by Wesley Mouch View Post
DN, I can see from that statement that you've never driven around Vancouver.

1) There are freeways [[#1, #99, #91, #91A) , but you're right that they don't pass through downtown and only graze the actual City. But they have freeways.

2) Congestion in Vancouver is severe. They have a 100% traffic information commercial radio station. Forbes click-bait lists it as #2 in north America behind LA: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/ehmk45jhdg/2-vancouver/ Or see Business Insider, also #2 in their list: http://www.businessinsider.com/20-no...ic-2013-1?op=1

Next time I get out there, I'll call you when I'm stuck in surface street traffic like I was last time.
It's been a while since I've been in Vancouver. But would having freeways running through Vancouver really do anything to ease congestion?

Auto traffic is simple: If you're willing to put up with the commute, you do. If you are not willing to put up with the commute, you don't. You live nearer work, or cycle, or carpool, or take mass transit. And you flip on the radio in the morning and decide which you're going to do. Accident on the turnpike? Take the train. Otherwise drive.

I met a fair amount of Hudson River Valley residents who worked in Manhattan and made the call around 8 a.m. which they were going to do.

Manhattan, of course, is always congested. Should we have taken Robert Moses' advice and bisected and trisected it with freeways?

I think a lot of people incorrectly think it's a choice between freeways and congestion. Not so. You can [[and so often do) have both.

The problem isn't congestion. That's a normal sign of success for many American cities. The problem is deciding to radically remake the city to try to accommodate more and more cars. That is something Vancouver proper chose not to do and it seems to be working very well for them.

For another example closer to home, look at Ann Arbor.