listen to the comments about proven examples of traffic removal that works! all you environment hating , gun toting, global warming denying, creationism believing dickwads would prefer to pave it all! these people have credentials to back up their claims. you might have to leave a little earlier in the morning to get to your forklift driving warehouse job. Unbelievable.

Or someone could just mimic Europe where the freeways don't go into the city centers, but around the city. This tends to make highways used as they should be; to get from city to city and NOT how we use them in America; to build roads the city doesn't have to pay for.

In the not too distant future... cars will be mass transit. They will be automatically controlled to prevent accidents and be allowed to travel at 100mph essentially bumper to bumper. The newer smart cars that warn of impending accidents, or park themselves, are but a glimpse of what technology has in store. To reach this goal of auto-mass transit will require a lot of standardization. Hopefully the car companies will work together to make it possible.

Lets see, if we tear down the highways - we get rid of gridlock traffic. Okay, using the same logic, if we end public housing and public assistance - we wipe out poverty!

Sure, it would be great to get rid of all the highway expansions that blight our landscape. One problem. It throttles economic development. No development, no jobs. The reason for those highways is simple: people need to get to work. If people can't get to work, they move to where they can. Fewer jobs leads to fewer people, which leads to a lower tax base for the area, which leads to economic and urban blight, which leads to lower services such as police, fire, and other emergency services..... More

The logic of solving traffic problems and the proof provided is similar to euthanizing everyone at age 35 to drastically cut down on cancer and heart disease.
Yes it solves the immediate problem but what is the big picture.
The problem with the experts is that some are employed to build more freeways and some are employed to build mass transit...then there are the environmentalists that start off in the right direction then get lost in thier religious beliefs....so thier.... More

They had no intention to tear down the elevated section of the West-Side Highway. They finally realized they had to after a Back-Hoe fell through it. To many years of neglect. It got caught it mid air.

I can only speak of my experiences driving in NYC & Buffalo. While I agree that the removal of the West Side Highway was a boon and think the removal of the Sheridan and Buffalo Skyway would be beneficial too, the larger problems are not being addressed. In select areas, highway removal is a great idea. Doing so has benefited the local economies, people are happy and the enviro-nazis, as they are so ignorantly referred to by some are praised for their efforts.
The larger issue is.... More

What this article fails to acknowlege is that more traffic is what cities want. If you decrease traffic to the center of a city, you decrease customers, taxes and revenue. Sure congestion would be reduced, but at what price?

another dumb idea by one of the eco=terrortists. This is about as stupid as putting teats on a boar hog.

So you think the study lacks common sense, or it is common sense, you just don't like the conclusion? Say what you will, you clearly have some measure of anger here. Again, I don't really disagree with what you're saying, I guess. It's not always good to have fewer roads of course. It's the "enviro-Nazi" and liberal professors chopping off tops of heads idiocy that unfortunately invalidates anything sensical that you may have to add to the conversation. There's just something weird about.... More

Traffic can be entirely eliminated by using the Pukt Theory of Matter and Space to discover the ability to teleport yourself from one place to another by willpower.

This "study" can't see the forest for the trees. Even if this solution DOES relieve highway traffic (which I find dubious - you can find nearly ANY outcome you want in a study), it will just INCREASE bumber-to-bumber, stop-and-go, gas-wasting surface street traffic. That would be an environmental and quality-of-life disaster.
Please don't take these "studies" at face value, people.

Spoken like a true Enviro-Nazi. Just get rid of the roads, oh great, more traffic in neighborhood areas. Where do Liberals receive their logic? Some professor at a Lib university must have cut the top of this writer's skull off, removed the brain and boiled it in Hudson river water... I mean it's one thing to spin a story but this is taking it on a carnival ride. Get real!

This sounds like a "Save the Whales, Kill the Humans" kind of solution. Perhaps better mass transit systems will help, but destroying highways create other problems. Sure, there will be no traffic is there is no highway, but that also means that people are not able to get to work or get goods to market as easily. Perhaps the reason traffic went down in the situations cited in this article was that the people and businesses took their investments elsewhere.

You have to ask some simple questions to understand why there is traffic in the first place, and to understand why it increases.

1 Why are there so many people driving cars? answer – because public transportation does not work well. It does not provide the point to point transport of yourself and whatever you are carrying, groceries, tools, etc; with the timelyness or convenience of private transportation. Why should I have to set aside two hours, change busses twice, and hand.... More

If you watch 'New York: A Documentary Film', the series by Ric Burns, you'll see what I mean. In the episode focusing on Robert Moses, it's shown how 'the master builder of 20th century NYC' discovered that the more roads they built, the more traffic they created. In other words, the solution to excess consumption isn't in providing more items to consume. Funny, that.