I must say, living in Lithuania we do have the sense of reliability with public transport, we have apps that allow us to pay for the transport without need of cash, also provides traffic monitoring tools such as to see where and when the next bus will be and where it will take us, what buses to take to get from point A and point B. Although it does seem like the city is in a bit of chaos with the constant development of roads for bicycles, it does provide great alternative for moving around the city without the need of motor vehicles. I am happy with the change compared how it was.
Switzerland: really good, but extremely expensive. I take often the car because it cost so much. Now I have a subscription for my town for the year, and I bought it because of the environment. I would spend less if I just use the car.
public transport needs to be frequent and reliable, and have good coverage. it also needs to be safe and accessible and clean. and did I mention it needs to be frequent? Meet all of those, and people will use it, even if they have to pay. Nobody is going to wait an hour for a bus, even if it's free.
I used to use transit every weekday. Then we had Covid. Now the frequency is like one per hour rather than every 5-10 minutes. And service ends at 9 or 10 pm, so using it for downtown events is no longer feasible. Throw in that it's also become a mobile homeless shelter and the only people who use it are the ones with no other choice.
100%! And then the 'last mile' has to be great, too. Walking, cycling, and other forms of micro-mobility, need to have pleasant, dedicated spaces to operate within.
And well connected. For example in my personal case, I live in an area that is, at first glance, well deserved by public transport. I work in another area (same city) that also seems well connected. However, Getting to work by private means takes about 20min while public transport takes 1h15min. It is not free, but almost, however I don't use public transport if I can avoid it because of the time it takes to get there or to come back.
Rich left leaning people want you to take a bus just by making a driving car more expensive. This results in more inequality and nothing else. In Poland for example left leaning parties slip into tunnel vision to look only at the biggest cities, forgetting about people from small villages where bus drives to the nearest city 3 times a day.
@@Toobready driving a car is expensive by nature. nobody is "making" it more expensive. poor people can't even afford to buy a car, let alone put fuel in it
The benefit of making it free is that you get better flow in and out of vehicles, save money on ticket inspectors, simplify and streamline the design of stations, and so on. Maybe there are a few train enthusiasts you can dissuade from trying to visit every station or something by imposing fees, but are there really enough of them to make this important? Basically I'd argue that the entire discussion is backwards. The goal of transit (or any other piece of infrastructure) is not to make money, it's to adjust the fabric of the city to make it _overall_ more pleasant and efficient. Fees _could_ be part of that solution, but most likely they're not. The most ubiquitous form of urban transit is the elevator; how often have you been charged for an elevator ride? Not often, because generally, people want their buildings used, and the _mechanical_ overhead of accepting payment would just not be worthwhile. Why, logically speaking, would it be any different when moving horizontally?
@@stephenspackman5573 "benefit of making it free" I don't think any of those benefits are robust. Pre-paid access from gated platforms improves flow. Any system with good ridership makes a lot more in fares than it spends on inspectors. Paid access doesn't prevent great transit systems from existing. I have nothing against free transit in theory; it's pretty nice. But for any real system, the extra funding it would take to make fares free would be better spent making service better.
Free transport literally has no value. Queensland is pioneering AUD0.50 fares. The data can be used to improve the network, and being so cheap, compels people to compare with the car. For me in Canberra, it takes 15 minutes to ride my electric Motorcycle to work at my convenience. Public Transport is currently free while card readers are being replaced (Normally ~AUD3.50, but it takes around 45-50 minutes in peak periods, and don't go frequently (20 minutes in peak & often delayed, to hourly off peak). Ignoring the capital costs, @ $1 a week in electricity $300 in rego and insurance, and another $200 annually in maintenance, I get value and convenience. My wife's large SUV, not so much. When I move home to Queensland, the train will give more more value in terms of time savings and convenience as the Scooter will be subject to heavy traffic.
In Perth, Western Australia, I live on a road with 25000 vehicles passing my house every day, but there is no bus. There was a bus service, but it ran very infrequently, so no-one used it. Instead of increasing the frequency, the bus company cancelled the service. I used to be able to walk 600 metres to another bus which would take me to work via the train. Then the timetable was changed, and I would have had to leave home 3 hours before work started to get there on time (or drive half an hour). So I drove to the train station, parked at the park-and-ride, and was at work in an hour. This was OK until my car was vandalised (there is no security and no threat of apprehension, so offenders feel safe in their business). I did my best, but I cannot use public transport for this most frequent and mundane trip. I now drive to work. A former mayor of Bogota has many times been quoted to have said that a civilized country is not where the poor can afford to drive cars, but where the rich choose to use public transport. By that measure, Australia is not civilized.
@@mostlyguesses8385 they "just work" because we've built a society around them, if society was built to get rid of cars you would say "buses just work" or "walking just works"
@@mostlyguesses8385 this is coming at the expense of usable land. There is no place to build housing when every available section of land is filled with massive roads, parking lots, and personal garages. This asphalt comes at the expense of living space (which contributes to the housing crisis) and greenery making our cities hotter and less liveable. I don't have an issue with cars. But cities should not cater to the convenience of the car, but instead to the people who actually live in the city.
When I visited Jakarta, I couldn't help but notice the density of their public transport system - trains, subways, metros, busses - and if all else fails, Grab & GoJek (which is more than what my home city can boast). But my gripe with place is that they have still ways to go in connecting the transit hubs to the actual destinations such as commercial centers with literal last mile infrastructure such as pedestrian tunnels, bridges etc. It may seem spoiled, but Jakarta's oppressive humidity and heat (and I'm saying this as a fellow Southeast Asian) makes walking the last few hundred meters still quite a sweaty challenge.
The car-centric "modernization" of post-independence Jakarta doesn't help, where among the first things they did was pave over the colonial tram network and widen the streets accordingly. The subsequent attempts at reinstalling mass transit makes it disjointed and inconvenient (open air TransJakarta stations, MRT with too few gates and exits, and especially you Jakarta LRT). Mass transit is one thing the government _says_ it will fix on their new city Nusantara, but if the Korean (Sejong City) and Egyptian (New Cairo) versions are an indication, this will also end up an massive oversight and expensive afterthought.
THIS IS also one of the problem. NOBODY thinking about air-flow in Jakarta. We can control how air flow into our city. BUT it must be planned very carefully! Meticulously! I would invest billions for experiment apparatus where a new IMB would need to be wind tested. I don't care if people cannot build economically, because it is more not economical if everyone have to stay inside and uses air-con.
As a Tallinn resident, I'll tell you that I'm pretty happy with the free public transport and it's 100% the reason why I did not get a car when I got a driver's license.
Free is good, but maybe the question is what is better. Would you rather free, or better? In the real world you can have both, but which is the priority to focus on politically? Overwhelmingly, the results say that better is more important than free, I think. I wish it was cheaper here, though...
@@tristanridley1601 I have a line that takes me from 30 meters down from where I live to 50 meters away from where I study. Comes every 10-15 minutes. Really can't complain 😅 I honestly think the quality is quite good. I can reach any part of the city in roughly 1 hour.
I think it just needs to be cheap enough. Would your decision really be different if it would be like 10-50€ a month? Probably not as it is still a LOT cheaper than a car.
@@tristanridley1601 free and better can go hand in hand, the fact that you have to "choose" between both is sickening, it proves that the political system is broken.
You don't even need to make an app. Make data publicly available through an interface and people will build apps for it. That way instead of needing an entire department for it, you just need a few backend devs and a well connected project manager
@@JakubMacháček-o8x I haven't seen real time tracking data yet. Also I know that european train companies are particularly unwilling to share detailed data (although the eu is hopefully stepping in next year)
If the transport is public, then they’d rather control the app because that means more employees which is desirable to people who run public institutions.
@@JakubMacháček-o8x But of course this should be done on a national level. It's hard to justify the effort of figuring out idiosyncratic feeds. Not that timetables themselves shouldn't be coordinated at scale.
@@majorfallacy5926 I've been in several cities where Google was able to tell me where the next bus was. Unfortunately I didn't keep notes on what worked where. I'm thinking in the UK, maybe in Taiwan? I don't know if this is accomplished with feeds from the transit agencies or by anonymised pings from riders' devices, though.
@@Krucezam the governments, the engineers, the authorities know what the best solution would be, they just don't do it. It's all about politics and money games.
When an expensive car that costs money to run is the better choice, it means public transport is just inconvenient. There will always be situations where a car will be better for user but if you can cover 95% of your commuting with a bus or a train then that system works.
As a Jakartans, I truly respect you for mentioning our way to make people use public transit. A dedicated lane for busses that separated from any other traffic, don't see that often. Funfact, Jakarta used to have tram system, but it died when car campaign from the US arrived, the rail and station are buried in asphalt, you can see the remains of it until this day though. A lot of it are found from the underground subway project that Jakarta had called the MRT.
@@wuvme9354it is from Japan tho, like they work with the government to set up factories to build "Toyota Kijang" in 1977 and they popularized it here
Nah it is Soekarno anti-Dutch campaign which is why we don't use the Tram anymore. And also narrow vision of our leader which exclusively sees private transport as a means of transport instead of thinking how to built a good public transport.
I spent a semester abroad in Buenos Aires, where I became a huge fan of the Subte (subway). It basically gave me access to all the parts of town I cared to visit, it never took more than 5-10 minutes to walk from one station to another, there was free wifi on each of them, and precise timers for when the next train would be arriving. And on top of that, not only were fares inexpensive (even for a college student on a scholarship), but rides even got cheaper the more I took! Oh, and did I mention the AC? Or the fact that lines remained open till midnight? Or that it also linked with bus lines to nearby cities and suburbs, as well as the interstate passanger railways? Argentinians complained a lot about overfilled wagons and insecurity, but coming from México city and its truly hellish Metro system, the Subte was a dream come true.
Honestly, for a city like Tallinn, they can just try to copy Zurich. In Switzerland, public transit is clearly the dominant form of transport within cities. And in terms of size, Tallinn and Zurich is pretty comparable. Unlike the megacities in southern america and asia. Most importantly: Car traffic CANNOT impede public transit. As soon as public transit is "stuck in the same traffic jam", public transit doesn't work, because there is no incentive of using it.
@ the keyword is cities. Swiss cities have very low car usage with around 20-25%. Paris is similar, but other french cities are all around 40-75%. This is true for most European cities, car ridership is only high in the few, very big cities. In midsized cities, car ridership is generally quite high. The swiss cities, despite being midsized, are up in the top class. (source: moving cities via Watson.ch) One problem Switzerland has, is a very high decentralisation. Instead of big cities, there are hundreds of towns. Which of course is not optimal for public transit. Nevertheless, for this, the share is very good.
@@aurelspecker6740 Zürich may be expensive and annoying to enter with a car, but there are still more than enough people driving into Zürich every day. Just tune in to the radio in the morning or evening...there is always lots of commuter traffic. It is the same for the other large Swiss cities. They may be better than American cities but this is definitely not what the goal should look like. It is not enough that people inside the city boundaries of Zürich get around without a car, one has to consider people from the surrounding areas as well.
@@foobar9220 Hey, we really don't have to argue about "too many cars in swiss cities". We completely agree on that. My point was just, that in comparison, based of facts, swiss city have a high rate of public transit and a low rate of car traffic. 20% is low in comparison. But still at least 15% higher than it has to be. (I assume that around 5% might in fact have a decent reason to use a car, be it for moving stuff. Working nightshift etc.)
@@victorchen9170 Everything in Switzerland is expensive, but so are the incomes. Also, only few people pay the normal price. Most have a half fare card (halbtax) and many have a full year ticket (Generalabonnement) which costs 4k CHF but allows you to use all the transit and also some cable cars. For many other cable cars, it acts as a half fare card, so this will amortize itself pretty quickly if you use it for commuting and also in your spare time
The video points out a very important thing that is afterwards ignored: a car is much more than a transportation means. That means that no matter how good you make the public transport, it will not replace a car in a person's life. So maybe that's something that countries should work on: self esteem of its people can and should be tied to something else than just owning and driving around a 2T steel monster. And yes, this is possible!
It doesn't need to replace a car entirely. My household has two cars. They barely get used. We walk to our nearby high street. I cycle to work and my wife takes the train. We have cars. We don't use cars most of the time. You can have a car but use other means of transport.
It doesn't need to replace a car entirely. My household has two cars. They barely get used. We walk to our nearby high street. I cycle to work and my wife takes the train. We have cars. We don't use cars most of the time. You can have a car but use other means of transport.
@@lonyo5377yes but that's not the point, most people aren't going to opt to not use their car if they have one hence it is still contributing to traffic
@@joshuah345 no, that is the point. Many people want to have a car for the freedom/convenience it offers... Sometimes. You need to discourage then from using it when they don't need to, by making non car options more attractive. If you try and make people get rid of cars you're not going to do it. Try and get them to use their cars less. Then maybe they might get rid of them, but you need to make the non car options at least as attractive as the car they aren't getting rid of.
Jakarta has one of the most amazing first and last mile transport infrastructure. Just under 3000 minibuses serving 100+ free routes that take you to the nearest bus stop/station or to use when other modes arent available. The major homework is the satellite cities, where half of the commuters are from, implementing that same system. We still have a long way to go.
Cities should be built around the conpept of the 15 min city which eliminates most of traffic in the first place and enables the use of walking and cycling to your destinations which in turn has the highest frequency possible - you can start at any time you want
yepp, but the cities already existing. and there is a big pressure from people, they want to keep their right to having a car a drive it everywhere, everytime.
@@muzsi19That's a common misconception. Proper polls addressing the question have been done in France, and they completely contradict the narrative that a majority of people living in cities want to drive everywhere. The polls have shown that 60 to 70% of people living in cities of 50-100k inhabitants and more (the population to which the questions were asked) want the driving speed and space allocated to cars to be reduced in the public space of their city and neighborhood. In favor of more space for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit like buses and trams. There's a very loud minority who makes many think that most people are against these changes of the public space, but it's just an impression as the reality is the opposite. Just like many people who live in villages or distant suburbs and who claim that they have no choice but to use their cars to go to work every day, actually do not and very much have the possibility of using park & ride to travel into the city with public transit in many cases. They just prefer to ignore all "composite journeys" or "multimodal mobility" (trips that are made partly by car and partly by transit, e-scooter, or bike) because they only consider trips either 100% public transit or 100% by car. Even if parking is free in the park & ride stations... I remember interviews of drivers after the opening a couple years ago of Rennes metro B line, which has park & ride at end stations located near the belt road. Several were reluctant to switch from their car to the metro, even if it would be cheaper and much faster... (plus the fully automated metro is really great, comfortable, super frequent and efficient). It now seems like many do switch, but there are still some who complain because they want to drive all the way to the city center in their living room on wheels... 🤣
@@KyrilPG I just running in this kind of people all the time. But I know, negative comments have a higher chance. Like plans were introduced in our city (what is not bad at all compered to many, there is a decent bicycle infrastructure), most people was very angry. Why they want to take our parking spots? Why giving more space for hikes, they have enough. Why changing to 30km/h (yeah that will be painful, but...), we will see how it goes. This is like a dance. The city tries something big, than have to step back a little.
Free Parking? In Jakarta? Where? Jokes aside though, it's much appreciated the spotlight shown to Jakarta's public transport. On another note, illegal parking has been a big issue in Jakarta. Less than savory methods done by certain organizations are done to intimidate business owners to submit to having their "parking lot" "managed" by these equally unsavory fellows. And personally a specific route of mine that i take took approx 2 hrs and 45 mins by bus where by motorcycle i can arrive in 45 mins, and by car in 1 hr 30 mins. So there's also that to put into consideration. Love the vid tho mate
Hey there! Thanks for sharing your experience and glad you like the video! We post new videos like this one every week by the way. Would love to see you subscribe ✨
I live in Germany. For me, the time lost in transfers and first/last-mile connections is was kills public transit for me. My commute to work by car is only 20 minutes, but by tram/train it is 45 minutes. I am not willing to sacrifice that time.
Almost 1 hour less traveling on workdays is a positive, Also living in Germany I use the 49 Euro Ticket. The money not spend on everything owning a car loosing value right after purchase, insurance, maintenance + parking fees should be evaluated. Public transportation for sure needs improvement. So does rethinking of options. Shared riding, Car sharing, speed limitations + save bike lines would be things to lessen the amount of single drivers.
It's not exactly lost if you know how to spend efficiently. I personally use my time in tram to either answer work emails (so it's already counting as working) or read the book. In summer I more often use bike, which I consider a physical training, which I still want to have 2-3 times a week, so another thing checked And car? That's quick, but basically wasted time
@@qj0n Depends how crowded your type of transportation is. When I used to take trains in a city, they were overcrowded af. I can't do anything in this time, except rethinking my life choices, if choosing a workplace 40km away from my home was a good idea.
@qj0n it's nauseous to read/write in a car for many ppl and public transport is even more "jumpy" with much less sitting space (except long distance trains), besides, what about the rush hour, when everyone goes to/from work and is squished shoulder to shoulder? Nothing productive can be done in those conditions, except clutching your bag to the chest & trying not to fall~
@@BLAQFiniks well if you're a senior that might be the only way to get a seat on public transit. Falling that is - as evenyone else will not be in public and absorbed in whatever device they are carrying.
"You can only put pressure on car drivers if you have good public transport alternatives ready" Yeah tell that to the belgium goverments, because they didn't get that memo.
Exactly the same in the UK. Charge more to use cars but provide absolutely no alternatives in the form of any investment in public transport so instead all people do is drive cars exactly the same amount and pay more for it
Cars are about 0.5% energy efficient. It is madness that this is the dominant mode of transportation in almost every city in the world. The automotive and oil/gas industries are the only winners when we design cities that give people no choice but to drive. I gave up my car over 20 years ago shortly after moving to a part of town with good walkability, transit and car sharing for those few times a year a car actually makes sense. I would never dream of owning a car again.
@@mostlyguesses8385 Efficiency and Economy is not about how much money will buy, mind you. And of course cars are very ~convenient~. The whole thing about turning around the climate death spiral we've got going is about willing to give up convenience in order to be efficient and economic. And thereby not killing everyone.
@@mostlyguesses8385 You're only talking about yourself, and try to apply that to everyone. You're also talking about a cost that's one of the most subsidised expenses you have, not to mention the environmental cost you dump on everyone else. And on the other end, excluding taxes just to make your numbers look better? And excluding buying the car, maintenance, insurance, and other costs. Sure, any number can be low if you strip away everything that makes it higher. I mean, I could just counter that by saying that my travel expenses are still lower, at zero, because I get a transit pass through work. I get stuff done while on transit. It's not "wasted" time, but driving a car would be, since I would need to drive the car, not do anything else. If you wasted thousands of hours on bus in college, yeah, you were an idiot, but you still didn't learn from it, so nothing changed.
You're missing out many other costs. Asides from upfront purchase of the vehicle, tax and insurance, you've also got infrastructure enabling you to drive - roads. This costs a lot of money, and you don't pay for it (not directly anyway). There are associated extra costs as a result of car-dependent design creating urban sprawl that is bankrupting cities. Then there are the costs of medical treatment, which increases due to increased air pollution and sedentary lifestyles, enhanced by driving. Your ability to drive is only cheap because it is so heavily subsidised. If it wasn't, few of us could afford it. Buses, meanwhile, usually aren't, so no wonder they're frequently expensive and inconvenient (and stuck in traffic caused by cars).
@@samuelconnolly347 Not missing. I just didn't want to write an essay. I agree that there are all those costs and others as well: climate, oil wars... Many urbanist types know about those costs. Few seem to know just how wasteful cars are for energy use as well.
There's nothing "mad" about it. Pre-car the dominant mode of transportation were horses. Do you honestly think ppl opted to go WITHOUT a horse freely? Both the horse and the car have multiple benefits for users not dissimilar between each other, btw~ Public transport is only good for childless ppl not carrying anything heavy ant tourists
Indonesian here, and thank you for showcasing our public transit infrastructure. Although its great and it reaches many areas, its not perfect and has a few drawbacks, mainly surrounding the buses. The brt line often gets stuck in traffic by impatient drivers using the brt lane, and not just that, once a week i caught a governor using the brt lane
In Seattle we have a massive network of local buses and express buses, everything connects to the train stations and we’re growing our metro more than any other city in the country
I'm from Switzerland and where I live the public transport is great. I just recently had a discussion with a friend if good public infrastructure is scalable up to gigantic multi-million-cities and countries. The system in Jakarta seems very promising and well thought out.
Vienna has a yearly ticket for 365,- which you can use all modes of public transport with: bus, tram, train, subway. Runs reliable and frequently and 24 hours on Friday and Saturday and holidays.
I am in Chennai, India, where metro trains are in the construction stages and have also been completed in some parts. When it completed it will be helpful to all people and also become affordable to many.
I live in Dublin, Ireland, and I've noticed the changes the local city council is trying to make. In recent years, a lot of parking space has been gradually removed, making it increasingly inconvenient to drive into the city centre. However, with the current 'Phase 3' changes to the public transport system, public transport in my area has become less reliable, and travel times during peak or near-peak hours are worse than ever. Although it's still too early to judge what the final outcome will be, hopefully, things will only improve from here.
I used to commute by train, however it takes 1.5 hours opposed to 1 hour driving plus, I had more issues with trains getting cancelled/delayed than with traffic itself. Moreover, trains aren't cheap in the UK compared to driving, especially in my case that I have an EV and home charger. So until the situation with trains improves, driving is unfortunately the better option for me.
@@leeman1525 If there were no delays, I could agree. But it was common to have delays/cancellations which lead to an extra 30 minutes until the next train. Also 30 minutes times two is 1 hour I am losing per day just commuting. When you have a family and therefore other obligations, that is a lot of time. Especially if it gets increased by delays/cancellations/strikes.
@@multienergico9299 Delay and cancellations seems to be surprisingly often in Europe, I wonder why? I can understand mainland Europe with a lot of interconnection between different providers, but UK as well? As a reference, I don't think Indonesia or many other Asian countries has that issue. The problem is just capacity still lacking during peak times and poor connectivity at satelite cities, but I rarely heard about significant delays or cancellations.
Where I live, many agencies use one payment method (Clipper Card), which is great. My biggest challenge in using public transit is the hours of operation: although I'm within city limits, the last bus of the evening that goes anywhere near where I live, stops at around 21.00h (9p.m. for those who don't think in a 24 hour clock system).
Just making driving a car more inconvenient and more costly will just make you get voted out. If I want to use my car, there will also be a politician who will promise me to get rid of the tax and people will vote for them. I will happily get rid of my car as long as public transport is as good and reliable as my car is. Just making everything worse for cars won't convince me to switch to public transport.
Depends on the political structure... There has been a recent series of polls and studies in France which have shown that, contrary to common belief (and "ambient noise"), a comfortable majority of people living in cities 50-100k and more in population, do support a reduction in speed and space allocated to cars in their neighborhood and city in favor of more pedestrian, micro mobility and cycling space, including fully pedestrianized and cycling streets or neighborhoods. (They only polled people in cities 50-100k inhabitants and more). So, politicians who reduce car space are not voted out because the population that decides on their seat is the one that is 60 to 70% in favor of these changes. The opponents are very loud, but they are a minority. And the ones that are the most in favor of cars and against bike lanes or pedestrianized streets usually do not live and do not vote where car space is reduced. This has been the case in Paris where the mayor is supposedly hated for the changes she enacted, but she's been reelected, and now neighboring cities are making the same changes. Some pro-car politicians try to override local elected officials, like in Canada (Toronto), where provincial politicians try to revert the city's decisions to build bike lanes. But this would be very difficult in France, and the local population would be furious if they tried. Still in Paris, the city hall recently forced a reduction in speed from 70 to 50 kilometers per hour on the inner loop road (the "Périphérique", Europe's busiest road), which is located inside the limits of the core city and thus, in its jurisdiction. Many complained about this decision loudly and in no uncertain terms, but the results are even better than expected. Compared to the same week, one year before, there was a 2.6dB(A) noise reduction on average, a substantial reduction in pollution and particles, a 37% reduction in congestion, a 68% reduction in accidents, and the average speed by day remained pretty much the same at 37.3 kilometers per hour, minus plenty of traffic jams. If it hadn't been "forced" by the city hall, this would never have happened because people don't like change and always refuse what they don't easily understand. Most drivers, and even a good chunk of the people living next to this major super busy road, were convinced it would increase congestion, as the traffic principles are sometimes counterintuitive. Thanks to the sometimes "heavy-handed" decisions of the city hall, there are now substantially more trips taken by bicycles in Paris than by car. And most schools no longer have cars running in front of them. What the people shortsightedly want is often quite different from what they aspire to, and that's the difficult thing. Giving a mandate by electing an official that will deliver what the people aspire to even if it seems to counter what they want or think they want in the short-term.
@@KyrilPGNot in North America. For example Ontario Canada. Doug Ford Premier of Ontario Ra on a platform of building highways and not tearing down highway and he removed the yearly government fee for car registration and he won the election. Since the Majority of people own cars in Ontario it was an easy platform for him since the people who don't own cars are a minority and he doesn't need them to win elections
@@Xenomorph-hb4zf That's why I mentioned Toronto and Canada. The Ford swinebros... they surely never set foot on a bike and resemble the humans in Wall-E, those like manatees on floating beds. (That's being mean to manatees, which are charming creatures). I'm pretty sure most local Torontonians are OK with the bike lanes, it's the other people in Ontario which drive there who are not. Removing the bike lanes will not improve traffic, it will only further increase induced traffic. The drivers will feel like their beloved cars are "respected", because it's more important to them than the life of others. It's terrible that the province can force the city to remove something that would improve the life of those living there in order to favor those that don't and just drive through, and thus transform the streets back into car sewers.... Toronto should do like Paris and hasten the connection of all bits of bike lanes into complete corridors to create de facto bicycle traffic. A 3 car-lane street has less throughput capacity than a 2 car-lane and 1 double or 2 single bike lane street. Thinking that the throughput of a street must be counted in number of cars is so 20th century. What matters is the number of people and a bike lane allows more people to pass than a car lane. These politicians are not doing what they should, which is preparing the future and being longsighted, by giving people what they aspire to instead of what they shortsightedly want or think they want in the short-term. Why should local inhabitants have to suffer from heavy car through-traffic from elsewhere all day long while being deprived of bike lanes for their own mobility and better air?
@@KyrilPG My point was more if it's taken to the extreme. There certainly is an of traffic reduction that drivers are willing to accept. But trying to reduce traffic flow of cars down to a level that they are as slow as public transport (without improving public transport) will not make people want to switch, but rather to just get rid of those who have pushed it so far. I'm not saying that traffic reduction is not necessary or that it's not a good idea. However, the car still _is_ a very important mode of transportation for many people.
In my home town in northern Italy, the local government has always tried to penalize cars while not improving buses. The result is horrible. Sometimes you just need to use your car, because the area you need to reach is not connected or because you transport a heavy load. In those cases, wasting time zigzagging instead of travelling in a straight line, waiting for traffic lights which are not synchronized or looking for a car park does not help reduce traffic or pollution
Making transit free also improves usability: no need to spend minutes at a time lining up for a bus at the front door, waiting for someone to fumble with a card or change; no need to build train stations with a walled off area so you can have ticket gates; no need to mess about with convoluted systems when transferring, or having separate transfer gates.
I live in Jakarta, every day I use BRT to work. Luckily for me because I get a special elevated corridor that allows my BRT to pass through the lane without obstacles from private vehicles. But I can imagine how tiring it is for BRT users who still have to share the lane with other private vehicles and have to travel during rush hour which will eventually be stuck in traffic jams. That is the most unpleasant feeling when using BRT. So, I think the use of public transportation cannot be fully used as a solution to reduce congestion in a city, because in fact with the increasing number of BRT users every year in Jakarta, at the same time the purchase and use of private vehicles also continues to increase, and this will make not only private vehicles stuck in traffic jams, but also BRT will be stuck in traffic jams. This is not what BRT users are looking for, and I will not be surprised if one day, if this condition does not change, then BRT users will return to using their private vehicles. But high appreciation to the government and all stakeholders involved, this is not an easy task.
@@putuananta4445 That's literally the failure of the Vietnamese BRT, when all kinds of motorbikes has to go in BRT lanes to escape traffic jams. Hope your city won't be like that! I'm devoting for the metro though.
@@ngoclong2k5-hust its also common here in Jakarta, difference is that it's high risk high rewards situations to drive on the BRT lanes because police usually guarding the entrance and exit of the lanes
Push & pull. Take away road lanes & parking. Turn space taken from lanes and parking into housing to start addressing housing affordability. Free transit. Frequent transit. Fast transit, infrastructure that forces private vehicles to wait for transit. Densification, aka urbanism. Build mixed-use mid-rise building with commercial & offices on bottom two floors and residential on the top three or four floors. Demand that government build until housing vacancy rate is 8%. Speculators must learn that housing is for people not a get-rich-quick scheme.
People must learn that housing not a right but a privilege just like living in their favorite city they can barely afford anymore isn't. Build your own or buy your own. Otherwise pay up or move out.
@@shauncameron8390 So you don't believe in having students, or people working in service industries, or charities, or retirees, or interns, or musicians? Or are you proposing UBI so that everyone _can_ afford housing? It's just that a city with no working class _isn't going to function._
Too many people use cars because it's not hard to, even if it doesn't really benefit them or is worse than other options. I knew someone who would drive to work and sit in traffic, often moving slower than someone who walks. They were also overweight and wanted to lose weight, but wouldn't entertain the idea of something like a bike (even an electric one) which would have been cheaper than thing (per trip), quicker and better for their health. They could even be a fair weather cyclist. We also had some bike storage and a shower at work. People's mindsets are just crazy sometimes on their comfort level of driving everywhere.
Chilean here. We did all of this. 18 years experiment, 1 billion dolars per year cost. Some problems were fixed, like assaults and high speed accidents. But traffic jams are the new normality now
In Finland, we have a problem with public transport that machines, routes and stops are constantly being reduced in order to increase cost efficiency and profits as well as reduce travel time, but as a result the practicality and functionality of public transport deteriorates and the number of customers falls. In addition, the high ticket prices cut off the poorest and lowest-income passengers, while those who could afford and have the income to travel regularly on public transport also have enough money and income to buy their own car, which is more functional and flexible than public transport. And this leads to the need to once again reduce machines, routes and stops and raise prices in order for public transport to remain profitable and generate some profit instead of losses and expenses. Another problem is that too many Finns are too fixated to criticize and mock countries, such as Estonia and Spain, where local public transport in cities is free for the poorest citizens, because it is somehow considered to be passivating for the poor and increases unemployment when passengers don't have to pay for transportation, which prevents and hinders the adoption of a similar system in Finland if it is even possible to adapt such a system to Finland under the current attitude atmosphere.
@@Xenomorph-hb4zf you should meet my city's planners. Appearently neithor of you have heard of the disabled, seniors, people who get grocries or mothers with children!
You missed one point in the whole discussion - time to wait. We used to have busses in area I live every 30 mins. If you missed one, then you were at least 30 mins late - busses were empty. 2 weeks after frequency was adjusted to once every 10 minutes - busses started to be so full that sometimes it's difficult to enter it.
Integrated ticketing is key. You need to be able to change from bus to metro to bus and it all be considered as a single journey, because to you as a passenger it is. The fact that it’s using multiple modes is just a consequence of the complexity of travel in a large city
Public transport needs to be integrated, nationwide and relatively low cost. In the UK for example, decades of cuts to public transport networks have left many people, especially those in rural areas, either dependent on cars or practically isolated.
I aggre, knowing where the arriving bus will come is crucial. Not knowing of you are waiting for a ghost is terrible. In Tokyo, they have maps of the train arriving, showing what carts are more empty, so you can stand at the best door to get a better wagon. Also, as a newcomer, they have colorsystems which is very easy navigable first time using it.
The very best way to reduce traffic is to encourage the use of PEVs. E-bikes are great, Scooters are better, and EUC are the best by far. EUC are very small, agile, quick, and have good battery range
What Jakarta needs to reduce congestion is congestion charge zone just like in London. The questions are, are the people ready with the policy that force them to leave their cars and motorbikes? Can a new governor implement this type of policy? That's the real implementation of win win solution for public transport usage.
@@tbgrandprixengineering I think it could also unlocked one high-capacity mode that is currently infeasible - articulated streetcar/tram, which may be made possible due to drastically reduced congestion on the road. Such trams could also replace multiple buses to reduce congestion and bus queue at key interchanges.
I think something worth exploring is the accessibility for families/children. I live in Sweden and have a lot of friends who use public transport - until they have children. Then, it gets more inconvenient. Even if it's often free to board a bus if you have a child in a pram, it's more of a hassle with the extra walking, and changing from a bus to a train etc. It would be interesting to hear about possible solutions to that.
Even with all it's problems, NYC has passed the tipping point where you can tell a native New Yorker by the fact that they simply never got a driver's licence. It is like the example of how much neglect a system can tolerate without passing over into the 'just drive instead' choice.
This is an incredibly insightful video. Writing from Nairobi, one of the biggest takeaways is just how intentional cities need to be to make this work for everyone. At the heart of it seems to be the need to understand user needs, motivations and priorities and then to invest a lot in planning around connectivity and other aspects that inform what a sustainable, livable city is. I would walk, cycle and use public transport over driving if there was reliable, affordable, safe and decent public transport infrastructure
I live in Dresden and I think our public transport system is pretty good. Still, when I have a distant from one end to another, by car it's 15min, by tram it's 50min. I think for time reduction, there is no solution, cause they need to stop for people to go in and out. A real time info in the DVB-App would be amazing! Thank you for the video!^^
aah yes, pay more to use your stuff, that will turn out great. If cars are so much more expensive and you make the other option literally free and still you don't see a shift, then maybe the problem is not money. Making a bad thing cheap doesn't change the fact that it's bad. Make the alternative better instead of forcing people to change.
I have no stigma against public, i think it should be the norm. But at least where i live (Lisbon diatrict) you'll never get me into opting for buses/metro when it takes me 1h40min while feeling like canned sardine to reach a place 20min away with a motorcycle ride. The biggest problem i find is that: no space at all inside the bus on rush hour 🤷🏻♂️ that won't cut it for me. Throw all the taxes you want
The problem in EUrope is the outdated Infrastructure... in Asia you have clean trains, clean stations etc. In Berlin, it is smelly, crowded and hot (no Air Condition). Oh did I mention slow? I am usually taking the same time in an air-conditioned, quiet car (even with traffic) than I take on public transport. To calm everyones nerves, I am driving electric, charged with renewables
It's normal to take the same time. That's the Downs-Tomson paradox. It takes the same time to drive from A to B in a town than to take public transit. People take cars as long as it's quicker. But the more they use their cars, the slower their trip becomes. Until it reaches the time it is done in public transit. If you improve the cover of the public transit, you'll make driving more effective. Funny thing heh? And the worst your public transit, the worst it is to drive.
@@89DerChristian The opposite also works: the worse you make things for cars, the more people will take public transit. As long as the service is at least decent. It also has long run consequences, with making suburban developments lifestyles less valuated, and bringing wealthy people and middle class back near transit nodes and employment. Funnily enough, people value tend to not like spending a lot of time in commute.
yeah, but that is Germany not the whole EU or even Europe. hop over the border into The Netherlands and you will have a way more modern and pleasant experience. electric trains, electric busses, WIFI and airco on both, often a bus of train each 30 minutes in each direction, most stations are kept clean etc.
I am really happy about public transportation in Jakarta. It's frequent, reliable, cheap, punctual, accessible, and reaches the densely populated areas which are organically formed decades ago without city planning (the kampung). KRL, MRT, LRT, BRT, TransJakarta medium buses, and MicroTrans, all can be accessed using only an e-money card issued by various banks in Indonesia. you only need a card to access all of them, and it's really cheap. The service providers are doing a great job. I hope the numbers can really grow sixfold by 2030. Thank you, Deutsche-Welle, for this well-researched video. Looking for more educating contents.
Hey there! Very glad to hear that you liked our reporting. Thanks for sharing your experiences. To not miss any of our upcoming videos, subscribe to us ✨
I think I heard in Finland they were trying this idea of on demand bus routes. The routes would get automatically generated as people entered in an app where they needed to be picked up and where they wanted to go. I think that's a great idea. I guess it is a bit like uber but for public transit.
This exists in Baden-Wurttemberg in Germany where I live. Some less popular rural routes have 'Rufbussen' (call buses) where you ring up an hour in advance . . .
Worth mentioning the Dutch approach to biking, by analogy. They've done a lot of work to make biking safe and convenient, but that also include making driving inconvenient for urban trips, the "redesign your city" mentioned briefly in the video. Modal filtering means that bikes have direct routes, cars have to go around. People will bike when it's the fastest way to get where they're going. Same with transit, which can mean bypassing traffic and more direct routes. Also, frequency frequency frequency.
I really dislike arguments like "free public travel doesn't help reduce traffic jams, because people take the bus instead of bike". For the sake of sanity: why not make long distance public travel (like trains) free and short distance cheap, so people still pick bike over bus when they can, but choose train over car. Very few people take the bike for distances over 20km, so making the train free would have little impact on people switching bike to train. You *could* also make the train cheaper, but IMO it'd be a waste to uphold payment systems and keep checking tickets. As it stands now in my own country, people pick car over train for three main reasons: time, convenience and money. The train is more expensive than petrol for a small car, even when you drive alone. That's just insane, because it means the train can only be cheaper when you ditch your car entirely. People might ditch their car when they get used to public travel, but most won't even try public travel because paying for both your car (maintenance, taxes) and public travel is way too costly.
As a Tallinner, I was a bit confused about the "cyclers went to buses" argument since we had literally zero bicycle infrastructure in Tallinn before 2020. Only a few kilometers of separate bicycle lines perhaps but that's it. Most people who cycled did it after work as a hobby or sport. Now, as the city is building new bike lanes there are so many more people who choose to commute via cycling. Visually it seems like the number has tripled.
10:36 The transport system in my country, The Netherlands, get's a lot of criticism from my fellow countrymen. But when you compare it to other countries, it's not so bad. Sure, it can be expensive. But most trains, busses, metro's, trams, etc. are on time for around 90% of the time. And on time means within five minutes of the scheduled time. And even if it's late, you can check the current position within most of the transit apps, you'll see the fares and you can check-in with a bank card, your phone or an dedicated chip card. This makes traveling with public transport, which I do multiple times a week, pretty enjoyable here.
The problem in the Netherlands is that service is infrequent and delays are pretty common. 89% of trains is on time. This sounds pretty good, but in reality it means that if you commute by train, on average you have at least one delay per week. I lived in Japan for a year. Their punctuality is above 99% and 18 - 20 trains per hour is normal.
I live in The Netherlands and they have figured it out. The public transportation is easy, comfortable and it works. In the neighborhoods in the cities, everything is about 20 minute walk or an easy bike ride away. We have a car, but it is easier to take a train to the airport, to bike or take a tram to various parts of the city because it is faster than driving. In the rural areas it is harder to rely on public transport, but they ALWAYS have bike paths that link up the cities and countryside perfectly.
Some of these example have different situation and climate. Greater Jakarta for example need to service 32 million people, totally different situation compared to typical european cities with 5 million people. Other than that there's the climate. Biking or walking in 35 degrees celcius at 90% humidity is not a fun thing to do.
In Germany where I live, you can opt to pay a monthly fee (currently 49 euros) which covers any and all your public transport usage throughout Germany - buses, trams, S-Bahn and regional trains . . .
@@jamesneilsongrahamloveinth1301 Ich weiß. Aber wäre es ganz kostenlos würde keiner es verwenden, weil man Dinge erst wertschätzt wenn man etwas dafür zahlen muss. Natürlich muss dieser Betrag auch so sein, dass er für alle leistbar ist. Also so wie in Deutschland eh perfekt.
Driving is also heavily subsidized. Roads, traffic lights, city parking are all immensely expensive, but somehow given out for free. By comparison, public transport is already so cheap and efficient, that it is impossible to subsidize it enough.
The big issue, atleast in America, with the car. Is the awful land use we have with them is a big cause of the housing crisis. Giant parking lots and massive stroads mean way way less and convenient housing is not being built.
Public transport will never be better than individual transportation. Rather than figure out how to force people into public transport, figure out how to reduce the impact of individual transport. Win-win.
Many comments that stated the things that are necessary for people to give up cars for public transport, chiefly reliability, frequency and well developed network. Otherwise, it is unusable. I was in Kansas City this year, the trams were nice, but they only cover mostly one main street. The buses go far, but for a ride that took 10 minutes on a Uber, took upwards of an hour to get there... not counting how long the wait times were.
Always though the extra time spent on transit was for the "love of transit" - isn't that somewhere in the "planning rules". Yeah, I'm in North America too 😢
Wow, thanks, Chris! Have you seen our video 👉 'How to make traffic better, not worse' ua-cam.com/video/AR7caWQvWBQ/v-deo.html ? If you like this kind of content, subscribe to our channel-we post videos every Friday! ✨
What reduced me using my car every day was working from home. Rather than trying to make people travel from A to B in a different way, why not work to remove the need to travel altogether for as many people as possible? Frankly most white collar workers don't need to go to an office.
For me, I don't take public transit in most areas of the US because the service frequency and coverage just isn't there to begin with. Even when I was still living south of San Francisco, not even 2 miles from the Caltrain station, I didn't ride transit much because the bus service intervals were 30 minutes from the nearest stop a few blocks away. If it was after 7 PM, then the service intervals were 1x per hour. Unacceptably bad service coverage, so driving is naturally going to be the best way to get around, even if I didn't feel like driving either. I'm all for drastically increasing transit here in the states, but unfortunately I don't see it ever getting the proper taxpayer funding like how it's done in many European countries. Even Sydney, Australia, a major city and metropolitan area known for its driving culture has far superior public transit compared to almost anywhere else in the United States.
People, the main reason for car ownership is not just convenience etc, it is primarily exclusivity, not having to share the space with others. Thats why even if it is inconvenient most will drive rather than take public transport.
Funny cause we love to go to crowded malls, work with others in offices, go to bars, restaurants and plazas TO be around others and yet when it comes to transportation even if it's just 1km we must not share the space. I wonder if they studied the psychology behind it.
@@SandroAntonucci87 For me, it was not wanting to be around zombies (people drugged out of their minds). I took the bus to a nearby community college almost a decade ago during the summer session. It was awful taking the bus. Its only 7 miles (~11 km) away and 2 towns over but it took on average of 70 minutes to get there. And certain stops were full of shady looking people who reeked of a variety of unpleasant smells.
What makes transport good is reliability, convenience and speed. If public transport can just be considerably quicker than driving then it will get a lot more competitive
Low hanging fruits to be tackled: 1. Eliminate parking minimums 2. Redefine LOS to mean movement of people instead of vehicle 3. Abolish zoning (or make it very similar to Japan's zoning laws)
Jakarta's residence here. As Indonesia is not a high income country, most people cannot afford a public transport. As you see in the statistic, 3 million cars and 17 million motorcycle, the population of the metropolitan Jakarta is 32 million. The challenge is to increase the capacity of public transport first before making people ride on it.
@@anindariskaaprilia7034 You are not thinking total costs at the end of the month. Consider just these 3: food along the ride, suitable clothing, stress.
I live in Toronto which ranks #3 in the world for traffic congestion. There has been a good amount of progress. much of it still underway to improve public transport and support for other alternatives to cars such as bike lanes. Sadly what is being done only scratches the surface of what needs to be done, and continually faces heavy opposition. Particularly from car drivers who get offended with every effort to make alternative forms of transport more viable.
@@noiseshapes The video here suggests that making it free won't help much. Fares could be lower mind you. The real problem is decades of poor funding, which has cumulated into some serious maintenance issues which is causing an immense number of delays and shutdowns.
One thing that wasn't discussed much is the danger of public transportation, at least the perceived danger. I am from NYC and I can see why people become afraid of taking public transportation because of the amount of homeless people that end up on the trains and defecate in their pants right next to you, maybe they have a rampant infestation of bedbugs or scabies that you might get on you, or they will take off their pants and urinate right in front of you, also there are cases of people who bring weapons onto the bus or train every once in a while, or the possibility of terrorist attacks, and once I saw an old Chinese guy get beat up by a group of kids from the street, back in the old days people would get pickpocketed or robbed, the only reason that doesn't happen so much now is because the city is more wealthy and welfare systems are better and also because of security cameras but I don't think those are actually much of a deterrent
@@pixelmaster98 That is a problem which has the potential to happen anywhere, people should look at the USA as an example of a country which has been doing public transportation for a very long time and take lessons from our experience
@@spacemonk26 "USA as an example of a country which has been doing public transportation for a very long time" mate the US public transit is notoriously shit compared to other countries. And the same goes for the US' homelessness problem.
If you invest in a thing, and make it work right and make it affordable to ALL, then more people will use it and the increased traffic will both decrease space and opportunity for bad actors to monopolize the space, but you also save money on more extreme measures to protect it. Such savings can be reinvested into the social safety net, which results in fewer unhoused and hungry people, which reduces crime, which reduces bad actors using the space, etc etc.
@@spacemonk26 the only lesson other places have to learn from public transit in the US, is how not to do it. it's often old stock (looks like something from the last century), way to infrequent, barely any dedicated transit lanes so they get stuck between the cars, etc.
Kuala Lumpur started to experiment with Bus only lanes and it has dramatically increase ridership. They're now looking into expanding these lanes into more areas of KL. Overall, it was a success. For last-mile connectivity, there is a mini-van service that helps to connect the areas the bus does not service.
There is no opposite of induced demand. Cutting lanes just makes traffic even worse. For a real life study, take a look at the Gotthard Tunnel. It follows that school of though and is limited to a single lane per direction while being part of a two lane highway. Of course, this causes huge traffic jams basically every weekend and during holidays. But even with 4h delays around the Easter holidays, for example, this still does not prevent people from taking their cars for a short 4 day trip. Of course, this has plenty of other side effects, such as people trying to bypass the highway along small roads. Or people traveling to another destination that do not even use the tunnel, being stuck in that traffic. The Swiss now expend considerable effort trying to manage the traffic by closing on-ramps and even closing off-ramps as far as Erstfeld (20km away). That school of though fail to consider the whole trip. If someone cannot reach their destination without a car, or it is very inconvenient to be there without a car, or if they have trouble leaving home without a car, or they have a lot of luggage, or people will be limited to the time of travel (like only during the day, not in the evening)...people will still drive.
But continuing driving, in this case, is true because it is winteractivites, no? A car is more useful for the comfort of those trip. But in my opinion, induced demand is still very real, and taking the train is always an option and I bet they keep filling the trains up. One more thing, the speed of having only one lane is reduced which drastically decreases car crashes. More lanes wouldn't help Gotthard and not Fehmarn either, for that matter, and in turn Swedish alcohol consumption haha.
@@simonaarflot4743 More lanes definitely would help the Gotthard tunnel. The traffic is flowing freely before and only stopping because of the artificial bottleneck. You do not improve anything by introducing a bottleneck, you need to provide attractive alternatives. They do the heavy lifting and will actually improve things. I for example go to Switzerland for mountaineering. While most places can be reached without a car, it is often a very time consuming process or very limited. For example, the Furka pass can be reached by 3 buses a day from each side. If I am going for an alpine climb, I definitely will not make it back in time. Also, the tunnel, as it is right now, is a safety hazard as both lanes are in the same tube. They are currently building a second tunnel. Not because of that, but because the old tunnel is in dire need of repair but closing the tunnel entirely is not an option. In the far future, they plan on having each direction in its own tunnel, but still artificially limited to a single lane.
There are lots of cases brought up about traffic calming that makes traffic better. So the reverse of induced demand does work. Not in every case, but it does. It also depends on how viable alternatives are. But there's also that inside cities or anywhere with frequent intersections the amount of lanes simply don't matter. The capacity of a single lane is higher than an intersection in almost all cases.
@@SandroAntonucci87 You obviously have no clue what the Gotthard tunnel is about. It is one of the major north-south routes across the alps, with Switzerland having only the San Bernardino as an alternative. It is not just a bypass. But we can extend the comparison to other cases as well. For example, Switzerland has some places where you load your car onto a train and travel through a tunnel (e.g. because the pass is closed in winter). Capacity is obviously very limited, still we see people queuing up for many hours on such train ferries. It is the lack of suitable alternatives that causes people to wait 2-4h
What were not mentioned in this video but plays major role in the rather rapid growth of public transport use in Jakarta were: 1. extensive and rapidly evolving route development and management transjakarta are doing extensive research on exploring hotter areas and never afraid to lose money on introducing new route with less riders. on unsuccessful route, they simply stop servicing it and reuse existing fleet on a newly developed route to have better rider number per route efficiency. to picture this, it is important to note that each of the 14 corridors(major route) they service, they have 3-7 alternative routes. example: corridor 1 route 1A, 1B, 1C. few corridors like corridor number 7 have alternative route up to W. Some of the cancelled one even raked up to ST. 2. various size of buses on the busier part of the city with access to 4-5 lane roads and special bus stop infrastructure, they used road-trains (double length bus chassis with 1 motor). on a high volume but short travel distance traffic where majority of the road users use motorcycles and mini ute(suzuki carry, toyota hilux single cab/hilux champ, mitsubishi l300), they used medium bus and 6 wheeler bus. on development routes they use 4 wheeler bus. and on the residential area, they use tuk-tuk sized mini van as the first and last miles feeders. 3. flexible daily fleet numbers and routes to accommodate volumes and destinations when rush hours come by, transjakarta adds the number of operating fleet. few of those extra buses has special routes that stop only at certain high volume and high interconnection transit bus stop, skipping the low riders bus stops and detouring via lower traffic highway/tollroads. few other of them service the routes in which riders have to takes 2-3 buses to get by, thus reducing the congestion of buses coming to and from the interconnected transit points. keeping the transit points low volume cause dramatic difference since the bus are programmed to stop longer at transit points to accommodate more people hoping on and off the bus compared to regular bus stops. keeping away the bus from transit points and skipping a few stops are also very important to keep the end-to-end travel time much more reliable and consistent. 4. accesible reliability (on development) transjakarta operators are developing a system to live track buses thats accessible by public-not only riders, this system are also useful to estimate bus departure time and travel time. however this system is still very inaccurate and almost not any better than no system at all. 5. privatizing the day-to-day operators the people that do the operating, development, maintenance, r&d, and other day-to-day operation are private entity separated from state official. even though it is a state-owned enterprises, the people running it arent there for a short rinse and repeat cycle like elected officials, they are also bound to set of principle, KPIs, and goals exclusive to the corporation. this operators are not political tools. they are not focused on spending yearly fiscal hand-out like a government agency and behave more like a corporation that treat the operations like a healthy, profitable, sustainable, and growing service based business. apart from this, bus-based public transport in Jakarta is still not the most reliable form of transport in travel time, often quite uncomfortable on rush ours due to over-capacity, and still somewhat more expensive than owning your own motorbike (especially factoring in the fuel price, sense of safety, freedom of movement, and the flexible use of a motorbike; keep in mind the majority motorbikes of Jakarta and south-east Asia are mini pit-bike/mini scooters/and mopeds)
If Jakarta put trams in those busways then they'd be able to carry more people, more people would want to use them as a tram is a nicer experience, and it'd be nicer for the environment - I imagine the pollution is pretty awful there.
Not necessarily. There might need to be conducted a study in order to determine which form of public transport is suited best for that specific corridor. In Bogotá the mayor wanted to build a tram across an important avenue, but after studies considering factors such as street width, frequency of intersections, stops and interconnectivity, BRT was favored and allowed to move more people than with the tram. The discussion doesn't have to be necessary as to which mode of transit is best, but rather what system is suited best for that specific corridor.
Buses that run in dedicated lanes, in particular, can be pretty big, and they can be electrified (again, spending most or all of their time in dedicated lanes simplifies this). They're less disrupted by construction than trams and are more easily able to fan out at the ends of routes to provide varied service. I say all this in the interest of balance, I'm actually a rail person myself, but I'm increasingly persuaded that BRT makes all kinds of sense in some contexts, and certainly as a bootstrap.
@@stephenspackman5573 Well... for us Vietnamese though, we need metro lines for most of the city though, BRT is very inefficient here. In 2016, the first BRT line in Hanoi (Giảng Võ - Láng Hạ - Lê Văn Lương - Tố Hữu) was opened. And as soon as 2 - 3 years later, Hanoi realized that this line is a massive failure. The BRT line itself has a capacity of a few thousand dwellers per day, which is ABYSMAL compare to the tens of thousands of dwellers going through this route. And the BRT does have a separate lane, which is good... until you realize that it's not elevated. And since this is a very important road to go to other district like Nam Từ Liêm and Hà Đông, combine with the very bad land use here (Lê Văn Lương road has 33 high-rise apartment complex with just 2 lanes for traffic, without BRT), this goes onto a very bad situation every single day. Motorbikes have to run into the BRT lanes to escape the f**king immense traffic jam here, making BRT absolutely dysfunctional. And so no one use that BRT lane often, because it's generally faster to go on a motorbike (to escape traffic jam) than to go on that line. And it makes Hanoi government losing a massive amount of money, up till this day. This will be removed in 2026 (I guess, because that was an project with ODA capital for 10-years long). We'll need metro for such a densely populated, but also very spread out city like Hanoi. And considering that metro lines here were plagued with slow construction speed (because of all the massive capital and land we have to get for this), I won't think that BRT will ever solve the traffic problem in Hanoi. In recent years though, metro lines have been building faster, and there's a significant down in car and motorbike usage ratio after the Nhổn - Cầu Giấy line was opened in August, so I'd think the situation can be better for the next years. But with that much population that we have to transport, we'll use ARTs, not BRTs anyway.
1 integrate bus and metro 2 make one app to show real time data and to plan journeys 3 while changing from bus to metro and vice versa, trolleys should be available for people carrying luggage 4 improve accessibility and safety (of both people and property)
I don't use the public transport, because it's takes twice the time for the same way. Plus my car is broken less often than the trains and busses in my city. So I save even more time and have less to worry about when I go by car.
Stuttgart gets it right - joined up thinking - buses, trams, S-Bahn interconnected - modern vehicles - a brilliant information app - Stuttgart never ceases to amaze me. I don 't have a car, by the way . . .
Public transport is fine when you need to go to the office of to University by your self. But , when you decide to go on a vacation to the beach and you have a small family + a dog + 4 bags + a baby stroller - you will need a car . When you go to the beach by car you have the full freedom to decide when to leave and drive where ever you want , unlike with a Public buss that comes once an hour
@@legolas7r and then you arrive at the beach and all parking spots are full, because the whole city had the same idea. or you have to pay around the same amount of money to park at the beach as you would have spend on the public transit journey. and while you're baking at the beach, your car is baking at the parking lot, so on your journey back home you're sitting in an oven on wheels. while if you take the train you have plenty of space for all those things you want to take with you, and for the last kilometers you take a bus from the train station to the beach. if public transit is bad of course people will take a car. if you make public transit frequent, pleasant and connect the points where people go/come from, less people will use cars
Barcelona metro gets you to the beach and back. In Montpellier (France), there's a tramway line, then a beachcomber bus that's pretty frequent. Going there by car is quite bothersome, as you'll have to find a parking spot and spend a long time in traffic.
In Odisha , India's Mobus system is really good , it has built an app that shows real time location of buses and stoppage and routes and much more ..... proud to belong to India
The barrier to use of public transportation usage is rarely cost, with ticket prices being nominal. If anything the ease of acquiring tickets is more a barrier than cost itself. What matters is frequency and reliability, that draws people out of their cars more than not having to pay a small price. For example I would never drive in New York or Paris during rush hour, because its usually faster to take the train, or at least less stressful. Similarly if transit is unreliable or is only every half hour then people will take their cars even if it's free.
Right, as pricey as I think transit is in Amsterdam compared to everywhere else (even some parts of America), I doubt I'd ever rent a car instead on a future visit.
Great video. In Brussels, the government hasn't been taking great care of infrastructures for the last forty years because they don't want to encourage car use, but they haven't worked on improving public transport in the meantime. The last couple years they have made changes to the roads, often turning two car lanes into one car lane and also also making new or bigger bicycle lanes. As for public transport, the prices keep going up, previously free train stations car paking lots (outside of the city) have become paid parking lots after renovation, going in and out of the city with public transport is difficult, they close small train stations.
At the same time though, we have a new tram line (line 10) just opened, and a new metro (line 3) (kinda, maybe it's just an expanded tram line 3 so is it really new...), along with lots of renewals of tram infrastructure, so I'd say we're pretty lucky with what we've got. Not to mention the cycling infrastructure... It is true that things are taking longer then they should (cycle bridge overtime by 600% for example), but isn't that the case with all projects nowadays?
@The_Georgi0 As long as you're staying in Brussels, yes there are good things put in place, although there are still places with almost no coverage like parts of Uccle. But as I mentioned, getting in and out of Brussels is still complicated. The easiest way is often the train, but there are trains and train stations that are being cancelled. Getting to the train station can be complicated if you don't live in a bigger city and train stations parking lots are slowly being converted to paid parking lots which isn't helping people commute. I live ten minutes outside of Brussels and I do take public transport when going downtown, but I use my car to go into Brussels.
@@shauncameron8390 Of cause, but most traffic jam around the world is due to office commute to and from down town / city center during rush hours. Allowing work from home can ease like 50% traffic jam or even eliminate the jam in smaller cities. And at the same time, really reduce traffic pollution.
People will find a reason to drive anyway if you design your city around cars. You just shift the time when it happens. I can already picture bored people that were indoors all day that decide to go to the bar or mall at the end of the day all at once.
@@JSiuDev as I said it probably does but it can also induce other usages, so you'd probably just shift the time when it happens. Don't underestimate that our brains have been wired to think about driving whatever we want to move. So it's also a matter of livability and safety in cities. That wasn't mentioned in the video. If you design for cars you'll get cars no matter the reason.
One thing that often happens in large cities is that public transport is frequent and varied in the center, but scarce in the outskirts. If you live in the outskirts, and it takes you 15 min by car, even with traffic, to reach a centric area but 60min+ in public transport, it's bad planning.
Or no planning. Just planners collecting a paycheck. By the way what would you think the time comparison shoud be for auto commute to pubic transit use? Here in North American practice is usually over twice as long by public transit.
This should be obvious to anyone that knows anything about public transit. No one has ever said "I'd rather drive a car because I can't afford public transit." Make it convenient, frequent, and reliable and people will switch.
In Buenos Aires we have a pretty good public transport system, with dedicated lanes for busses, connected with train and subway routes, affordable and with AC!
Hasselt also used to have free buses. They were great, especially for pensioners and youth. Made it far more appealing to just park at the edge of the city and hop on a bus from there. Now they're gone it's just easier to just drive straight to the destination or simply find an alternative outside of the city.
I think the elephant in the room, above all is safety on transport, and transport precincts! Many older people who are no longer able to drive, are not comfortable catching public transport.(Qld, Australia). We have 50 cent fares, which are a game changer esp with the current cost of living and there has been a decline of cars in the inner city.
How does public transportation work where you are?
Correction 5:04: The Indonesian currency is "Rupiah". We are sorry for this mistake.
Please learn currency next time😊 its rupiah not rupee, dont mix india with us thank you, and stop being ignorant😊
Poorly in the UK. Very poor coordination of services.
I must say, living in Lithuania we do have the sense of reliability with public transport, we have apps that allow us to pay for the transport without need of cash, also provides traffic monitoring tools such as to see where and when the next bus will be and where it will take us, what buses to take to get from point A and point B. Although it does seem like the city is in a bit of chaos with the constant development of roads for bicycles, it does provide great alternative for moving around the city without the need of motor vehicles. I am happy with the change compared how it was.
Switzerland: really good, but extremely expensive. I take often the car because it cost so much. Now I have a subscription for my town for the year, and I bought it because of the environment. I would spend less if I just use the car.
Poorly.
public transport needs to be frequent and reliable, and have good coverage. it also needs to be safe and accessible and clean. and did I mention it needs to be frequent? Meet all of those, and people will use it, even if they have to pay. Nobody is going to wait an hour for a bus, even if it's free.
I used to use transit every weekday. Then we had Covid. Now the frequency is like one per hour rather than every 5-10 minutes. And service ends at 9 or 10 pm, so using it for downtown events is no longer feasible. Throw in that it's also become a mobile homeless shelter and the only people who use it are the ones with no other choice.
100%! And then the 'last mile' has to be great, too. Walking, cycling, and other forms of micro-mobility, need to have pleasant, dedicated spaces to operate within.
And well connected. For example in my personal case, I live in an area that is, at first glance, well deserved by public transport. I work in another area (same city) that also seems well connected. However, Getting to work by private means takes about 20min while public transport takes 1h15min. It is not free, but almost, however I don't use public transport if I can avoid it because of the time it takes to get there or to come back.
Rich left leaning people want you to take a bus just by making a driving car more expensive. This results in more inequality and nothing else. In Poland for example left leaning parties slip into tunnel vision to look only at the biggest cities, forgetting about people from small villages where bus drives to the nearest city 3 times a day.
@@Toobready driving a car is expensive by nature. nobody is "making" it more expensive. poor people can't even afford to buy a car, let alone put fuel in it
Yeah, it doesn't need to be completely free. Cheap, reliable and well maintained is enough.
Yeah. I pay 365 euros a year for unlimited transit in the city. It’s very affordable. I only use my car once a week or so.
The benefit of making it free is that you get better flow in and out of vehicles, save money on ticket inspectors, simplify and streamline the design of stations, and so on. Maybe there are a few train enthusiasts you can dissuade from trying to visit every station or something by imposing fees, but are there really enough of them to make this important?
Basically I'd argue that the entire discussion is backwards. The goal of transit (or any other piece of infrastructure) is not to make money, it's to adjust the fabric of the city to make it _overall_ more pleasant and efficient. Fees _could_ be part of that solution, but most likely they're not. The most ubiquitous form of urban transit is the elevator; how often have you been charged for an elevator ride? Not often, because generally, people want their buildings used, and the _mechanical_ overhead of accepting payment would just not be worthwhile. Why, logically speaking, would it be any different when moving horizontally?
@@stephenspackman5573 "benefit of making it free"
I don't think any of those benefits are robust. Pre-paid access from gated platforms improves flow. Any system with good ridership makes a lot more in fares than it spends on inspectors. Paid access doesn't prevent great transit systems from existing.
I have nothing against free transit in theory; it's pretty nice. But for any real system, the extra funding it would take to make fares free would be better spent making service better.
Free transport literally has no value. Queensland is pioneering AUD0.50 fares. The data can be used to improve the network, and being so cheap, compels people to compare with the car.
For me in Canberra, it takes 15 minutes to ride my electric Motorcycle to work at my convenience. Public Transport is currently free while card readers are being replaced (Normally ~AUD3.50, but it takes around 45-50 minutes in peak periods, and don't go frequently (20 minutes in peak & often delayed, to hourly off peak). Ignoring the capital costs, @ $1 a week in electricity $300 in rego and insurance, and another $200 annually in maintenance, I get value and convenience. My wife's large SUV, not so much.
When I move home to Queensland, the train will give more more value in terms of time savings and convenience as the Scooter will be subject to heavy traffic.
Many forget it.
In Perth, Western Australia, I live on a road with 25000 vehicles passing my house every day, but there is no bus. There was a bus service, but it ran very infrequently, so no-one used it. Instead of increasing the frequency, the bus company cancelled the service. I used to be able to walk 600 metres to another bus which would take me to work via the train. Then the timetable was changed, and I would have had to leave home 3 hours before work started to get there on time (or drive half an hour). So I drove to the train station, parked at the park-and-ride, and was at work in an hour. This was OK until my car was vandalised (there is no security and no threat of apprehension, so offenders feel safe in their business). I did my best, but I cannot use public transport for this most frequent and mundane trip. I now drive to work. A former mayor of Bogota has many times been quoted to have said that a civilized country is not where the poor can afford to drive cars, but where the rich choose to use public transport. By that measure, Australia is not civilized.
@@mostlyguesses8385 "cars just work" yeah, with an extreme cost for everyone compared to everything else
@@mostlyguesses8385 they "just work" because we've built a society around them, if society was built to get rid of cars you would say "buses just work" or "walking just works"
@@mostlyguesses8385 this is coming at the expense of usable land. There is no place to build housing when every available section of land is filled with massive roads, parking lots, and personal garages.
This asphalt comes at the expense of living space (which contributes to the housing crisis) and greenery making our cities hotter and less liveable.
I don't have an issue with cars. But cities should not cater to the convenience of the car, but instead to the people who actually live in the city.
@@mostlyguesses8385 It "just works" until the car breaks down and it costs $5,000 to fix it.
@@mostlyguesses8385 but they dont really save any time when you could walk 5 minutes to your job
When I visited Jakarta, I couldn't help but notice the density of their public transport system - trains, subways, metros, busses - and if all else fails, Grab & GoJek (which is more than what my home city can boast). But my gripe with place is that they have still ways to go in connecting the transit hubs to the actual destinations such as commercial centers with literal last mile infrastructure such as pedestrian tunnels, bridges etc. It may seem spoiled, but Jakarta's oppressive humidity and heat (and I'm saying this as a fellow Southeast Asian) makes walking the last few hundred meters still quite a sweaty challenge.
Well yeah that's the biggest challenge with switching into public transport in jakarta
The car-centric "modernization" of post-independence Jakarta doesn't help, where among the first things they did was pave over the colonial tram network and widen the streets accordingly. The subsequent attempts at reinstalling mass transit makes it disjointed and inconvenient (open air TransJakarta stations, MRT with too few gates and exits, and especially you Jakarta LRT).
Mass transit is one thing the government _says_ it will fix on their new city Nusantara, but if the Korean (Sejong City) and Egyptian (New Cairo) versions are an indication, this will also end up an massive oversight and expensive afterthought.
Travelling on motorcycle is equally if not more of a sweatier challenge than walking the last 500m let's say.
THIS IS also one of the problem. NOBODY thinking about air-flow in Jakarta. We can control how air flow into our city. BUT it must be planned very carefully! Meticulously! I would invest billions for experiment apparatus where a new IMB would need to be wind tested. I don't care if people cannot build economically, because it is more not economical if everyone have to stay inside and uses air-con.
@@pbp_everydaylife3432 or the more cost effective solution, since it's still technically a developing country, SHADES!
As a Tallinn resident, I'll tell you that I'm pretty happy with the free public transport and it's 100% the reason why I did not get a car when I got a driver's license.
Free is good, but maybe the question is what is better. Would you rather free, or better? In the real world you can have both, but which is the priority to focus on politically?
Overwhelmingly, the results say that better is more important than free, I think.
I wish it was cheaper here, though...
The data from your city shows that free is not enough. Not enough for the people sitting in car queues at least.
@@tristanridley1601 I have a line that takes me from 30 meters down from where I live to 50 meters away from where I study. Comes every 10-15 minutes. Really can't complain 😅
I honestly think the quality is quite good. I can reach any part of the city in roughly 1 hour.
I think it just needs to be cheap enough. Would your decision really be different if it would be like 10-50€ a month? Probably not as it is still a LOT cheaper than a car.
@@tristanridley1601 free and better can go hand in hand, the fact that you have to "choose" between both is sickening, it proves that the political system is broken.
You don't even need to make an app. Make data publicly available through an interface and people will build apps for it. That way instead of needing an entire department for it, you just need a few backend devs and a well connected project manager
It is already quite common for public transport providers to make their data available to the public.
@@JakubMacháček-o8x I haven't seen real time tracking data yet. Also I know that european train companies are particularly unwilling to share detailed data (although the eu is hopefully stepping in next year)
If the transport is public, then they’d rather control the app because that means more employees which is desirable to people who run public institutions.
@@JakubMacháček-o8x But of course this should be done on a national level. It's hard to justify the effort of figuring out idiosyncratic feeds. Not that timetables themselves shouldn't be coordinated at scale.
@@majorfallacy5926 I've been in several cities where Google was able to tell me where the next bus was. Unfortunately I didn't keep notes on what worked where. I'm thinking in the UK, maybe in Taiwan?
I don't know if this is accomplished with feeds from the transit agencies or by anonymised pings from riders' devices, though.
A lot of countries should seriously invest more to encourage public transit.
I have same opinion on that ! It also reduces parking space and wont require so called ev cars
@@Krucezam the governments, the engineers, the authorities know what the best solution would be, they just don't do it. It's all about politics and money games.
When an expensive car that costs money to run is the better choice, it means public transport is just inconvenient. There will always be situations where a car will be better for user but if you can cover 95% of your commuting with a bus or a train then that system works.
As a Jakartans, I truly respect you for mentioning our way to make people use public transit. A dedicated lane for busses that separated from any other traffic, don't see that often. Funfact, Jakarta used to have tram system, but it died when car campaign from the US arrived, the rail and station are buried in asphalt, you can see the remains of it until this day though. A lot of it are found from the underground subway project that Jakarta had called the MRT.
Indonesia car culture come from Japan bro, so it is actually Toyota campaign
@@Tantamazoule no, its actually shitbox importer campaign
@@wuvme9354it is from Japan tho, like they work with the government to set up factories to build "Toyota Kijang" in 1977 and they popularized it here
i will always choose tram over buses. Its way smoother ride.
Nah it is Soekarno anti-Dutch campaign which is why we don't use the Tram anymore. And also narrow vision of our leader which exclusively sees private transport as a means of transport instead of thinking how to built a good public transport.
London, the public transport is pretty good. I wrote off my car about 15 years ago without replacing it, and haven’t missed it once.
congrats, we should celebrate people that do not have a driver's licence or a car 🥂🎉😄
Japan is also similar.
back then, London built its suburbs around the railway stations, like the Northern Line in the 1930s.
I spent eight days in London, and it was remarkably easy to get around on public transit.
But, not in London southeast, Woking, Surrey 🙄
I spent a semester abroad in Buenos Aires, where I became a huge fan of the Subte (subway). It basically gave me access to all the parts of town I cared to visit, it never took more than 5-10 minutes to walk from one station to another, there was free wifi on each of them, and precise timers for when the next train would be arriving. And on top of that, not only were fares inexpensive (even for a college student on a scholarship), but rides even got cheaper the more I took! Oh, and did I mention the AC? Or the fact that lines remained open till midnight? Or that it also linked with bus lines to nearby cities and suburbs, as well as the interstate passanger railways? Argentinians complained a lot about overfilled wagons and insecurity, but coming from México city and its truly hellish Metro system, the Subte was a dream come true.
I hate having to own cars, but have no option in suburban USA. Love when I visit cities around the world with working public transport.
It's a generally bad construction of many US cities. They should introduce shops for daily needs in suburbia.
Thank Ford and Dodge for that
@@armandoventura9043
The poster lives in the US, not Canada.
Yet you chose to live in the suburbs where owning a vehicle is the only feasible way to get around.
@@HolgerJakobs The US is all about self-hatred. The inconvenience and inhumanity is deliberate.
Honestly, for a city like Tallinn, they can just try to copy Zurich. In Switzerland, public transit is clearly the dominant form of transport within cities. And in terms of size, Tallinn and Zurich is pretty comparable. Unlike the megacities in southern america and asia.
Most importantly: Car traffic CANNOT impede public transit. As soon as public transit is "stuck in the same traffic jam", public transit doesn't work, because there is no incentive of using it.
@ the keyword is cities. Swiss cities have very low car usage with around 20-25%.
Paris is similar, but other french cities are all around 40-75%.
This is true for most European cities, car ridership is only high in the few, very big cities. In midsized cities, car ridership is generally quite high. The swiss cities, despite being midsized, are up in the top class.
(source: moving cities via Watson.ch)
One problem Switzerland has, is a very high decentralisation. Instead of big cities, there are hundreds of towns. Which of course is not optimal for public transit. Nevertheless, for this, the share is very good.
@@aurelspecker6740 Zürich may be expensive and annoying to enter with a car, but there are still more than enough people driving into Zürich every day. Just tune in to the radio in the morning or evening...there is always lots of commuter traffic. It is the same for the other large Swiss cities. They may be better than American cities but this is definitely not what the goal should look like. It is not enough that people inside the city boundaries of Zürich get around without a car, one has to consider people from the surrounding areas as well.
@@foobar9220 Hey, we really don't have to argue about "too many cars in swiss cities". We completely agree on that.
My point was just, that in comparison, based of facts, swiss city have a high rate of public transit and a low rate of car traffic.
20% is low in comparison. But still at least 15% higher than it has to be. (I assume that around 5% might in fact have a decent reason to use a car, be it for moving stuff. Working nightshift etc.)
Man I paid $20 CAD for a train ride from the airport to Uetliberg. Idk how people there afford public transit.
@@victorchen9170 Everything in Switzerland is expensive, but so are the incomes. Also, only few people pay the normal price. Most have a half fare card (halbtax) and many have a full year ticket (Generalabonnement) which costs 4k CHF but allows you to use all the transit and also some cable cars. For many other cable cars, it acts as a half fare card, so this will amortize itself pretty quickly if you use it for commuting and also in your spare time
The video points out a very important thing that is afterwards ignored: a car is much more than a transportation means. That means that no matter how good you make the public transport, it will not replace a car in a person's life. So maybe that's something that countries should work on: self esteem of its people can and should be tied to something else than just owning and driving around a 2T steel monster. And yes, this is possible!
It doesn't need to replace a car entirely.
My household has two cars. They barely get used. We walk to our nearby high street. I cycle to work and my wife takes the train.
We have cars. We don't use cars most of the time. You can have a car but use other means of transport.
It doesn't need to replace a car entirely.
My household has two cars. They barely get used. We walk to our nearby high street. I cycle to work and my wife takes the train.
We have cars. We don't use cars most of the time. You can have a car but use other means of transport.
@@lonyo5377yes but that's not the point, most people aren't going to opt to not use their car if they have one hence it is still contributing to traffic
@@joshuah345 no, that is the point. Many people want to have a car for the freedom/convenience it offers... Sometimes.
You need to discourage then from using it when they don't need to, by making non car options more attractive. If you try and make people get rid of cars you're not going to do it. Try and get them to use their cars less. Then maybe they might get rid of them, but you need to make the non car options at least as attractive as the car they aren't getting rid of.
Have other forms of viable transport can help reduce car dependency and traffic.
Jakarta has one of the most amazing first and last mile transport infrastructure. Just under 3000 minibuses serving 100+ free routes that take you to the nearest bus stop/station or to use when other modes arent available. The major homework is the satellite cities, where half of the commuters are from, implementing that same system. We still have a long way to go.
5:04 Correction, NOT Rupee, But RUPIAH.
Rupee is India urrency, while Rupiah is Indonesia currency.
Thanks for the correction! We have now updated the subtitles. Apologies for the mistake.
That was one of many mistakes in that video.
Both same... Rupee-Rupiah, India-Indian Islands
@@mycodenameisejattthank you sherlock
Indonesia is not Indian island@@mycodenameisejatt
Cities should be built around the conpept of the 15 min city which eliminates most of traffic in the first place and enables the use of walking and cycling to your destinations which in turn has the highest frequency possible - you can start at any time you want
yepp, but the cities already existing. and there is a big pressure from people, they want to keep their right to having a car a drive it everywhere, everytime.
@@muzsi19That's a common misconception.
Proper polls addressing the question have been done in France, and they completely contradict the narrative that a majority of people living in cities want to drive everywhere.
The polls have shown that 60 to 70% of people living in cities of 50-100k inhabitants and more (the population to which the questions were asked) want the driving speed and space allocated to cars to be reduced in the public space of their city and neighborhood.
In favor of more space for pedestrians, cyclists, and public transit like buses and trams.
There's a very loud minority who makes many think that most people are against these changes of the public space, but it's just an impression as the reality is the opposite.
Just like many people who live in villages or distant suburbs and who claim that they have no choice but to use their cars to go to work every day, actually do not and very much have the possibility of using park & ride to travel into the city with public transit in many cases.
They just prefer to ignore all "composite journeys" or "multimodal mobility" (trips that are made partly by car and partly by transit, e-scooter, or bike) because they only consider trips either 100% public transit or 100% by car.
Even if parking is free in the park & ride stations...
I remember interviews of drivers after the opening a couple years ago of Rennes metro B line, which has park & ride at end stations located near the belt road.
Several were reluctant to switch from their car to the metro, even if it would be cheaper and much faster... (plus the fully automated metro is really great, comfortable, super frequent and efficient).
It now seems like many do switch, but there are still some who complain because they want to drive all the way to the city center in their living room on wheels... 🤣
@@KyrilPG I just running in this kind of people all the time. But I know, negative comments have a higher chance. Like plans were introduced in our city (what is not bad at all compered to many, there is a decent bicycle infrastructure), most people was very angry. Why they want to take our parking spots? Why giving more space for hikes, they have enough. Why changing to 30km/h (yeah that will be painful, but...), we will see how it goes. This is like a dance. The city tries something big, than have to step back a little.
Free Parking? In Jakarta? Where? Jokes aside though, it's much appreciated the spotlight shown to Jakarta's public transport. On another note, illegal parking has been a big issue in Jakarta. Less than savory methods done by certain organizations are done to intimidate business owners to submit to having their "parking lot" "managed" by these equally unsavory fellows. And personally a specific route of mine that i take took approx 2 hrs and 45 mins by bus where by motorcycle i can arrive in 45 mins, and by car in 1 hr 30 mins. So there's also that to put into consideration. Love the vid tho mate
Hey there! Thanks for sharing your experience and glad you like the video! We post new videos like this one every week by the way. Would love to see you subscribe ✨
I live in Germany. For me, the time lost in transfers and first/last-mile connections is was kills public transit for me. My commute to work by car is only 20 minutes, but by tram/train it is 45 minutes. I am not willing to sacrifice that time.
Almost 1 hour less traveling on workdays is a positive, Also living in Germany I use the 49 Euro Ticket. The money not spend on everything owning a car loosing value right after purchase, insurance, maintenance + parking fees should be evaluated. Public transportation for sure needs improvement. So does rethinking of options. Shared riding, Car sharing, speed limitations + save bike lines would be things to lessen the amount of single drivers.
It's not exactly lost if you know how to spend efficiently. I personally use my time in tram to either answer work emails (so it's already counting as working) or read the book. In summer I more often use bike, which I consider a physical training, which I still want to have 2-3 times a week, so another thing checked
And car? That's quick, but basically wasted time
@@qj0n Depends how crowded your type of transportation is. When I used to take trains in a city, they were overcrowded af. I can't do anything in this time, except rethinking my life choices, if choosing a workplace 40km away from my home was a good idea.
@qj0n it's nauseous to read/write in a car for many ppl and public transport is even more "jumpy" with much less sitting space (except long distance trains), besides, what about the rush hour, when everyone goes to/from work and is squished shoulder to shoulder? Nothing productive can be done in those conditions, except clutching your bag to the chest & trying not to fall~
@@BLAQFiniks well if you're a senior that might be the only way to get a seat on public transit.
Falling that is - as evenyone else will not be in public and absorbed in whatever device they are carrying.
"You can only put pressure on car drivers if you have good public transport alternatives ready"
Yeah tell that to the belgium goverments, because they didn't get that memo.
Exactly the same in the UK. Charge more to use cars but provide absolutely no alternatives in the form of any investment in public transport so instead all people do is drive cars exactly the same amount and pay more for it
They don't care about you.
Cars are about 0.5% energy efficient. It is madness that this is the dominant mode of transportation in almost every city in the world. The automotive and oil/gas industries are the only winners when we design cities that give people no choice but to drive.
I gave up my car over 20 years ago shortly after moving to a part of town with good walkability, transit and car sharing for those few times a year a car actually makes sense. I would never dream of owning a car again.
@@mostlyguesses8385 Efficiency and Economy is not about how much money will buy, mind you.
And of course cars are very ~convenient~.
The whole thing about turning around the climate death spiral we've got going is about willing to give up convenience in order to be efficient and economic.
And thereby not killing everyone.
@@mostlyguesses8385 You're only talking about yourself, and try to apply that to everyone. You're also talking about a cost that's one of the most subsidised expenses you have, not to mention the environmental cost you dump on everyone else. And on the other end, excluding taxes just to make your numbers look better? And excluding buying the car, maintenance, insurance, and other costs. Sure, any number can be low if you strip away everything that makes it higher. I mean, I could just counter that by saying that my travel expenses are still lower, at zero, because I get a transit pass through work.
I get stuff done while on transit. It's not "wasted" time, but driving a car would be, since I would need to drive the car, not do anything else. If you wasted thousands of hours on bus in college, yeah, you were an idiot, but you still didn't learn from it, so nothing changed.
You're missing out many other costs. Asides from upfront purchase of the vehicle, tax and insurance, you've also got infrastructure enabling you to drive - roads. This costs a lot of money, and you don't pay for it (not directly anyway). There are associated extra costs as a result of car-dependent design creating urban sprawl that is bankrupting cities. Then there are the costs of medical treatment, which increases due to increased air pollution and sedentary lifestyles, enhanced by driving.
Your ability to drive is only cheap because it is so heavily subsidised. If it wasn't, few of us could afford it. Buses, meanwhile, usually aren't, so no wonder they're frequently expensive and inconvenient (and stuck in traffic caused by cars).
@@samuelconnolly347 Not missing. I just didn't want to write an essay. I agree that there are all those costs and others as well: climate, oil wars... Many urbanist types know about those costs. Few seem to know just how wasteful cars are for energy use as well.
There's nothing "mad" about it. Pre-car the dominant mode of transportation were horses. Do you honestly think ppl opted to go WITHOUT a horse freely?
Both the horse and the car have multiple benefits for users not dissimilar between each other, btw~
Public transport is only good for childless ppl not carrying anything heavy ant tourists
Indonesian here, and thank you for showcasing our public transit infrastructure. Although its great and it reaches many areas, its not perfect and has a few drawbacks, mainly surrounding the buses.
The brt line often gets stuck in traffic by impatient drivers using the brt lane, and not just that, once a week i caught a governor using the brt lane
In Seattle we have a massive network of local buses and express buses, everything connects to the train stations and we’re growing our metro more than any other city in the country
I'm from Switzerland and where I live the public transport is great. I just recently had a discussion with a friend if good public infrastructure is scalable up to gigantic multi-million-cities and countries. The system in Jakarta seems very promising and well thought out.
Vienna has a yearly ticket for 365,- which you can use all modes of public transport with: bus, tram, train, subway.
Runs reliable and frequently and 24 hours on Friday and Saturday and holidays.
Hey Kai! Thanks for sharing 😎 How do you find that price? Is this a fair fare for Austria?
@DWPlanetA definitely is a fair price!
I am in Chennai, India, where metro trains are in the construction stages and have also been completed in some parts. When it completed it will be helpful to all people and also become affordable to many.
I live in Dublin, Ireland, and I've noticed the changes the local city council is trying to make. In recent years, a lot of parking space has been gradually removed, making it increasingly inconvenient to drive into the city centre. However, with the current 'Phase 3' changes to the public transport system, public transport in my area has become less reliable, and travel times during peak or near-peak hours are worse than ever. Although it's still too early to judge what the final outcome will be, hopefully, things will only improve from here.
Looking at M50, they have to try harder.
I used to commute by train, however it takes 1.5 hours opposed to 1 hour driving plus, I had more issues with trains getting cancelled/delayed than with traffic itself. Moreover, trains aren't cheap in the UK compared to driving, especially in my case that I have an EV and home charger. So until the situation with trains improves, driving is unfortunately the better option for me.
I would rather the extra 30 min on the train to relax instead of driving. The rail network needs investment to improve on time performance.
@@leeman1525 If there were no delays, I could agree. But it was common to have delays/cancellations which lead to an extra 30 minutes until the next train.
Also 30 minutes times two is 1 hour I am losing per day just commuting. When you have a family and therefore other obligations, that is a lot of time. Especially if it gets increased by delays/cancellations/strikes.
@@multienergico9299 Delay and cancellations seems to be surprisingly often in Europe, I wonder why? I can understand mainland Europe with a lot of interconnection between different providers, but UK as well?
As a reference, I don't think Indonesia or many other Asian countries has that issue. The problem is just capacity still lacking during peak times and poor connectivity at satelite cities, but I rarely heard about significant delays or cancellations.
Not exactly a relaxing enviroment even in empty first class. Extra 30mins in a place of my choosing anh day of the week vs public transport.
I mean those are things that can be fixed "easily".
Where I live, many agencies use one payment method (Clipper Card), which is great.
My biggest challenge in using public transit is the hours of operation: although I'm within city limits, the last bus of the evening that goes anywhere near where I live, stops at around 21.00h (9p.m. for those who don't think in a 24 hour clock system).
You've got it better than I do. In my town in California, the bus system stops at 6:30 pm and there's no Sunday service.
Just making driving a car more inconvenient and more costly will just make you get voted out. If I want to use my car, there will also be a politician who will promise me to get rid of the tax and people will vote for them.
I will happily get rid of my car as long as public transport is as good and reliable as my car is. Just making everything worse for cars won't convince me to switch to public transport.
Depends on the political structure...
There has been a recent series of polls and studies in France which have shown that, contrary to common belief (and "ambient noise"), a comfortable majority of people living in cities 50-100k and more in population, do support a reduction in speed and space allocated to cars in their neighborhood and city in favor of more pedestrian, micro mobility and cycling space, including fully pedestrianized and cycling streets or neighborhoods.
(They only polled people in cities 50-100k inhabitants and more).
So, politicians who reduce car space are not voted out because the population that decides on their seat is the one that is 60 to 70% in favor of these changes.
The opponents are very loud, but they are a minority. And the ones that are the most in favor of cars and against bike lanes or pedestrianized streets usually do not live and do not vote where car space is reduced.
This has been the case in Paris where the mayor is supposedly hated for the changes she enacted, but she's been reelected, and now neighboring cities are making the same changes.
Some pro-car politicians try to override local elected officials, like in Canada (Toronto), where provincial politicians try to revert the city's decisions to build bike lanes.
But this would be very difficult in France, and the local population would be furious if they tried.
Still in Paris, the city hall recently forced a reduction in speed from 70 to 50 kilometers per hour on the inner loop road (the "Périphérique", Europe's busiest road), which is located inside the limits of the core city and thus, in its jurisdiction.
Many complained about this decision loudly and in no uncertain terms, but the results are even better than expected.
Compared to the same week, one year before, there was a 2.6dB(A) noise reduction on average, a substantial reduction in pollution and particles, a 37% reduction in congestion, a 68% reduction in accidents, and the average speed by day remained pretty much the same at 37.3 kilometers per hour, minus plenty of traffic jams.
If it hadn't been "forced" by the city hall, this would never have happened because people don't like change and always refuse what they don't easily understand.
Most drivers, and even a good chunk of the people living next to this major super busy road, were convinced it would increase congestion, as the traffic principles are sometimes counterintuitive.
Thanks to the sometimes "heavy-handed" decisions of the city hall, there are now substantially more trips taken by bicycles in Paris than by car. And most schools no longer have cars running in front of them.
What the people shortsightedly want is often quite different from what they aspire to, and that's the difficult thing. Giving a mandate by electing an official that will deliver what the people aspire to even if it seems to counter what they want or think they want in the short-term.
@@KyrilPGNot in North America. For example Ontario Canada. Doug Ford Premier of Ontario Ra on a platform of building highways and not tearing down highway and he removed the yearly government fee for car registration and he won the election.
Since the Majority of people own cars in Ontario it was an easy platform for him since the people who don't own cars are a minority and he doesn't need them to win elections
@@Xenomorph-hb4zf That's why I mentioned Toronto and Canada. The Ford swinebros... they surely never set foot on a bike and resemble the humans in Wall-E, those like manatees on floating beds. (That's being mean to manatees, which are charming creatures).
I'm pretty sure most local Torontonians are OK with the bike lanes, it's the other people in Ontario which drive there who are not.
Removing the bike lanes will not improve traffic, it will only further increase induced traffic.
The drivers will feel like their beloved cars are "respected", because it's more important to them than the life of others.
It's terrible that the province can force the city to remove something that would improve the life of those living there in order to favor those that don't and just drive through, and thus transform the streets back into car sewers....
Toronto should do like Paris and hasten the connection of all bits of bike lanes into complete corridors to create de facto bicycle traffic.
A 3 car-lane street has less throughput capacity than a 2 car-lane and 1 double or 2 single bike lane street.
Thinking that the throughput of a street must be counted in number of cars is so 20th century. What matters is the number of people and a bike lane allows more people to pass than a car lane.
These politicians are not doing what they should, which is preparing the future and being longsighted, by giving people what they aspire to instead of what they shortsightedly want or think they want in the short-term.
Why should local inhabitants have to suffer from heavy car through-traffic from elsewhere all day long while being deprived of bike lanes for their own mobility and better air?
@@KyrilPG My point was more if it's taken to the extreme. There certainly is an of traffic reduction that drivers are willing to accept.
But trying to reduce traffic flow of cars down to a level that they are as slow as public transport (without improving public transport) will not make people want to switch, but rather to just get rid of those who have pushed it so far.
I'm not saying that traffic reduction is not necessary or that it's not a good idea. However, the car still _is_ a very important mode of transportation for many people.
@@KyrilPG I think the point is that specific streets should not have bike lanes, University, Bloor etc.
In my home town in northern Italy, the local government has always tried to penalize cars while not improving buses. The result is horrible. Sometimes you just need to use your car, because the area you need to reach is not connected or because you transport a heavy load. In those cases, wasting time zigzagging instead of travelling in a straight line, waiting for traffic lights which are not synchronized or looking for a car park does not help reduce traffic or pollution
Making transit free also improves usability: no need to spend minutes at a time lining up for a bus at the front door, waiting for someone to fumble with a card or change; no need to build train stations with a walled off area so you can have ticket gates; no need to mess about with convoluted systems when transferring, or having separate transfer gates.
@1:07 *I'm thinking this was General Motors and not General Electric?
Hey there! The film is from General Electric. You can find the full film here archive.org/details/GoingPlaces and at the end you can see the producer.
I live in Jakarta, every day I use BRT to work. Luckily for me because I get a special elevated corridor that allows my BRT to pass through the lane without obstacles from private vehicles. But I can imagine how tiring it is for BRT users who still have to share the lane with other private vehicles and have to travel during rush hour which will eventually be stuck in traffic jams. That is the most unpleasant feeling when using BRT. So, I think the use of public transportation cannot be fully used as a solution to reduce congestion in a city, because in fact with the increasing number of BRT users every year in Jakarta, at the same time the purchase and use of private vehicles also continues to increase, and this will make not only private vehicles stuck in traffic jams, but also BRT will be stuck in traffic jams. This is not what BRT users are looking for, and I will not be surprised if one day, if this condition does not change, then BRT users will return to using their private vehicles. But high appreciation to the government and all stakeholders involved, this is not an easy task.
ciledug lane comrade right here 🫡
@@putuananta4445 That's literally the failure of the Vietnamese BRT, when all kinds of motorbikes has to go in BRT lanes to escape traffic jams.
Hope your city won't be like that! I'm devoting for the metro though.
@@ngoclong2k5-hust its also common here in Jakarta, difference is that it's high risk high rewards situations to drive on the BRT lanes because police usually guarding the entrance and exit of the lanes
@@ngoclong2k5-hust Also a common occurence in Jakarta. The fine is hefty, though. Prepare to loose you lunch money for a week just to pay the fines.
Push & pull.
Take away road lanes & parking. Turn space taken from lanes and parking into housing to start addressing housing affordability.
Free transit. Frequent transit. Fast transit, infrastructure that forces private vehicles to wait for transit.
Densification, aka urbanism. Build mixed-use mid-rise building with commercial & offices on bottom two floors and residential on the top three or four floors. Demand that government build until housing vacancy rate is 8%. Speculators must learn that housing is for people not a get-rich-quick scheme.
"Speculators must learn that housing is for people not a get-rich-quick scheme." that one will be quite tough though.
People must learn that housing not a right but a privilege just like living in their favorite city they can barely afford anymore isn't. Build your own or buy your own. Otherwise pay up or move out.
@@shauncameron8390 So you don't believe in having students, or people working in service industries, or charities, or retirees, or interns, or musicians? Or are you proposing UBI so that everyone _can_ afford housing? It's just that a city with no working class _isn't going to function._
@@shauncameron8390 "housing is a privilege"
You think food is a privilege, too?
Too many people use cars because it's not hard to, even if it doesn't really benefit them or is worse than other options.
I knew someone who would drive to work and sit in traffic, often moving slower than someone who walks. They were also overweight and wanted to lose weight, but wouldn't entertain the idea of something like a bike (even an electric one) which would have been cheaper than thing (per trip), quicker and better for their health. They could even be a fair weather cyclist.
We also had some bike storage and a shower at work.
People's mindsets are just crazy sometimes on their comfort level of driving everywhere.
Nice to see Jakarta taking the lead on solving the urban nightmare.
Chilean here. We did all of this. 18 years experiment, 1 billion dolars per year cost. Some problems were fixed, like assaults and high speed accidents. But traffic jams are the new normality now
2:15 autos are “relatively safe” if air planes has the same accidents average no plain will have flight ever again
In Finland, we have a problem with public transport that machines, routes and stops are constantly being reduced in order to increase cost efficiency and profits as well as reduce travel time, but as a result the practicality and functionality of public transport deteriorates and the number of customers falls. In addition, the high ticket prices cut off the poorest and lowest-income passengers, while those who could afford and have the income to travel regularly on public transport also have enough money and income to buy their own car, which is more functional and flexible than public transport. And this leads to the need to once again reduce machines, routes and stops and raise prices in order for public transport to remain profitable and generate some profit instead of losses and expenses.
Another problem is that too many Finns are too fixated to criticize and mock countries, such as Estonia and Spain, where local public transport in cities is free for the poorest citizens, because it is somehow considered to be passivating for the poor and increases unemployment when passengers don't have to pay for transportation, which prevents and hinders the adoption of a similar system in Finland if it is even possible to adapt such a system to Finland under the current attitude atmosphere.
Reducing bus stops is good as the more bus stops the Longer the bus trip.
@@Xenomorph-hb4zf you should meet my city's planners.
Appearently neithor of you have heard of the disabled, seniors, people who get grocries or mothers with children!
You missed one point in the whole discussion - time to wait. We used to have busses in area I live every 30 mins. If you missed one, then you were at least 30 mins late - busses were empty. 2 weeks after frequency was adjusted to once every 10 minutes - busses started to be so full that sometimes it's difficult to enter it.
Integrated ticketing is key. You need to be able to change from bus to metro to bus and it all be considered as a single journey, because to you as a passenger it is. The fact that it’s using multiple modes is just a consequence of the complexity of travel in a large city
Public transport needs to be integrated, nationwide and relatively low cost. In the UK for example, decades of cuts to public transport networks have left many people, especially those in rural areas, either dependent on cars or practically isolated.
Here in Canada, it's municipal business, so forget getting to a city by bus on time/at all.
I aggre, knowing where the arriving bus will come is crucial. Not knowing of you are waiting for a ghost is terrible.
In Tokyo, they have maps of the train arriving, showing what carts are more empty, so you can stand at the best door to get a better wagon. Also, as a newcomer, they have colorsystems which is very easy navigable first time using it.
The very best way to reduce traffic is to encourage the use of PEVs. E-bikes are great, Scooters are better, and EUC are the best by far. EUC are very small, agile, quick, and have good battery range
What Jakarta needs to reduce congestion is congestion charge zone just like in London. The questions are, are the people ready with the policy that force them to leave their cars and motorbikes? Can a new governor implement this type of policy? That's the real implementation of win win solution for public transport usage.
No, just make public transportation *mandatory* and free of charge at rush hours for students, civil servants, and formal workers.
@lontongstroong yeah, that's a good option. Just add more buses to reduce headway interval from 5 minutes to 2-3 minutes during rush hour.
@@tbgrandprixengineering I think it could also unlocked one high-capacity mode that is currently infeasible - articulated streetcar/tram, which may be made possible due to drastically reduced congestion on the road. Such trams could also replace multiple buses to reduce congestion and bus queue at key interchanges.
I think something worth exploring is the accessibility for families/children. I live in Sweden and have a lot of friends who use public transport - until they have children. Then, it gets more inconvenient. Even if it's often free to board a bus if you have a child in a pram, it's more of a hassle with the extra walking, and changing from a bus to a train etc. It would be interesting to hear about possible solutions to that.
Hi Maria, that’s an interesting observation! Thank you for sharing ✨
Even with all it's problems, NYC has passed the tipping point where you can tell a native New Yorker by the fact that they simply never got a driver's licence. It is like the example of how much neglect a system can tolerate without passing over into the 'just drive instead' choice.
I live in Stockholm, and I just never got a driver's licence. Transit here isn't bad, but neither is congestion. Well, relatively speaking.
This is an incredibly insightful video. Writing from Nairobi, one of the biggest takeaways is just how intentional cities need to be to make this work for everyone. At the heart of it seems to be the need to understand user needs, motivations and priorities and then to invest a lot in planning around connectivity and other aspects that inform what a sustainable, livable city is. I would walk, cycle and use public transport over driving if there was reliable, affordable, safe and decent public transport infrastructure
BRT has its limits, Bogota is a great example of that. It should be one of many tools for public transport but not the main one.
yeah you can see in the video too that the brt already looks pretty overloaded.
I live in Dresden and I think our public transport system is pretty good. Still, when I have a distant from one end to another, by car it's 15min, by tram it's 50min. I think for time reduction, there is no solution, cause they need to stop for people to go in and out.
A real time info in the DVB-App would be amazing!
Thank you for the video!^^
Hey Lawrence! Thanks for sharing your experience and glad you liked our video. Would love to see you subscribe - we publish new videos every week ✨
aah yes, pay more to use your stuff, that will turn out great. If cars are so much more expensive and you make the other option literally free and still you don't see a shift, then maybe the problem is not money. Making a bad thing cheap doesn't change the fact that it's bad. Make the alternative better instead of forcing people to change.
Thank you for your healthy common sense and opinion.
I have no stigma against public, i think it should be the norm. But at least where i live (Lisbon diatrict) you'll never get me into opting for buses/metro when it takes me 1h40min while feeling like canned sardine to reach a place 20min away with a motorcycle ride.
The biggest problem i find is that: no space at all inside the bus on rush hour 🤷🏻♂️ that won't cut it for me. Throw all the taxes you want
The problem in EUrope is the outdated Infrastructure... in Asia you have clean trains, clean stations etc.
In Berlin, it is smelly, crowded and hot (no Air Condition). Oh did I mention slow? I am usually taking the same time in an air-conditioned, quiet car (even with traffic) than I take on public transport.
To calm everyones nerves, I am driving electric, charged with renewables
It's normal to take the same time. That's the Downs-Tomson paradox. It takes the same time to drive from A to B in a town than to take public transit.
People take cars as long as it's quicker. But the more they use their cars, the slower their trip becomes. Until it reaches the time it is done in public transit.
If you improve the cover of the public transit, you'll make driving more effective. Funny thing heh? And the worst your public transit, the worst it is to drive.
@marcbuisson2463 interesting, haven't thought about it this way
@@89DerChristian The opposite also works: the worse you make things for cars, the more people will take public transit. As long as the service is at least decent.
It also has long run consequences, with making suburban developments lifestyles less valuated, and bringing wealthy people and middle class back near transit nodes and employment.
Funnily enough, people value tend to not like spending a lot of time in commute.
yeah, but that is Germany not the whole EU or even Europe.
hop over the border into The Netherlands and you will have a way more modern and pleasant experience.
electric trains, electric busses, WIFI and airco on both, often a bus of train each 30 minutes in each direction, most stations are kept clean etc.
Germany is very much alike the USA when it comes to car culture
I am really happy about public transportation in Jakarta. It's frequent, reliable, cheap, punctual, accessible, and reaches the densely populated areas which are organically formed decades ago without city planning (the kampung). KRL, MRT, LRT, BRT, TransJakarta medium buses, and MicroTrans, all can be accessed using only an e-money card issued by various banks in Indonesia. you only need a card to access all of them, and it's really cheap. The service providers are doing a great job. I hope the numbers can really grow sixfold by 2030. Thank you, Deutsche-Welle, for this well-researched video. Looking for more educating contents.
Hey there! Very glad to hear that you liked our reporting. Thanks for sharing your experiences. To not miss any of our upcoming videos, subscribe to us ✨
I think I heard in Finland they were trying this idea of on demand bus routes. The routes would get automatically generated as people entered in an app where they needed to be picked up and where they wanted to go. I think that's a great idea. I guess it is a bit like uber but for public transit.
This exists in Baden-Wurttemberg in Germany where I live. Some less popular rural routes have 'Rufbussen' (call buses) where you ring up an hour in advance . . .
Imagine with self-driving buses...
Worth mentioning the Dutch approach to biking, by analogy. They've done a lot of work to make biking safe and convenient, but that also include making driving inconvenient for urban trips, the "redesign your city" mentioned briefly in the video. Modal filtering means that bikes have direct routes, cars have to go around. People will bike when it's the fastest way to get where they're going. Same with transit, which can mean bypassing traffic and more direct routes. Also, frequency frequency frequency.
I really dislike arguments like "free public travel doesn't help reduce traffic jams, because people take the bus instead of bike".
For the sake of sanity: why not make long distance public travel (like trains) free and short distance cheap, so people still pick bike over bus when they can, but choose train over car. Very few people take the bike for distances over 20km, so making the train free would have little impact on people switching bike to
train. You *could* also make the train cheaper, but IMO it'd be a waste to uphold payment systems and keep checking tickets.
As it stands now in my own country, people pick car over train for three main reasons: time, convenience and money. The train is more expensive than petrol for a small car, even when you drive alone. That's just insane, because it means the train can only be cheaper when you ditch your car entirely. People might ditch their car when they get used to public travel, but most won't even try public travel because paying for both your car (maintenance, taxes) and public travel is way too costly.
As a Tallinner, I was a bit confused about the "cyclers went to buses" argument since we had literally zero bicycle infrastructure in Tallinn before 2020. Only a few kilometers of separate bicycle lines perhaps but that's it. Most people who cycled did it after work as a hobby or sport. Now, as the city is building new bike lanes there are so many more people who choose to commute via cycling. Visually it seems like the number has tripled.
10:36 The transport system in my country, The Netherlands, get's a lot of criticism from my fellow countrymen. But when you compare it to other countries, it's not so bad. Sure, it can be expensive. But most trains, busses, metro's, trams, etc. are on time for around 90% of the time. And on time means within five minutes of the scheduled time. And even if it's late, you can check the current position within most of the transit apps, you'll see the fares and you can check-in with a bank card, your phone or an dedicated chip card. This makes traveling with public transport, which I do multiple times a week, pretty enjoyable here.
The problem in the Netherlands is that service is infrequent and delays are pretty common. 89% of trains is on time. This sounds pretty good, but in reality it means that if you commute by train, on average you have at least one delay per week.
I lived in Japan for a year. Their punctuality is above 99% and 18 - 20 trains per hour is normal.
they can hire Not Just Bikes as consultant
I live in The Netherlands and they have figured it out. The public transportation is easy, comfortable and it works. In the neighborhoods in the cities, everything is about 20 minute walk or an easy bike ride away. We have a car, but it is easier to take a train to the airport, to bike or take a tram to various parts of the city because it is faster than driving. In the rural areas it is harder to rely on public transport, but they ALWAYS have bike paths that link up the cities and countryside perfectly.
Some of these example have different situation and climate. Greater Jakarta for example need to service 32 million people, totally different situation compared to typical european cities with 5 million people. Other than that there's the climate. Biking or walking in 35 degrees celcius at 90% humidity is not a fun thing to do.
@@bltzcstrnxsome will say the same for cold and yet the Netherlands is far from a Mediterranean climate...
I think its easy. If you have to pay for public transport, you want to use it, that it "pays off".
In Germany where I live, you can opt to pay a monthly fee (currently 49 euros) which covers any and all your public transport usage throughout Germany - buses, trams, S-Bahn and regional trains . . .
@@jamesneilsongrahamloveinth1301 Ich weiß. Aber wäre es ganz kostenlos würde keiner es verwenden, weil man Dinge erst wertschätzt wenn man etwas dafür zahlen muss. Natürlich muss dieser Betrag auch so sein, dass er für alle leistbar ist. Also so wie in Deutschland eh perfekt.
Driving is also heavily subsidized. Roads, traffic lights, city parking are all immensely expensive, but somehow given out for free.
By comparison, public transport is already so cheap and efficient, that it is impossible to subsidize it enough.
You're right, people think that car infra is free for the public funds That's the typical thinking of carbrains.
The big issue, atleast in America, with the car. Is the awful land use we have with them is a big cause of the housing crisis. Giant parking lots and massive stroads mean way way less and convenient housing is not being built.
Whoever thought making transit free _without_ improving its performance would be a winning strategy.
5:21 remindes me of a very dark time of history in the US and South Africa 😮😢
Public transport will never be better than individual transportation. Rather than figure out how to force people into public transport, figure out how to reduce the impact of individual transport. Win-win.
Many comments that stated the things that are necessary for people to give up cars for public transport, chiefly reliability, frequency and well developed network. Otherwise, it is unusable. I was in Kansas City this year, the trams were nice, but they only cover mostly one main street. The buses go far, but for a ride that took 10 minutes on a Uber, took upwards of an hour to get there... not counting how long the wait times were.
Always though the extra time spent on transit was for the "love of transit" - isn't that somewhere in the "planning rules".
Yeah, I'm in North America too 😢
This is one of the best videos out there on practical implementations of public transit. Great work.
Wow, thanks, Chris! Have you seen our video 👉 'How to make traffic better, not worse' ua-cam.com/video/AR7caWQvWBQ/v-deo.html ? If you like this kind of content, subscribe to our channel-we post videos every Friday! ✨
What reduced me using my car every day was working from home. Rather than trying to make people travel from A to B in a different way, why not work to remove the need to travel altogether for as many people as possible? Frankly most white collar workers don't need to go to an office.
The best public transportation I have ever seen is in Iquitos Peru. Cheap, quick, reliable, and goes everywhere you need to go
Public transport in UK is expensive... It's more a case of "pick your poison."
For me, I don't take public transit in most areas of the US because the service frequency and coverage just isn't there to begin with. Even when I was still living south of San Francisco, not even 2 miles from the Caltrain station, I didn't ride transit much because the bus service intervals were 30 minutes from the nearest stop a few blocks away. If it was after 7 PM, then the service intervals were 1x per hour. Unacceptably bad service coverage, so driving is naturally going to be the best way to get around, even if I didn't feel like driving either.
I'm all for drastically increasing transit here in the states, but unfortunately I don't see it ever getting the proper taxpayer funding like how it's done in many European countries. Even Sydney, Australia, a major city and metropolitan area known for its driving culture has far superior public transit compared to almost anywhere else in the United States.
People, the main reason for car ownership is not just convenience etc, it is primarily exclusivity, not having to share the space with others. Thats why even if it is inconvenient most will drive rather than take public transport.
Exactly, no regular person cares about the big picture „efficiency”, comfort is the key, and that’s where cars will always be on top
Funny cause we love to go to crowded malls, work with others in offices, go to bars, restaurants and plazas TO be around others and yet when it comes to transportation even if it's just 1km we must not share the space. I wonder if they studied the psychology behind it.
@@SandroAntonucci87 For me, it was not wanting to be around zombies (people drugged out of their minds). I took the bus to a nearby community college almost a decade ago during the summer session. It was awful taking the bus. Its only 7 miles (~11 km) away and 2 towns over but it took on average of 70 minutes to get there. And certain stops were full of shady looking people who reeked of a variety of unpleasant smells.
@@JJFlores197 USA right? You mentioned zombies. I think you have a bigger problem that happens to affect transit.
What makes transport good is reliability, convenience and speed. If public transport can just be considerably quicker than driving then it will get a lot more competitive
Low hanging fruits to be tackled:
1. Eliminate parking minimums
2. Redefine LOS to mean movement of people instead of vehicle
3. Abolish zoning (or make it very similar to Japan's zoning laws)
buses with separate lines call for a switch to trams which are 4x more energy efficient
Jakarta's residence here. As Indonesia is not a high income country, most people cannot afford a public transport. As you see in the statistic, 3 million cars and 17 million motorcycle, the population of the metropolitan Jakarta is 32 million. The challenge is to increase the capacity of public transport first before making people ride on it.
public transport is cheap, how come they cant afford?
Pls😂 if transjakarta only cost rp 3500 wdym its more expensive than car?
@@anindariskaaprilia7034
You are not thinking total costs at the end of the month.
Consider just these 3: food along the ride, suitable clothing, stress.
I live in Toronto which ranks #3 in the world for traffic congestion. There has been a good amount of progress. much of it still underway to improve public transport and support for other alternatives to cars such as bike lanes. Sadly what is being done only scratches the surface of what needs to be done, and continually faces heavy opposition. Particularly from car drivers who get offended with every effort to make alternative forms of transport more viable.
If they made TTC free instead of spending more money on highways, that would probably improve the situation though, don't you think?
@@noiseshapes The video here suggests that making it free won't help much. Fares could be lower mind you. The real problem is decades of poor funding, which has cumulated into some serious maintenance issues which is causing an immense number of delays and shutdowns.
@@noiseshapes Maybe if it was cheaper, cleaner, and more reliable. Also the stations are still straight out of the 90s.
One thing that wasn't discussed much is the danger of public transportation, at least the perceived danger. I am from NYC and I can see why people become afraid of taking public transportation because of the amount of homeless people that end up on the trains and defecate in their pants right next to you, maybe they have a rampant infestation of bedbugs or scabies that you might get on you, or they will take off their pants and urinate right in front of you, also there are cases of people who bring weapons onto the bus or train every once in a while, or the possibility of terrorist attacks, and once I saw an old Chinese guy get beat up by a group of kids from the street, back in the old days people would get pickpocketed or robbed, the only reason that doesn't happen so much now is because the city is more wealthy and welfare systems are better and also because of security cameras but I don't think those are actually much of a deterrent
that's a USA problem
@@pixelmaster98 That is a problem which has the potential to happen anywhere, people should look at the USA as an example of a country which has been doing public transportation for a very long time and take lessons from our experience
@@spacemonk26 "USA as an example of a country which has been doing public transportation for a very long time"
mate the US public transit is notoriously shit compared to other countries. And the same goes for the US' homelessness problem.
If you invest in a thing, and make it work right and make it affordable to ALL, then more people will use it and the increased traffic will both decrease space and opportunity for bad actors to monopolize the space, but you also save money on more extreme measures to protect it. Such savings can be reinvested into the social safety net, which results in fewer unhoused and hungry people, which reduces crime, which reduces bad actors using the space, etc etc.
@@spacemonk26 the only lesson other places have to learn from public transit in the US, is how not to do it.
it's often old stock (looks like something from the last century), way to infrequent, barely any dedicated transit lanes so they get stuck between the cars, etc.
Kuala Lumpur started to experiment with Bus only lanes and it has dramatically increase ridership. They're now looking into expanding these lanes into more areas of KL.
Overall, it was a success. For last-mile connectivity, there is a mini-van service that helps to connect the areas the bus does not service.
There is no opposite of induced demand. Cutting lanes just makes traffic even worse. For a real life study, take a look at the Gotthard Tunnel. It follows that school of though and is limited to a single lane per direction while being part of a two lane highway. Of course, this causes huge traffic jams basically every weekend and during holidays. But even with 4h delays around the Easter holidays, for example, this still does not prevent people from taking their cars for a short 4 day trip.
Of course, this has plenty of other side effects, such as people trying to bypass the highway along small roads. Or people traveling to another destination that do not even use the tunnel, being stuck in that traffic. The Swiss now expend considerable effort trying to manage the traffic by closing on-ramps and even closing off-ramps as far as Erstfeld (20km away).
That school of though fail to consider the whole trip. If someone cannot reach their destination without a car, or it is very inconvenient to be there without a car, or if they have trouble leaving home without a car, or they have a lot of luggage, or people will be limited to the time of travel (like only during the day, not in the evening)...people will still drive.
But continuing driving, in this case, is true because it is winteractivites, no? A car is more useful for the comfort of those trip. But in my opinion, induced demand is still very real, and taking the train is always an option and I bet they keep filling the trains up. One more thing, the speed of having only one lane is reduced which drastically decreases car crashes. More lanes wouldn't help Gotthard and not Fehmarn either, for that matter, and in turn Swedish alcohol consumption haha.
@@simonaarflot4743 More lanes definitely would help the Gotthard tunnel. The traffic is flowing freely before and only stopping because of the artificial bottleneck. You do not improve anything by introducing a bottleneck, you need to provide attractive alternatives. They do the heavy lifting and will actually improve things.
I for example go to Switzerland for mountaineering. While most places can be reached without a car, it is often a very time consuming process or very limited. For example, the Furka pass can be reached by 3 buses a day from each side. If I am going for an alpine climb, I definitely will not make it back in time.
Also, the tunnel, as it is right now, is a safety hazard as both lanes are in the same tube. They are currently building a second tunnel. Not because of that, but because the old tunnel is in dire need of repair but closing the tunnel entirely is not an option. In the far future, they plan on having each direction in its own tunnel, but still artificially limited to a single lane.
There are lots of cases brought up about traffic calming that makes traffic better. So the reverse of induced demand does work. Not in every case, but it does. It also depends on how viable alternatives are. But there's also that inside cities or anywhere with frequent intersections the amount of lanes simply don't matter. The capacity of a single lane is higher than an intersection in almost all cases.
I don't think a bypass to no particular destination can be used for a induced traffic study
@@SandroAntonucci87 You obviously have no clue what the Gotthard tunnel is about. It is one of the major north-south routes across the alps, with Switzerland having only the San Bernardino as an alternative. It is not just a bypass.
But we can extend the comparison to other cases as well. For example, Switzerland has some places where you load your car onto a train and travel through a tunnel (e.g. because the pass is closed in winter). Capacity is obviously very limited, still we see people queuing up for many hours on such train ferries. It is the lack of suitable alternatives that causes people to wait 2-4h
What were not mentioned in this video but plays major role in the rather rapid growth of public transport use in Jakarta were:
1. extensive and rapidly evolving route development and management
transjakarta are doing extensive research on exploring hotter areas and never afraid to lose money on introducing new route with less riders. on unsuccessful route, they simply stop servicing it and reuse existing fleet on a newly developed route to have better rider number per route efficiency. to picture this, it is important to note that each of the 14 corridors(major route) they service, they have 3-7 alternative routes. example: corridor 1 route 1A, 1B, 1C. few corridors like corridor number 7 have alternative route up to W. Some of the cancelled one even raked up to ST.
2. various size of buses
on the busier part of the city with access to 4-5 lane roads and special bus stop infrastructure, they used road-trains (double length bus chassis with 1 motor). on a high volume but short travel distance traffic where majority of the road users use motorcycles and mini ute(suzuki carry, toyota hilux single cab/hilux champ, mitsubishi l300), they used medium bus and 6 wheeler bus. on development routes they use 4 wheeler bus. and on the residential area, they use tuk-tuk sized mini van as the first and last miles feeders.
3. flexible daily fleet numbers and routes to accommodate volumes and destinations
when rush hours come by, transjakarta adds the number of operating fleet. few of those extra buses has special routes that stop only at certain high volume and high interconnection transit bus stop, skipping the low riders bus stops and detouring via lower traffic highway/tollroads. few other of them service the routes in which riders have to takes 2-3 buses to get by, thus reducing the congestion of buses coming to and from the interconnected transit points. keeping the transit points low volume cause dramatic difference since the bus are programmed to stop longer at transit points to accommodate more people hoping on and off the bus compared to regular bus stops. keeping away the bus from transit points and skipping a few stops are also very important to keep the end-to-end travel time much more reliable and consistent.
4. accesible reliability (on development)
transjakarta operators are developing a system to live track buses thats accessible by public-not only riders, this system are also useful to estimate bus departure time and travel time. however this system is still very inaccurate and almost not any better than no system at all.
5. privatizing the day-to-day operators
the people that do the operating, development, maintenance, r&d, and other day-to-day operation are private entity separated from state official. even though it is a state-owned enterprises, the people running it arent there for a short rinse and repeat cycle like elected officials, they are also bound to set of principle, KPIs, and goals exclusive to the corporation. this operators are not political tools. they are not focused on spending yearly fiscal hand-out like a government agency and behave more like a corporation that treat the operations like a healthy, profitable, sustainable, and growing service based business.
apart from this, bus-based public transport in Jakarta is still not the most reliable form of transport in travel time, often quite uncomfortable on rush ours due to over-capacity, and still somewhat more expensive than owning your own motorbike (especially factoring in the fuel price, sense of safety, freedom of movement, and the flexible use of a motorbike; keep in mind the majority motorbikes of Jakarta and south-east Asia are mini pit-bike/mini scooters/and mopeds)
If Jakarta put trams in those busways then they'd be able to carry more people, more people would want to use them as a tram is a nicer experience, and it'd be nicer for the environment - I imagine the pollution is pretty awful there.
Not necessarily. There might need to be conducted a study in order to determine which form of public transport is suited best for that specific corridor. In Bogotá the mayor wanted to build a tram across an important avenue, but after studies considering factors such as street width, frequency of intersections, stops and interconnectivity, BRT was favored and allowed to move more people than with the tram. The discussion doesn't have to be necessary as to which mode of transit is best, but rather what system is suited best for that specific corridor.
Buses that run in dedicated lanes, in particular, can be pretty big, and they can be electrified (again, spending most or all of their time in dedicated lanes simplifies this). They're less disrupted by construction than trams and are more easily able to fan out at the ends of routes to provide varied service.
I say all this in the interest of balance, I'm actually a rail person myself, but I'm increasingly persuaded that BRT makes all kinds of sense in some contexts, and certainly as a bootstrap.
You can also use 24-meter double articulated electric busses which have the same effect but don’t need expensive investment into rails
Jakarta actually built a brand new metro underneath the TransJakarta busway, it opened back in 2019, and expansion is still ongoing.
@@stephenspackman5573 Well... for us Vietnamese though, we need metro lines for most of the city though, BRT is very inefficient here.
In 2016, the first BRT line in Hanoi (Giảng Võ - Láng Hạ - Lê Văn Lương - Tố Hữu) was opened. And as soon as 2 - 3 years later, Hanoi realized that this line is a massive failure.
The BRT line itself has a capacity of a few thousand dwellers per day, which is ABYSMAL compare to the tens of thousands of dwellers going through this route.
And the BRT does have a separate lane, which is good... until you realize that it's not elevated. And since this is a very important road to go to other district like Nam Từ Liêm and Hà Đông, combine with the very bad land use here (Lê Văn Lương road has 33 high-rise apartment complex with just 2 lanes for traffic, without BRT), this goes onto a very bad situation every single day. Motorbikes have to run into the BRT lanes to escape the f**king immense traffic jam here, making BRT absolutely dysfunctional.
And so no one use that BRT lane often, because it's generally faster to go on a motorbike (to escape traffic jam) than to go on that line. And it makes Hanoi government losing a massive amount of money, up till this day. This will be removed in 2026 (I guess, because that was an project with ODA capital for 10-years long).
We'll need metro for such a densely populated, but also very spread out city like Hanoi. And considering that metro lines here were plagued with slow construction speed (because of all the massive capital and land we have to get for this), I won't think that BRT will ever solve the traffic problem in Hanoi.
In recent years though, metro lines have been building faster, and there's a significant down in car and motorbike usage ratio after the Nhổn - Cầu Giấy line was opened in August, so I'd think the situation can be better for the next years. But with that much population that we have to transport, we'll use ARTs, not BRTs anyway.
1 integrate bus and metro
2 make one app to show real time data and to plan journeys
3 while changing from bus to metro and vice versa, trolleys should be available for people carrying luggage
4 improve accessibility and safety (of both people and property)
I don't use the public transport, because it's takes twice the time for the same way.
Plus my car is broken less often than the trains and busses in my city. So I save even more time and have less to worry about when I go by car.
Stuttgart gets it right - joined up thinking - buses, trams, S-Bahn interconnected - modern vehicles - a brilliant information app - Stuttgart never ceases to amaze me. I don 't have a car, by the way . . .
Isn't that what happens in every German city? I've been in Stuttgart and I think it's comparable with München?
The future is Public transport ⚡
Public transport is fine when you need to go to the office of to University by your self.
But , when you decide to go on a vacation to the beach and you have a small family + a dog + 4 bags + a baby stroller - you will need a car .
When you go to the beach by car you have the full freedom to decide when to leave and drive where ever you want , unlike with a Public buss that comes once an hour
@@legolas7r Just rent a car for this, also, a lot of citys have subways with large enough car's to fit what you want
@@legolas7r and then you arrive at the beach and all parking spots are full, because the whole city had the same idea.
or you have to pay around the same amount of money to park at the beach as you would have spend on the public transit journey.
and while you're baking at the beach, your car is baking at the parking lot, so on your journey back home you're sitting in an oven on wheels.
while if you take the train you have plenty of space for all those things you want to take with you, and for the last kilometers you take a bus from the train station to the beach.
if public transit is bad of course people will take a car.
if you make public transit frequent, pleasant and connect the points where people go/come from, less people will use cars
Barcelona metro gets you to the beach and back.
In Montpellier (France), there's a tramway line, then a beachcomber bus that's pretty frequent.
Going there by car is quite bothersome, as you'll have to find a parking spot and spend a long time in traffic.
@@legolas7rYou go on vacation every day? Transportation plans don't usually account for sporadic trips.
In Odisha , India's Mobus system is really good , it has built an app that shows real time location of buses and stoppage and routes and much more ..... proud to belong to India
The barrier to use of public transportation usage is rarely cost, with ticket prices being nominal. If anything the ease of acquiring tickets is more a barrier than cost itself.
What matters is frequency and reliability, that draws people out of their cars more than not having to pay a small price. For example I would never drive in New York or Paris during rush hour, because its usually faster to take the train, or at least less stressful.
Similarly if transit is unreliable or is only every half hour then people will take their cars even if it's free.
Right, as pricey as I think transit is in Amsterdam compared to everywhere else (even some parts of America), I doubt I'd ever rent a car instead on a future visit.
Great video. In Brussels, the government hasn't been taking great care of infrastructures for the last forty years because they don't want to encourage car use, but they haven't worked on improving public transport in the meantime. The last couple years they have made changes to the roads, often turning two car lanes into one car lane and also also making new or bigger bicycle lanes. As for public transport, the prices keep going up, previously free train stations car paking lots (outside of the city) have become paid parking lots after renovation, going in and out of the city with public transport is difficult, they close small train stations.
At the same time though, we have a new tram line (line 10) just opened, and a new metro (line 3) (kinda, maybe it's just an expanded tram line 3 so is it really new...), along with lots of renewals of tram infrastructure, so I'd say we're pretty lucky with what we've got. Not to mention the cycling infrastructure...
It is true that things are taking longer then they should (cycle bridge overtime by 600% for example), but isn't that the case with all projects nowadays?
@The_Georgi0 As long as you're staying in Brussels, yes there are good things put in place, although there are still places with almost no coverage like parts of Uccle. But as I mentioned, getting in and out of Brussels is still complicated. The easiest way is often the train, but there are trains and train stations that are being cancelled. Getting to the train station can be complicated if you don't live in a bigger city and train stations parking lots are slowly being converted to paid parking lots which isn't helping people commute. I live ten minutes outside of Brussels and I do take public transport when going downtown, but I use my car to go into Brussels.
@@killiansirishbeer Thats fair thx for the reply :)
The only way to fix traffic is work from home. People can still own car, but don't have to be on the road everyday during rush hour.
Not everyone can work from home as some jobs cannot be done remotely.
@@shauncameron8390 Of cause, but most traffic jam around the world is due to office commute to and from down town / city center during rush hours. Allowing work from home can ease like 50% traffic jam or even eliminate the jam in smaller cities. And at the same time, really reduce traffic pollution.
People will find a reason to drive anyway if you design your city around cars.
You just shift the time when it happens.
I can already picture bored people that were indoors all day that decide to go to the bar or mall at the end of the day all at once.
@@SandroAntonucci87 People will go out even not working from home. Work from home eliminate one huge chunk of traffic, without extra spending.
@@JSiuDev as I said it probably does but it can also induce other usages, so you'd probably just shift the time when it happens. Don't underestimate that our brains have been wired to think about driving whatever we want to move. So it's also a matter of livability and safety in cities. That wasn't mentioned in the video. If you design for cars you'll get cars no matter the reason.
One thing that often happens in large cities is that public transport is frequent and varied in the center, but scarce in the outskirts. If you live in the outskirts, and it takes you 15 min by car, even with traffic, to reach a centric area but 60min+ in public transport, it's bad planning.
Or no planning. Just planners collecting a paycheck.
By the way what would you think the time comparison shoud be for auto commute to pubic transit use? Here in North American practice is usually over twice as long by public transit.
Electric Bicycles could help here as well.
We sleep for hours at the time of traffic jam here in Dhaka, Bangladesh. It's relaxing.
😁
This should be obvious to anyone that knows anything about public transit. No one has ever said "I'd rather drive a car because I can't afford public transit." Make it convenient, frequent, and reliable and people will switch.
In Buenos Aires we have a pretty good public transport system, with dedicated lanes for busses, connected with train and subway routes, affordable and with AC!
I like the way you shows us the traffic from Jakarta. We are waiting to see how Bangladesh and India dealing with Public Transport thank you DW :p)
Public transportation problem here in Slovenia is that there is good connection just in cities and not for villages around
Hasselt also used to have free buses. They were great, especially for pensioners and youth. Made it far more appealing to just park at the edge of the city and hop on a bus from there. Now they're gone it's just easier to just drive straight to the destination or simply find an alternative outside of the city.
I think the elephant in the room, above all is safety on transport, and transport precincts! Many older people who are no longer able to drive, are not comfortable catching public transport.(Qld, Australia). We have 50 cent fares, which are a game changer esp with the current cost of living and there has been a decline of cars in the inner city.