Check out Brilliant for a fun and easy way to interactively learn new things with a 30-day free trial and 20% off an annual premium membership: brilliant.org/Streetcraft/
This is happening in australia to especially in Melbourne where in America you including roundabouts where we are getting rid of them, and replacing them with lights,
Been here since video 1, can’t believe you already have sponsors only 4 months in. Your quality and depth of your videos are amazing, keep up the great work!
6:23 Ironicly that interchange in texas (the I-35W / I-30 just outside downtown Fort Worth) isn't having traffic problems because it has just too many lanes, it's actually the result of something so, so, so much more worse. In fact, Its possible a few extra lanes in the correct places (meme moment unfortunately not intended) ironically could possibly fix it because the traffic being generated there is actually the result of another 3 interchanges all overlapping. (Texas-121/SPUR-347/I-35W) (I-30/US-287) (US-287/SPUR-280/I-35W) Heck if they simply remove/modify one of those 3 overlapping interchanges (and possibly the whole highway cross connection) they might be able to fix that clusterf*ck of traffic weaving problems which may allow for the reduction of lanes overall.
I'm consistently impressed with how clear and thorough your explanations are of these very complex topics! The clear logical progression through how we got here along with the great visualizations makes this feel like one of the most effective videos I've seen on this topic
This aint nothing but a analyti al date math algorythmic waste of time . None of this is necessary . How about learning when mot to crooss the street that'll save your life every time...
This ia just like the dams thatvare being removed all over the world because you are trying to restrict and prohibit the flow of life just like in the rivers
do you actually think that city planners, civil engineers don't already know all of this? the problem comes down to values. you can't tell people what they _should_ value (based on your own values, incidentally) and then expect them to thank you. you can't tell people what they want. people don't want these priorities. you can't tell business owners they need to open a grocery store that people don't want, or say "you all need to go to this closer store now, even though it's more expensive and has a lower selection than the one you get to on the highway". city planners, unlike city youtubers, generally realize that they can plan a city to accommodate what people value, but they can't plan a city to force people to value things. it's not 'if you build it, they will come', it's 'if people express interest in coming, they will build it'.
@@voskresenie- I'm not sure how accurate that is. Europe has made the transition in multiple places to accommodate walking, biking and using public transports, and there's been people against it. People generally don't like change very much. But if you go through with it, most will accommodate because that's not enough to justify moving elsewhere for most people. And in the end, if the change was a good idea, it'll show.
@@pierreclausse2166 That's the difference between Europe and the US. Europe's governments tell the people what they should want. Americans tell their government what they should do.
People seem to have a really hard time understanding that transportation is full of tradeoffs. The train of thought is most often "there's traffic, therefore more car capacity is warranted" - but this way of thinking doesn't consider the costs of road expansion. This video does the best job I've ever seen of visualizing what the relevant factors are and how optimizing only for one of them (like road capacity) comes at the expense of all the others. AMAZING WORK!
There's a big point you missed about building a lot of lanes: Width navigation (with your car). Changing one or two lanes on a highway is pretty easy and cool but crossing six to seven lanes is a nightmare. With the hypothetical 100 lane situation, the words "keep right" or "keep left" would lose all meaning. You wouldn't be able to tell the edge of the freeway or exactly which lane you're on unless you're on the extreme lanes since there is road and more road as far as you can view. Imagine you're in one of the inner lanes in pretty busy traffic. Now you need to get to your exit. Without a massive interchange that separately serves both the inner and outer lanes, you would probably be screwed. Also imagine the pressure on the regular highways that intersect with these since they have to bear the traffic of 50 lanes. TL;DR Don't do 100 lanes. It's a bad idea.
Germany figured this out a long time ago they use a dedicated road for traveling longer distances. For cities you take a single exit and then used side streets to get to the destination. In suburban areas it’s very common to have a separate freeway exit every 1/2 mile or less this causes congestion on the freeway rather than moving the cars off the highway onto side streets sooner. Lack of development planning means the cities will rely on federal or state funds to support their own lack of infrastructure budgeting and poor planning decisions.
I just moved to montreal, and my first day here I went for a ride to get my keys to my new apartment and was in a a bicycle back up. It was so great seening that many people out on there bikes and it immediately valided my decision to move here. The best part was we were still flying by the people driving, who were moving slower than the pedestrians.
@@liamnelski7083Apparently the same happens in the Netherlands as well. Too many bikes create bike traffic and jams from time to time. It's just that they clear up quickly, because in the worst case scenario you just pick up your bike and walk a little. The only way to pick up a car and move it is with another, specialized car.
I see pedestrian backup everyday, sometimes 3 times a day, in rush hour to and from the subway and on the shopping streets. Pedestrian backup is super common.
Pedestrian backups are way more common than you think. And judging by these other replies, bike backups exist too. The real creator of traffic is stupid, inconsiderate, unskilled, and impatient drivers. The people who follow too close, don’t speed up for merges, don’t leave space for merges, change multiple lanes at once, etc. Honestly, the best way to fix this issue is to emphasize things like this more in driving tests, and to penalize these sorts of driving infractions and not people exceeding an arbitrary speed limit on a straight road.
This dude is awesome and should be protected at all costs. This information it’s vital. I work for the Pennsylvania department of transportation and called a meeting to show them this video.
I consume a lot of similar content and found this to be one of the most consumable AND comprehensive (difficult balance to strike). I like how you introduced induced demand without terming it.
Awesome video! I just want to mention that decreasing speed does not always kead to slower travel time. It may reduce the "free flow" travel time (or as i like to call it, the "set google maps to depart at 2am" time) but it may not reduce the time during rush hour at all. In some cases, lower soeeds can actually lead to faster overall travel times.
Great point. In the Netherlands there’s talk of raising the daytime maximum speed back to 130 from 100, while it’s shown that travel times have actually reduced on a large number of routes after the speed limit was reduced.
Note that, at 3:17, the speed bar shortens when he explains that increased congestion leads to decreased speeds. So he's not talking about the posted speed limit, because the speed limit in that scenario certainly didn't decrease. He's talking about Distance / Time, purely mathematically. By that definition, speed does always lead to slower travel time (for one specific trip).
@@jellekoorn4184I’m pretty sure this is due to the fact that when people are traveling faster, braking or slowing down takes longer so it creates a chain reaction and essentially “ghost traffic”. So if people are all traveling slower, but more consistently it can end up being faster. (Think of it like the tale of the hare and the tortoise, slow and steady wins the race versus fast and erratic).
Weirdly enough, your last sentence is correct. If travelers go slightly slower and end up avoiding (almost) all tailgating, overall travel time is reduced. There's a video here at YT that shows point by point how this is a reality.
@@SergioDiaz-ek5qi there’s things to criticize NJB about, but I don’t think he’s ever gone as far as some general “car bad, bike good” mentality. A lot of the stuff he talks about is the same as in this video, just in a more snarky tone
@@lchap0506 I agree with NJB on a lot of things but he strikes me as a person who thinks he's always right about something. Its his tone, not his content or message even.
Move to a city with public transportation then. Problem solved. I'm the opposite. I lived in a city right after college and pretty much had to take the metro rail to work because of bad traffic and exorbitant parking costs. I hated it, so i moved to a suburban area, right on the edge where it turns to rural area, and work in a small town away from the city, I drive to work, I don't have a choice but I prefer it anyways, and there is very little traffic for me I am always heading the opposite direction of most others, away from town in the morning and towards town at night. You don't always have a choice of transportation where you are, so make the choice to go somewhere where you will be happy with your choices.
You hate your country for building roads? Please leave. There are plenty of other countries to move to I'm sure you'd love. Maybe Iran or China. I here Venezuela is nice. No one forced you into a car-centric lifestyle. You're free to walk, run or bike wherever you like.
@@LCRAVIAT1ON Are you not free to walk? Are bicycles illegal? What are you talking about? Yes, freedom is being able to go where you want, when you want, how you want. Maybe if you actually didn't have freedom you wouldn't be so cynical.
My town is installing new round-a-bouts. I can tell that traffic isnt building up as much, but there is one major problem. Nobody knows how to drive on them. Some treat it like a 4-way stop while others ignore all yield signs. They need to start teaching how they work in drivers-ed
I find it difficult _not_ to come to a near-complete stop when entering a roundabout, because you still have to look both ways: One way for cars and pedestrians, and the other way for just pedestrians (assuming there are sufficient islands to prevent people from drunkenly going the wrong way around in cars), and only _then_ look where you're going, so you can actually steer into the roundabout.
@@philipmcniel4908 that's actually, why cyclists on a bike lane or multi-use path should never go around a roundabout the wrong direction: Drivers entering the roundabout will only take a short glimpse to the right (looking for pedestrians, not for a much faster cyclists from much further behind) and then focus on traffic from the left.
In larger roundabouts, what you can do is to add a barrier to divert pedestrians so they cross on the leg before the stop line. That way you're splitting the task into three steps, watch for pedestrians first, then watch for traffic in the roundabout, and then watch for pedestrians when exiting the roundabout.
@@philipmcniel4908 when you get used to them you can navigate them without stopping. That's when the real efficiency of roundabouts comes into play. Source: I live in a country where every second intersection is a roundabout
Really well explained. I especially appreciate how you explained that induced demand doesn't scale linearly forever. That point is lost on a lot of people. There is a point at which we meet demand, it's just a hellscape that no one wants to live in - And your explanation was on point.
I have not seen any other urbanist UA-camr that can break down stuff like induced demand and competing priorities like you can. And it's all super entertaining to watch!
I don’t think I have watched a single video of yours that was hard to understand or stay interested in. The visuals are amazing, and it’s nice how you give realistic solutions on how something could change. Amazing.
After visiting Tokyo for a month, coming home to Oregon and driving was actually eye opening. I miss being able to get on a train and get to my destination without a thought. Driving has it's upsides, but they don't outweigh the downsides.
Amtrak’s entire cumulative budget over the last 50 years doesn’t even add up to what is spent in a single year on highways and roads in the US. It’s shouldn’t be a surprise theres a ton of traffic, the deck is stacked in favor of roads and cars, of course transit isn’t viable when it gets zero funding.
Exactly. I know many people who would be willing to take rail over flying and buses. Especially if we built bullet trains, it's totally possible to get from NY to Chicago in 4 hours which is basically the same time to fly, security checks, and leave
I've watched so many creators on these topics and your videos are just absolutely nailing it, the absolute best. The mindset shifts required. The framing, to make them palatable and reasonable. Not being antagonistic. Like I *LOVE* me some NJB but this here... this... I could share in a friendly chat with local government personnel. There's real power of change here. Not everyone can do this so well.
Great video! Seriously, this is a fantastic explainer of a complex topic. One point of feedback: At 7:57, you discuss how decreasing speed will increase travel times. When you say speed, the average viewer likely hears *speed limit*, and I think it’s helpful to address that head on. Because reducing speed limits doesn’t necessarily increase travel time; the critical metric here is average speed. It’s quite possible to reduce a road’s speed limit, say from 40mph to 25mph, and also reduce overall travel time. Your top speed will certainly drop, but your average speed may increase. And we still get all the safety benefits associated with lower traffic speeds. Those of us interested in urbanism likely understand this, but given that this video’s target audience is for a more general viewer, I think it’s important to go into detail on this particular topic. Keep up the good work!
There's a reason why the government prioritizes cars despite their proven harms. It's for the convenience and profitability of oil, auto, auto insurance, trucking, road construction, building construction, and real estate development industries. And when planners suggest new infrastructure for other forms of transportation or zoning and land use regs for mixed uses, a swarm of Karens and Darrens (NIMBYs) come out to public meetings to voice their implacable opposition.
As someone working in the building construction industry, we love apartments and mixed use buildings, but the zoning, reflecting the wants of the NIMBY's, doesn't allow them in most places.
All of the aforementioned have giant lobbies. Who is going to lobby for trains? Nobody because not enough big players will make any money off it. That's what it all comes down to. It's not just NIMBYism, because they don't want highways in their backyard either, it what will generate the most revenue for the most people with the most power?
I love how respectful your videos feel. They are mostly thing I have heard before, but presented in a clear and friendly way that some other channels sorely lack.
"Is preventing injuries and saving lives worth taking longer to get to our destinations?" I laughed out loud as soon as he said that. After that I just sat there in silence thinking that this really is the modern society. I mean why the fuck does this has to be even a question? However and in any way there could be less accidents anywhere, especially dense living areas like cities, it should be done. Afterall we are talking about LIVES, family members, mothers, fathers, kids, grandparents and the loss of any of them puts an enormous amount of stress and a whole lot of other things. Is it really that important to get in a 3 tonne pickup truck, that is not used as supposed, and hurry and risk someone's life just to get your big mac with fries 2 minutes faster. This is a really ridiculous example but realistic. I am happy to be living in the EU where public transport is widely adopted and even more grateful for newer regulations that are coming in place like the new 30k/h(18 miles/h for burger guys) everywhere in the city center in Amsterdam. I know(hope) he says this sentence sarcastically but damn this is awful.
Hopefully, things start to change. every time there is a car crash, we have to be aware that a crash is not just an accident; it happens due to the bad design of infrastructure and what the government prioritizes.
I don't think it's sarcasm. Too many Americans (and Canadians too) have accepted car crashes as a fact of life. Even if your example was meant to be sarcastic, there are people who unironically think that. Hell, a few months ago there were two teenagers who filmed themselves running over and killing a cyclist for fun. Some parts of the continent are coming around to their senses, but for most places I don't see that happening.
It's a legitimate trade-off, and pretending that choosing the safest option is always moral makers you come off as unserious. There's hardly anything in life that doesn't increase your chance of injury or death.
@@kanucks9 Except, as the video shows, rarely is it an equal trade off of time/convenience versus safety. In fact, there are plenty of jurisdictions worldwide that have achieved zero road deaths and injuries, and they didn't spend infinity money or reduce mobility to zero to do so. Mostly they just reduced car speeds to 30 km/h or less, first through laws and signs, and then by applying some basic infrastructure. In this case the safer option is so by far the better one (financially, environmentally, socially, heck even calorically) that the choice is incredibly obvious. We just have status quo bias and powerful special interests pushing on the other side.
The problem in the US is that a lot of non-motorists tend to be from "lesser-than" social classes and racial groups, whose lives and humanity are considered cheaper, less relevant, and ultimately expendable.
New video I'll share with everyone who gives a shit about why Im so annoying whenever they complain about traffic or parking. A concise summary of the problems we've created for ourselves. Please keep it up!
Among all the urbanist channels on UA-cam, your content provides hands down the best explanations both visually and in words for transportation and urbanism.
When the inevitable mouth breather commenter arrives saying “BUT MUH COUNTRY TOO BIG HAVE TO USE CAR” 1. Trains don’t get stuck in traffic. Especially high speed ones. They can get to places faster than cars. 2. Most people aren’t driving from Los Angeles to New York every day. Advocates for better transportation are talking about prioritizing local modes of transportation in populations centers, not plowing a random train line through a corn field in Iowa. 3. Places in the U.S. are far apart BECAUSE OF CARS and CAR INFRASTRUCTURE. The U.S. was built on trains and bulldozed for the car. Imagine how many more businesses, homes, parks, museums, schools, hospitals, etc. we could have if we tore down these wasteful 20 lane highways and interchanges for something that actually produces tax money instead of draining it and makes the surrounding community better.
And don't forget crucially, those that NEED to drive, or have to go to areas that require a car to get to, they still can! And it will be a more pleasant and quicker journey because the 90% of us that don't need to travel so far everyday have other options
Your traffic is the worst, I can speak from experience as someone who has been a frequent visitor to Toronto my whole life. And I don't say that in an insulting way, obviously I like the city alot as I visit it a lot, but yeah honestly the QEW all the way from Hamilton is a shit show, and don't even get me started on the international bridges (I come from NY). Buffalo doesn't have bad traffic because nobody lives here 😂😂😂
One of your best videos. I've been talking about urbanism and transit to relatives who love their cars and just don't get it (and constantly complain about traffic). You breaking it down into the value structures really helps, even with those who disagree.
Texas: "No we can't build places that allow people to live closer to where they work, shop, recreate, and socialize nor can we build safe bike lanes, efficient public transit, or protect pedestrians. That's too expensive and would be fiscally irresponsible." Also Texas: "Yes we lead the country in automobile and pedestrian deaths and just authorized hundreds of billions of dollars for more freeway expansions that won't be finished for another 50 years. That's called being fiscally responsible."
@@tonywalters7298 But of course! Using eminent domain to build a train would be communism. What’s next, gulags?? However, using eminent domain to bulldoze historic minority neighbourhoods and businesses to expand freeways originally built by bulldozing historic minority neighbourhoods and businesses is just the free market at work.
And the freeway expansions aren't just expanding existing freeways, Texas is also building new freeways such as I-69, I-14, and all their spurs and branches.
@@EdwardM-t8p That’s astounding. After TxDOT dumped nearly 3 billion into the Katy freeway in Houston and a decade of lane closures and construction to make commute times significantly worse, they’re still going to keep doing the same thing.
@@ShowLSWH Yeah, crazy, innit? The state wants to make every urban freeway into a clone of the Katy Freeway 6 lanes frontage, 10 lanes free, 4 lanes toll and still choked with traffic! If I didn't know better I'd say it was a conspiracy between the Texas GOP and the highway construction industry to cover the state with asphalt and engulf it with choking fumes.
Lack of public transportation in the US gets on my nerves a bit. In NH, there is a railroad that runs from Concord all the way to Boston, but it is only used for freight. In my town, which the RR runs through, there is a retired train station just a two-minute drive from my house. Of course, it would cost money to make that possible.
I actually don't think most people most of the time want to absolutely get places in the fastest possible way (ie - on roads with faster speed limits); what really upsets people in getting delayed or stuck in traffic. It's why people might take 30mph surface streets with a very predictable travel time over a 65mph highway but where you may or may not be stuck in 30 minutes of traffic
"people might take 30mph surface streets with a very predictable travel time" And then they anger the people living on the 30 mph streets. People love their cars, but everyone hates _other people's_ cars.
This is honestly one of the best urban planning videos I've seen. This is the video that underlies the planning factors of transportation, and how each of them are interconnected with each other.
If you want to decrease time to areive at work the variable isnt speed its thru-put Just so happens cars are the absolute worst thruput transportation option the only reason they're even viable is theyre the only option supported.
This video is absolutely amazing! It perfectly verbalizes everything I have learned over the past 3 years about urbanism and does a great job at explaining induced demand. I think I finally understand how adding more lanes results in more traffic. Thank you!!
7:12 You missed out a fundamental variable. If we reduce the size of the car, say focus on A and B segment (Micro cars) than yeah, maybe capacity can be freed up that way?
One wonders how far $41 billion per year would go for high speed trains. These construction costs tend to be optimistic, especially in places where expropriating land is expensive. Not that spending the money on highways is necessarily more efficient, especially if we consider the opportunity costs of people who don't own a car and couldn't apply for a job that's too far away.
You can start by running rail inside existing right-of-way for stroads and highways. You could run high speed rail within the center median of most US interstates with some simple concrete barriers, and it wouldn't require purchasing a single acre of extra land. A lot of urban areas have paved roads ready to run streetcars-- many cities even historically ALREADY had them, but they've been removed.
@@jeffhiner Not sure you could get high speed everywhere because of the grade and corners on highways, but it's certainly a good place to start. When you're traveling 300kph/180mph, cornering has to be really gradual.
@@nathanbanks2354 You probably couldn't get true high speed rail, but you might well get "as fast or faster than traffic and the speed limit", which is really the main target if you're competing with cars rather than with planes.
@@mindstalk It's great for light rail/commuter trains. I live in Montreal, and the REM line was built partially in the median of the highway including the center of the new Champlain Bridge. It's faster during rush hour and cheaper than parking downtown. High speed rail usually refers to inter-city travel, such as Paris to Lyon.
im right outside DC, and taking the metro-subway ($9 parking and two $5 trips) is the same exact cost as drving and parking downtown. So there's little incentive for me to use that option
Best youtuber at breaking down for people that are used to cars, why car centric infrastructure isn't good for them either - because it isn't good for society at all.
This is by far the best explanation for why we need to stop building cities around cars. At a certain point, cars provide no benefit for what we really care about (the time it takes to travel somewhere). It regularly takes 15 to 30 minutes to travel somewhere by car, because car centric infrastructure spreads everything out so much. So the benefit that cars are supposed to provide is lost. Yet, we still have to pay the hefty price for relying on cars. I love how clearly you laid this concept out; putting all the variables together and comparing them shows just how ridiculous car centric infrastructure is.
The solution too all big cities with traffic problems: modern trams 1. They have enough speed with other factors to be the same speed if not more than traffic 2. Although most cars are faster then trams, because of traffic, trams might be faster 3. Because trams have more safety procedures because they are public transit, they are safer. 4. It will decrease the distances between places because the areas that are serviced by the tram would be hubs for the city 5. Trams can be electric trams and trams are usually quieter. 6. Trams can also be thinner and just wider if they have their own tracks so it wouldn’t use land 7. Trams are cheaper then cars because it’s generally cheaper to use one and trams also run on one route and just have a few cables so it wouldn’t cost much
Yeah, the US is just different though. I live in one of the few old,pre war streetcar neighborhoods in my city. We have 3 full service grocery stores, including the basic one, the middle one,.and the whole foods, and most daily services that people could need all within a mile or 2 depending on which part you are in. All but a handful of people still drive everywhere,all the time. Sure, they'll walk the dog or go on a jog. But if they're going to a store,no matter how close, they will drive.
One US difference is how much we invest in handing out free parking to drivers. Free or cheaply metered curbside parking, vast amount of off-street parking by government mandate (which the Freedom! crowd never complains about.) There's a lot of evidence that parking creates driving. Make drivers pay a market price for their parking and whoosh, behavior would change so fast.
I love the way you introduce these ideas unobtrusively and without sounding preachy. Ideally this will make people who haven't really thought about the implications of our car centric world truly ponder if the benefits are worth the costs.
Low density development has made housing more expensive, transportation more expensive, health outcomes worse, and environmental outcomes worse. Maybe it's time to rethink how we do things.
The thing that strikes me is when you see a motorway with 4or more lanes, you can understand that all of those people have at least a part of their trip in common, if not the would’t be stuck in a traffic jam. At least in the common part a form of rail transit would have enough demand to self-sustain.
Last mile is always the problem as most of us aren't going from directly adjacent the motorway to somewhere else directly adjacent. If I need to drive ten minutes to reach the motorway and need to drive ten minutes after exiting, then you need transit at both ends as well.
Seperating roads vertically is also even more ludicrously expensive than regular roads already are Elevated and underground roads can often cost several times what a regular surface road would cost
I currently have to take a 12 minute drive from my home to where i work. I f I could take a 30-40 minute bike ride instead, I would absolutely bike without a second thought
This video should have 180 million views instead of 180K but like other comments have said the people that need to see this and learn from it wont. We are seriously doomed as a society.
This is a good way of looking at things, but you neglected to mention that in most cases SPEED IS IRRELEVANT for 2 reasons: 1. The highway itself is almost never the bottleneck, the limitter is usually intersections at the destination. If the popular intersection can only move 500 cars per hour, and there are 500 cars on the road ahead of you, it doesn't really matter if the limit is 30 or 130, you're still going to take an hour to get there. 2. Relatedly, because safe following distance being typically based on something like 2 seconds, a single lane will NEVER move more than one vehicle every 2 seconds. This means that if the highway is at capacity, the actual speed you move on the highway is dictated by the slowest speed of any car ahead of you
"the actual speed you move on the highway is dictated by the slowest speed of any car ahead of you" Which is why people change lanes a lot. But then that reduces the average capacity of the lanes; often doesn't actually do much in practice; and contributes to 10% of crashes.
The answer to "why are you sitting in traffic" is, and always has been, and always will be, "you ARE traffic". If you don't like it choose some other mode, sorted.
You have to look at the whole infrastructure problem, not just the cars and roads. It should be possible and legal to build a grocery store, a school, access to forest and sea or lake within walking distance in all residential areas. I live in Copenhagen so I can swim in the harbour. The bicycle and public transport are the fastest way around the city, so there are no traffic jams in the cities. I use the car when I go to the countryside. It is only those who live here, in the countryside outside residential areas, who need a car on a daily basis.
Another beautiful presentation. Glad to have met you at Strong Towns! “Only way to reduce traffic is to bring origins and destinations closer together” -PE, PTOE
For some reason this video reminded me of an issue we had in Memphis, TN back in the 1970s. People were writing letters to the editor complaining about the lack of parking spaces at the local university. Another writer said there was no problem... just come in earlier and there are plenty of parking spaces. I hope most people will understand the fault in this "logic".
6:35 I think it wouldnt. there is always a point where people have to take an exit and if there is a lot of traffic it would fall back on the 100 lane highway as well.
It's a culture thing with things like time. Some Americans think they're so fed up with things to do they can't spare 10 more minutes to ride a bus or metro, but waste hundreds of hours yearly on social media.
In your list of variables you forgot “People that shouldn’t be on the road” Including but not limited to rubberneckers, device users, indecisive people that won’t just pull over, those that don’t use the passing lane as a passing lane, and a whole host of other, driver related, problems
Excellent point! With car dependency, they have no choice, and removing them from the road would be the same as cutting them out of the work force, or at leats close to it. Add reasonable alternatives, and driver standards can be raised and enforced, because these people don't NEED to be on the road any more.
best video i've seen on this topic. i think you're the only guy that doesn't annoyingly insert his own politics into this subject + you actually mentioned the fact that people use their cars because it gives unmatched personal freedom and privacy. you > not just bikes, road guy rob etc etc
For some reason, your videos in particular make me realize that I'm stuck in an Urbanist bubble. Your videos are gorgeous to look at, pleasant to listen to, well written, and I agree with almost everything mentioned, but I've heard it all before. Nothing in this video was something I wasn't already aware of. Even if I agree with it, it makes me kind of uneasy to listen to the same thing over and over again, as it makes me aware I'm in an echo chamber where my opinions are continuously affirmed, but rarely challenged. It feels a lot like the flat earth thing. Obviously flat earth is a nonsense conspiracy theory that assumes basically everything we know about the world is false, while urbanism boils down to "hey wouldn't it be nice if we made better use of our land?", but that whole flat earth thing got big because the social media algorithms pushed endless similar content to people affirming what they believe in. That hint of similarity between insane conspiracies and the things I believe in is the source of my uneasy feeling. And just to be clear, these videos are still great, especially as an introduction to urbanism (so I'm not really in the target audience), I just wanted to write about this feeling I've had for a while now.
When you actually go and fight for this stuff through local advocacy, calling into council meetings, and talking to government staff and engineers, you'll find all the opposition you are looking for. That's why there is such value in spaces like this to share and connect with people who value the same things as you, as it is _extremely_ helpful to have such other people to encourage you through the rough work of dealing with all of the above.
I don't know what to really think about this channel. I would recommend Build the Lane, watching Dutch planners on UA-cam like in the 'Bringing Dutch planning to Bend' video, and NJB's traffic light video. You will find that Dutch planners have very different ideas especially in the role of intersections in the act of reducing lanes, how far main intersection should be from one another, etc. A specific thing to watch would be 16:03 in 'How I become a Dutch planner' by Build the Lane
While it's good in general to worry about echo chamber effects, I don't think it's really a worry here. You _know_ that different kinds of places exist: Houston, Phoenix, Atlanta; San Francisco, Boston; Amsterdam; Tokyo. You can go to Google Maps Street View and see for yourself what different places look like on the ground. You should know by now that in some places driving is essential and parents drive their 15 year olds around and buy cars for their 16 year olds, while in other places 6 year olds can walk or bike to school, or even take trains across the country if someone slips them enough money. Places where "no one" bikes and places where 25% or 40% of trips are done by bike. Places where "everyone" drives and places where a car is an expensive and unnecessary luxury. None of this can be an echo chamber, you can verify it directly. You can go look at photos, or look up statistics. There is no flat earth possibility in saying "San Francisco exists" or "places with narrow streets exist and have strong economies" or "places where kids bike to school in snowy winters exist". And then the question becomes what kind of place do you want to live in?
As a transit option, I am intrigued by the possibilities of autonomous bus-train hybrids within cities and suburbs. Perhaps the autonomous part could be delayed until the technology is refined, but since it runs on streets/roads, even with added dedicated lanes, it would be easier, cheaper and less disruptive to build than many other systems. I do believe easing zoning laws to allow in-fill and mixed use communities is essential. High speed rail, yes!
@@sanitygone-l9y Well, the system as I have heard it presented are like ART in Albuquerque. Granted, it is not autonomous, at least not yet, but it seems to offer a more practical option (and faster to establish) than all the infrastructure work for some of the rail based systems. Don't get me wrong, if a rail system can be built, and work well, go for it! I suspect that in many communities, especially those mostly created by the post-WWII suburban model, a combination will have to be created.
The actual problem: All of us are expected to go to work within the same 2 hour window and go back home in the same 2 hour window. Confucius say, when all persons drive at the same time, bad will traffic be. Also it’s bad because people fight over the next 12 feet of road space and cause crashes.
Just reduce the distance between homes and workplaces/stores and add trains, trams or busses to connect communities with cities and when the distance between home and work is small enough people tend to use the bike and not the car or they walk to work for 14 minutes. And the USA was literally build on Trains, the concept of Manifest Destiny wouldn't exist without trains, there would not be a west coast without Trains.
The big highway in Melbourne (Monash) having traffic randomly go from 80kph down to a dead stop and back to 30 then down to 8 then up to 72 and down to a dead stop then suddenly back up to 80kpm for no reason. There's no traffic lights, and all of the lanes are stopping including the express lanes. It makes no sense to me. ... till I see people cutting across 5 lanes to try to get to an exit. Why travel in the express lanes if you need to get off the highway at the next exit?
Why? To carry government and financial employees from one city center to another? Who wants to go to Downtown LA? Or Market Street in San Francisco? There's nothing there. I certainly wouldn't want to arrive in Downtown LA at midnight Saturday. How do you think people get from, say, San Jose to San Diego right now? Are they desperately lacking affordable and rapid transportation?
@@rikb.7772 Even the biggest rail system strands passengers unless there's already a robust auto-road system and a complete air system already in place to do what rail cannot. But if there's already a car and plane system that goes everywhere needed, why do we need rail? Clearly, there are some who want to strand car and plane passengers by replacing auto roads with railways.
@@floycewhite6991 maybe you just want less options... I never said "get rid of other modes of transportation" I said we need more rail... All you are is a troll. Troll again and be reported... Russian
The bigger and denser the city, the better these bike/walk/rail solutions work. The further you move out to the countryside, though, the more cars driving far and fast is the solution- often the only one that's practical, in fact. I liked your balancing the pros & cons with those bar graphs.
Sad to see the US is such an unoptimized country when it comes to traffic. Dump traffic lights, almost no roundabouts, basically no busses (with express lanes) or trains/trams/metros and cycling there is just asking to die early. It horrifies me that someone from the US can rent a car here in Europe, their driver license is a joke (which also doesn't help with traffic flow). I hope the US will look at countries like the Netherlands, Germany or other examples.
So cool to see such a comprehensive set of topics all covered and linked together in a video. Makes it super simple for anyone to understand, even people who have never thought about this topic before!
"You can have your Model T in any colour you want, so long as it's black! And I'll throw a hissy fit if anyone wants a different colour, because I like my freedom to drive my black Model T, and I'll take any desire for options as a sign you want to take away my freedumb to drive a black Model T!" --Car people in urbanist discussions, 2024, colourized
Keep making more of these!havent watched this yet but have been binging your other content. Wanted to post on newest vid. Super interesting and engaging format with practical solutions. I plan to become a long-term viewer!
He doesn't offer any practical solutions, nobodybhas, that's why every video is an attack on cars and not a video promoting walking and giving details. It's pure propaganda
Spending money on car infrastructure is %1000 of the time a waste of money. We need bike lanes and transit and to stop letting the auto industry own our entire lives. Imagine, if you will, a world where taking a combination of bicycle or personal vehicle (like electric scooter, even if it is sit-down) is faster, cheaper, and less stressful than taking a car to your destination in the same population center as your residency.
Another wonderfully clear and well presented video. I think its incredibly important to help people understand the true cost of our car dependent infrastructure and how alternative land uses and transportation options actually make driving better.
Here in New York if there's traffic we're just like "screw our travel patterns and take the bus or subway." And we don't have to widen our roads Actually we may be doing that anyway
![The Wrong Way to Set Speed Limits [ST06]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bglWCuCMSWc/mqdefault.jpg)
![The Wrong Way to Set Speed Limits [ST06]](/img/tr.png)
Check out Brilliant for a fun and easy way to interactively learn new things with a 30-day free trial and 20% off an annual premium membership:
brilliant.org/Streetcraft/
This is happening in australia to especially in Melbourne where in America you including roundabouts where we are getting rid of them, and replacing them with lights,
I'm not sure how good of an idea it is to put the sponsor in the back half. Instead of the halfway point or at the end.
Been here since video 1, can’t believe you already have sponsors only 4 months in. Your quality and depth of your videos are amazing, keep up the great work!
i just joined Nebula for CityNerd, NotJustBikes and RM Transit.
6:23
Ironicly that interchange in texas (the I-35W / I-30 just outside downtown Fort Worth) isn't having traffic problems because it has just too many lanes, it's actually the result of something so, so, so much more worse.
In fact,
Its possible a few extra lanes in the correct places (meme moment unfortunately not intended) ironically could possibly fix it because the traffic being generated there is actually the result of another 3 interchanges all overlapping.
(Texas-121/SPUR-347/I-35W)
(I-30/US-287)
(US-287/SPUR-280/I-35W)
Heck if they simply remove/modify one of those 3 overlapping interchanges (and possibly the whole highway cross connection) they might be able to fix that clusterf*ck of traffic weaving problems which may allow for the reduction of lanes overall.
I'm consistently impressed with how clear and thorough your explanations are of these very complex topics! The clear logical progression through how we got here along with the great visualizations makes this feel like one of the most effective videos I've seen on this topic
Thanks so much!
This aint nothing but a analyti al date math algorythmic waste of time . None of this is necessary . How about learning when mot to crooss the street that'll save your life every time...
This ia just like the dams thatvare being removed all over the world because you are trying to restrict and prohibit the flow of life just like in the rivers
You guys love to croos the streets like squirrels and dumb dogs how about you be more like fish since yall model your life after animals
Here's the problem with this video. Those that need to watch it, won't
very true
do you actually think that city planners, civil engineers don't already know all of this? the problem comes down to values. you can't tell people what they _should_ value (based on your own values, incidentally) and then expect them to thank you.
you can't tell people what they want. people don't want these priorities. you can't tell business owners they need to open a grocery store that people don't want, or say "you all need to go to this closer store now, even though it's more expensive and has a lower selection than the one you get to on the highway".
city planners, unlike city youtubers, generally realize that they can plan a city to accommodate what people value, but they can't plan a city to force people to value things. it's not 'if you build it, they will come', it's 'if people express interest in coming, they will build it'.
@@voskresenie- I'm not sure how accurate that is. Europe has made the transition in multiple places to accommodate walking, biking and using public transports, and there's been people against it. People generally don't like change very much. But if you go through with it, most will accommodate because that's not enough to justify moving elsewhere for most people. And in the end, if the change was a good idea, it'll show.
Sorry bob.. But yer Ooo football
@@pierreclausse2166 That's the difference between Europe and the US. Europe's governments tell the people what they should want. Americans tell their government what they should do.
People seem to have a really hard time understanding that transportation is full of tradeoffs. The train of thought is most often "there's traffic, therefore more car capacity is warranted" - but this way of thinking doesn't consider the costs of road expansion. This video does the best job I've ever seen of visualizing what the relevant factors are and how optimizing only for one of them (like road capacity) comes at the expense of all the others. AMAZING WORK!
There's a big point you missed about building a lot of lanes: Width navigation (with your car). Changing one or two lanes on a highway is pretty easy and cool but crossing six to seven lanes is a nightmare. With the hypothetical 100 lane situation, the words "keep right" or "keep left" would lose all meaning. You wouldn't be able to tell the edge of the freeway or exactly which lane you're on unless you're on the extreme lanes since there is road and more road as far as you can view. Imagine you're in one of the inner lanes in pretty busy traffic. Now you need to get to your exit. Without a massive interchange that separately serves both the inner and outer lanes, you would probably be screwed. Also imagine the pressure on the regular highways that intersect with these since they have to bear the traffic of 50 lanes.
TL;DR
Don't do 100 lanes.
It's a bad idea.
Do you know those "I turn now, good luck everybody else" people trying to exit the highway from the leftmost lane? Imagine that with 100 lanes.
my first accident was trying to switch lanes to the exit because there was 5 lanes and the exit wasn't properly signed
Germany figured this out a long time ago they use a dedicated road for traveling longer distances. For cities you take a single exit and then used side streets to get to the destination. In suburban areas it’s very common to have a separate freeway exit every 1/2 mile or less this causes congestion on the freeway rather than moving the cars off the highway onto side streets sooner. Lack of development planning means the cities will rely on federal or state funds to support their own lack of infrastructure budgeting and poor planning decisions.
Stack the lanes. 5 lanes per story. 20 stories = 100 lanes
@@blisphul8084 This is some actual nightmare fuel
Cars don’t create traffic, cars are traffic. I have never seen a bicycle backup. And even Pedestrian backups are rare (sport events maybe).
I just moved to montreal, and my first day here I went for a ride to get my keys to my new apartment and was in a a bicycle back up. It was so great seening that many people out on there bikes and it immediately valided my decision to move here.
The best part was we were still flying by the people driving, who were moving slower than the pedestrians.
@@liamnelski7083Apparently the same happens in the Netherlands as well. Too many bikes create bike traffic and jams from time to time. It's just that they clear up quickly, because in the worst case scenario you just pick up your bike and walk a little.
The only way to pick up a car and move it is with another, specialized car.
I see pedestrian backup everyday, sometimes 3 times a day, in rush hour to and from the subway and on the shopping streets. Pedestrian backup is super common.
Pedestrian backups are way more common than you think. And judging by these other replies, bike backups exist too. The real creator of traffic is stupid, inconsiderate, unskilled, and impatient drivers. The people who follow too close, don’t speed up for merges, don’t leave space for merges, change multiple lanes at once, etc. Honestly, the best way to fix this issue is to emphasize things like this more in driving tests, and to penalize these sorts of driving infractions and not people exceeding an arbitrary speed limit on a straight road.
You've never been to Amsterdam then. Bicycle backups happen all the time.
This is one of the few youtube channels that actually cite their sources. Kudos to you for doing that.
This dude is awesome and should be protected at all costs. This information it’s vital. I work for the Pennsylvania department of transportation and called a meeting to show them this video.
Just the traffic safety department.
Keep it up!
Nah get the whole DOT 💀 nobody getting a license today at the dmv, we're watching UA-cam!
@@creamygg you thought you ate
I work for the Maryland Department of Transportation and my colleagues know these principles it’s just the public doesn’t support it SMH.
I consume a lot of similar content and found this to be one of the most consumable AND comprehensive (difficult balance to strike). I like how you introduced induced demand without terming it.
Awesome video! I just want to mention that decreasing speed does not always kead to slower travel time. It may reduce the "free flow" travel time (or as i like to call it, the "set google maps to depart at 2am" time) but it may not reduce the time during rush hour at all. In some cases, lower soeeds can actually lead to faster overall travel times.
Great point. In the Netherlands there’s talk of raising the daytime maximum speed back to 130 from 100, while it’s shown that travel times have actually reduced on a large number of routes after the speed limit was reduced.
Note that, at 3:17, the speed bar shortens when he explains that increased congestion leads to decreased speeds. So he's not talking about the posted speed limit, because the speed limit in that scenario certainly didn't decrease. He's talking about Distance / Time, purely mathematically. By that definition, speed does always lead to slower travel time (for one specific trip).
@@jellekoorn4184I’m pretty sure this is due to the fact that when people are traveling faster, braking or slowing down takes longer so it creates a chain reaction and essentially “ghost traffic”. So if people are all traveling slower, but more consistently it can end up being faster. (Think of it like the tale of the hare and the tortoise, slow and steady wins the race versus fast and erratic).
Weirdly enough, your last sentence is correct. If travelers go slightly slower and end up avoiding (almost) all tailgating, overall travel time is reduced. There's a video here at YT that shows point by point how this is a reality.
Love how this guy takes these topics in a realistic way. He is not just here saying "road bad bike good" like a lot of your urbanism youtubers do.
Who says road bad bike good
NJB
@@SergioDiaz-ek5qi there’s things to criticize NJB about, but I don’t think he’s ever gone as far as some general “car bad, bike good” mentality. A lot of the stuff he talks about is the same as in this video, just in a more snarky tone
@@lchap0506 I agree with NJB on a lot of things but he strikes me as a person who thinks he's always right about something. Its his tone, not his content or message even.
@@rimlogger7697tone seems pretty fair considering at a minimum the thousands who die every year
*As a born and raised American, I hate my country for forcing me into the car-centric lifestyle without ever asking me. So much for "muh freedom."*
Fr
That's how I see it as well I'm like is this freedom
Move to a city with public transportation then. Problem solved. I'm the opposite. I lived in a city right after college and pretty much had to take the metro rail to work because of bad traffic and exorbitant parking costs. I hated it, so i moved to a suburban area, right on the edge where it turns to rural area, and work in a small town away from the city, I drive to work, I don't have a choice but I prefer it anyways, and there is very little traffic for me I am always heading the opposite direction of most others, away from town in the morning and towards town at night. You don't always have a choice of transportation where you are, so make the choice to go somewhere where you will be happy with your choices.
You hate your country for building roads? Please leave. There are plenty of other countries to move to I'm sure you'd love. Maybe Iran or China. I here Venezuela is nice. No one forced you into a car-centric lifestyle. You're free to walk, run or bike wherever you like.
@@LCRAVIAT1ON Are you not free to walk? Are bicycles illegal? What are you talking about? Yes, freedom is being able to go where you want, when you want, how you want. Maybe if you actually didn't have freedom you wouldn't be so cynical.
My town is installing new round-a-bouts. I can tell that traffic isnt building up as much, but there is one major problem. Nobody knows how to drive on them. Some treat it like a 4-way stop while others ignore all yield signs. They need to start teaching how they work in drivers-ed
I find it difficult _not_ to come to a near-complete stop when entering a roundabout, because you still have to look both ways: One way for cars and pedestrians, and the other way for just pedestrians (assuming there are sufficient islands to prevent people from drunkenly going the wrong way around in cars), and only _then_ look where you're going, so you can actually steer into the roundabout.
@@philipmcniel4908 that's actually, why cyclists on a bike lane or multi-use path should never go around a roundabout the wrong direction: Drivers entering the roundabout will only take a short glimpse to the right (looking for pedestrians, not for a much faster cyclists from much further behind) and then focus on traffic from the left.
In larger roundabouts, what you can do is to add a barrier to divert pedestrians so they cross on the leg before the stop line. That way you're splitting the task into three steps, watch for pedestrians first, then watch for traffic in the roundabout, and then watch for pedestrians when exiting the roundabout.
Good thing drivers Ed typically only occurs once in the United States. We need more frequent and more stringent testing
@@philipmcniel4908 when you get used to them you can navigate them without stopping. That's when the real efficiency of roundabouts comes into play.
Source: I live in a country where every second intersection is a roundabout
I love how at the Apollo Beach exit near Tampa on I75, they extended the exit ramp for half a mile to “fix traffic” and it didn’t do anything
Road-car industrial complex had no end…
It’s the FloriDUH way for highways and interstates
It did a lot for traffic flow on 75, but you can't fix the street level congestion there
Really well explained. I especially appreciate how you explained that induced demand doesn't scale linearly forever. That point is lost on a lot of people. There is a point at which we meet demand, it's just a hellscape that no one wants to live in - And your explanation was on point.
it's why induced demand works with trains, they are simple more efficient at meeting demand
I have not seen any other urbanist UA-camr that can break down stuff like induced demand and competing priorities like you can. And it's all super entertaining to watch!
I don’t think I have watched a single video of yours that was hard to understand or stay interested in. The visuals are amazing, and it’s nice how you give realistic solutions on how something could change. Amazing.
This is the best traffic/transit/urbanism channel on UA-cam. Bar none. Very well done 😃
Make more Cities content!
After visiting Tokyo for a month, coming home to Oregon and driving was actually eye opening.
I miss being able to get on a train and get to my destination without a thought. Driving has it's upsides, but they don't outweigh the downsides.
He forgot to mention phantom traffic jams, where the flow of traffic is concentrated so much on one end, that it creates a traffic jam for no reason
People tapping on brakes whenever their is a slight downhill infuriates me for this reason
18 wheelers cause those too. Those huge clunkers take ages accelrsting up places and causes everyone to jam up.
Drones when?
@@TWProductions90not to mention how bad they eff up the roads and the air
@@hotmess9640 You could go pick up your goods from the docks yourself. Would that be better?
@@TWProductions90drones won’t happen I’m sorry, birds are one of the biggest issues because they dive bomb the drones which isn’t good for cargo.
Amtrak’s entire cumulative budget over the last 50 years doesn’t even add up to what is spent in a single year on highways and roads in the US. It’s shouldn’t be a surprise theres a ton of traffic, the deck is stacked in favor of roads and cars, of course transit isn’t viable when it gets zero funding.
Exactly. I know many people who would be willing to take rail over flying and buses. Especially if we built bullet trains, it's totally possible to get from NY to Chicago in 4 hours which is basically the same time to fly, security checks, and leave
Amtrak is slow its only practical when going to a city where I don't have to deal with the traffic
@@clydedoris5002man clyde, why do you think that is? Maybe befause of the tiny budget?
Nothing new for the seasoned urbanism, but very well put. Loved the talking about the different variables.
awww BummeR.. UGHH hit the road jack..
Every mayor or city commissioner should watch and follow this. Ps.: corner stores are a beautiful thing!
6:34
Absolutely. We need more mixed use zoning and the right to bring back cornerstones and front yard businesses!
WE CAN E MAIL SPAM OR JUST PLAY IT ON A BIG SCREEN OUTSIDE THERE MANSIONS.
YESS ALL CAPS
In cities usually it's chains that take that spot we dont need more chains
Everyone getting stuck in traffic is Big Oil's wet dream.
Your videos are amazing!
I've watched so many creators on these topics and your videos are just absolutely nailing it, the absolute best. The mindset shifts required. The framing, to make them palatable and reasonable. Not being antagonistic. Like I *LOVE* me some NJB but this here... this... I could share in a friendly chat with local government personnel. There's real power of change here. Not everyone can do this so well.
You deserve SO many more subscribers! Your videos are simple, intuitive, use easily comprehensible graphics, and are well produced. Nicely done!
Said it before and I'll say it again! YOU HAVE THE BEST URBANIST CONTENT ON THE INTERNET.
Real discussions not just rambling, LOVE IT.
Great video! Seriously, this is a fantastic explainer of a complex topic. One point of feedback:
At 7:57, you discuss how decreasing speed will increase travel times. When you say speed, the average viewer likely hears *speed limit*, and I think it’s helpful to address that head on. Because reducing speed limits doesn’t necessarily increase travel time; the critical metric here is average speed. It’s quite possible to reduce a road’s speed limit, say from 40mph to 25mph, and also reduce overall travel time. Your top speed will certainly drop, but your average speed may increase. And we still get all the safety benefits associated with lower traffic speeds.
Those of us interested in urbanism likely understand this, but given that this video’s target audience is for a more general viewer, I think it’s important to go into detail on this particular topic. Keep up the good work!
There's a reason why the government prioritizes cars despite their proven harms. It's for the convenience and profitability of oil, auto, auto insurance, trucking, road construction, building construction, and real estate development industries.
And when planners suggest new infrastructure for other forms of transportation or zoning and land use regs for mixed uses, a swarm of Karens and Darrens (NIMBYs) come out to public meetings to voice their implacable opposition.
As someone working in the building construction industry, we love apartments and mixed use buildings, but the zoning, reflecting the wants of the NIMBY's, doesn't allow them in most places.
Don't forget personal injury lawyers.
All of the aforementioned have giant lobbies. Who is going to lobby for trains? Nobody because not enough big players will make any money off it. That's what it all comes down to. It's not just NIMBYism, because they don't want highways in their backyard either, it what will generate the most revenue for the most people with the most power?
You are the government. Run for office. Vote for people who will make changes.
@@100percentSNAFU Nobody will use trains when they can drive.
I love how respectful your videos feel. They are mostly thing I have heard before, but presented in a clear and friendly way that some other channels sorely lack.
"Is preventing injuries and saving lives worth taking longer to get to our destinations?"
I laughed out loud as soon as he said that. After that I just sat there in silence thinking that this really is the modern society. I mean why the fuck does this has to be even a question? However and in any way there could be less accidents anywhere, especially dense living areas like cities, it should be done. Afterall we are talking about LIVES, family members, mothers, fathers, kids, grandparents and the loss of any of them puts an enormous amount of stress and a whole lot of other things. Is it really that important to get in a 3 tonne pickup truck, that is not used as supposed, and hurry and risk someone's life just to get your big mac with fries 2 minutes faster. This is a really ridiculous example but realistic. I am happy to be living in the EU where public transport is widely adopted and even more grateful for newer regulations that are coming in place like the new 30k/h(18 miles/h for burger guys) everywhere in the city center in Amsterdam.
I know(hope) he says this sentence sarcastically but damn this is awful.
Hopefully, things start to change. every time there is a car crash, we have to be aware that a crash is not just an accident; it happens due to the bad design of infrastructure and what the government prioritizes.
I don't think it's sarcasm. Too many Americans (and Canadians too) have accepted car crashes as a fact of life. Even if your example was meant to be sarcastic, there are people who unironically think that. Hell, a few months ago there were two teenagers who filmed themselves running over and killing a cyclist for fun. Some parts of the continent are coming around to their senses, but for most places I don't see that happening.
It's a legitimate trade-off, and pretending that choosing the safest option is always moral makers you come off as unserious.
There's hardly anything in life that doesn't increase your chance of injury or death.
@@kanucks9 Except, as the video shows, rarely is it an equal trade off of time/convenience versus safety. In fact, there are plenty of jurisdictions worldwide that have achieved zero road deaths and injuries, and they didn't spend infinity money or reduce mobility to zero to do so. Mostly they just reduced car speeds to 30 km/h or less, first through laws and signs, and then by applying some basic infrastructure. In this case the safer option is so by far the better one (financially, environmentally, socially, heck even calorically) that the choice is incredibly obvious. We just have status quo bias and powerful special interests pushing on the other side.
The problem in the US is that a lot of non-motorists tend to be from "lesser-than" social classes and racial groups, whose lives and humanity are considered cheaper, less relevant, and ultimately expendable.
New video I'll share with everyone who gives a shit about why Im so annoying whenever they complain about traffic or parking. A concise summary of the problems we've created for ourselves. Please keep it up!
Among all the urbanist channels on UA-cam, your content provides hands down the best explanations both visually and in words for transportation and urbanism.
When the inevitable mouth breather commenter arrives saying “BUT MUH COUNTRY TOO BIG HAVE TO USE CAR”
1. Trains don’t get stuck in traffic. Especially high speed ones. They can get to places faster than cars.
2. Most people aren’t driving from Los Angeles to New York every day. Advocates for better transportation are talking about prioritizing local modes of transportation in populations centers, not plowing a random train line through a corn field in Iowa.
3. Places in the U.S. are far apart BECAUSE OF CARS and CAR INFRASTRUCTURE. The U.S. was built on trains and bulldozed for the car. Imagine how many more businesses, homes, parks, museums, schools, hospitals, etc. we could have if we tore down these wasteful 20 lane highways and interchanges for something that actually produces tax money instead of draining it and makes the surrounding community better.
"The U.S. was built on trains and bulldozed for the car."
I just want to highlight that.
And don't forget crucially, those that NEED to drive, or have to go to areas that require a car to get to, they still can! And it will be a more pleasant and quicker journey because the 90% of us that don't need to travel so far everyday have other options
“How dare you attack muh freedums”
Public transportation in cities is not always safe and is sometimes slower cars are the way to go
@@clydedoris5002 You're a lot more likely to be killed or injured by a driver than by someone on public transit.
As someone who grew up in the lakewood ranch/bradenton area, LOVING all the clips you used
THE FACT YOU ALIVE is A Wonder of Holy crap.. Bradenton love crash vroomeee woo
If you ever hear anyone suggesting adding lanes, ship them here to Toronto. We will show them Hwy 401. That'll set them straight.
Katy freeway says hold my beer.
Your traffic is the worst, I can speak from experience as someone who has been a frequent visitor to Toronto my whole life. And I don't say that in an insulting way, obviously I like the city alot as I visit it a lot, but yeah honestly the QEW all the way from Hamilton is a shit show, and don't even get me started on the international bridges (I come from NY). Buffalo doesn't have bad traffic because nobody lives here 😂😂😂
One of your best videos. I've been talking about urbanism and transit to relatives who love their cars and just don't get it (and constantly complain about traffic). You breaking it down into the value structures really helps, even with those who disagree.
Another Banger from Streetcraft!!! Definitely worth the wait between videos!!!
Texas: "No we can't build places that allow people to live closer to where they work, shop, recreate, and socialize nor can we build safe bike lanes, efficient public transit, or protect pedestrians. That's too expensive and would be fiscally irresponsible."
Also Texas: "Yes we lead the country in automobile and pedestrian deaths and just authorized hundreds of billions of dollars for more freeway expansions that won't be finished for another 50 years. That's called being fiscally responsible."
Also Texas: High speed rail is a threat to property rights. Meanwhile, let's take your house to build a wider freeway.
@@tonywalters7298 But of course! Using eminent domain to build a train would be communism. What’s next, gulags??
However, using eminent domain to bulldoze historic minority neighbourhoods and businesses to expand freeways originally built by bulldozing historic minority neighbourhoods and businesses is just the free market at work.
And the freeway expansions aren't just expanding existing freeways, Texas is also building new freeways such as I-69, I-14, and all their spurs and branches.
@@EdwardM-t8p That’s astounding. After TxDOT dumped nearly 3 billion into the Katy freeway in Houston and a decade of lane closures and construction to make commute times significantly worse, they’re still going to keep doing the same thing.
@@ShowLSWH Yeah, crazy, innit? The state wants to make every urban freeway into a clone of the Katy Freeway 6 lanes frontage, 10 lanes free, 4 lanes toll and still choked with traffic! If I didn't know better I'd say it was a conspiracy between the Texas GOP and the highway construction industry to cover the state with asphalt and engulf it with choking fumes.
Oh my lord, this is so well explained. Absolutely amazing job, one of the best videos on this topic, I've ever seen.
Lack of public transportation in the US gets on my nerves a bit. In NH, there is a railroad that runs from Concord all the way to Boston, but it is only used for freight. In my town, which the RR runs through, there is a retired train station just a two-minute drive from my house. Of course, it would cost money to make that possible.
I actually don't think most people most of the time want to absolutely get places in the fastest possible way (ie - on roads with faster speed limits); what really upsets people in getting delayed or stuck in traffic. It's why people might take 30mph surface streets with a very predictable travel time over a 65mph highway but where you may or may not be stuck in 30 minutes of traffic
I think cost us the main factor when choosing mobility. People who can afford to bike vs walk, bike. People who can afford to drive vs bike, drive.
"people might take 30mph surface streets with a very predictable travel time"
And then they anger the people living on the 30 mph streets.
People love their cars, but everyone hates _other people's_ cars.
This is honestly one of the best urban planning videos I've seen. This is the video that underlies the planning factors of transportation, and how each of them are interconnected with each other.
Wow, that was quick. Love to see another one of your videos.
I absolutely love your presentation style! Very informative, professional, and engaging. Keep up the great work!
If you want to decrease time to areive at work the variable isnt speed its thru-put
Just so happens cars are the absolute worst thruput transportation option the only reason they're even viable is theyre the only option supported.
This video is absolutely amazing! It perfectly verbalizes everything I have learned over the past 3 years about urbanism and does a great job at explaining induced demand. I think I finally understand how adding more lanes results in more traffic. Thank you!!
You are forgetting the cost of maintenance. People love to build new roads but maintaining them? It depends on their mood.
7:12 You missed out a fundamental variable. If we reduce the size of the car, say focus on A and B segment (Micro cars) than yeah, maybe capacity can be freed up that way?
The plan is pretty much car free cities, starting with city centres the moving out.
One wonders how far $41 billion per year would go for high speed trains. These construction costs tend to be optimistic, especially in places where expropriating land is expensive. Not that spending the money on highways is necessarily more efficient, especially if we consider the opportunity costs of people who don't own a car and couldn't apply for a job that's too far away.
You can start by running rail inside existing right-of-way for stroads and highways. You could run high speed rail within the center median of most US interstates with some simple concrete barriers, and it wouldn't require purchasing a single acre of extra land. A lot of urban areas have paved roads ready to run streetcars-- many cities even historically ALREADY had them, but they've been removed.
@@jeffhiner Not sure you could get high speed everywhere because of the grade and corners on highways, but it's certainly a good place to start. When you're traveling 300kph/180mph, cornering has to be really gradual.
@@nathanbanks2354 You probably couldn't get true high speed rail, but you might well get "as fast or faster than traffic and the speed limit", which is really the main target if you're competing with cars rather than with planes.
@@mindstalk It's great for light rail/commuter trains. I live in Montreal, and the REM line was built partially in the median of the highway including the center of the new Champlain Bridge. It's faster during rush hour and cheaper than parking downtown. High speed rail usually refers to inter-city travel, such as Paris to Lyon.
im right outside DC, and taking the metro-subway ($9 parking and two $5 trips) is the same exact cost as drving and parking downtown. So there's little incentive for me to use that option
Best youtuber at breaking down for people that are used to cars, why car centric infrastructure isn't good for them either - because it isn't good for society at all.
This is by far the best explanation for why we need to stop building cities around cars. At a certain point, cars provide no benefit for what we really care about (the time it takes to travel somewhere). It regularly takes 15 to 30 minutes to travel somewhere by car, because car centric infrastructure spreads everything out so much. So the benefit that cars are supposed to provide is lost. Yet, we still have to pay the hefty price for relying on cars. I love how clearly you laid this concept out; putting all the variables together and comparing them shows just how ridiculous car centric infrastructure is.
another banger from StreetCraft! The best channel on planning!
The solution too all big cities with traffic problems: modern trams
1. They have enough speed with other factors to be the same speed if not more than traffic
2. Although most cars are faster then trams, because of traffic, trams might be faster
3. Because trams have more safety procedures because they are public transit, they are safer.
4. It will decrease the distances between places because the areas that are serviced by the tram would be hubs for the city
5. Trams can be electric trams and trams are usually quieter.
6. Trams can also be thinner and just wider if they have their own tracks so it wouldn’t use land
7. Trams are cheaper then cars because it’s generally cheaper to use one and trams also run on one route and just have a few cables so it wouldn’t cost much
Yeah, the US is just different though. I live in one of the few old,pre war streetcar neighborhoods in my city. We have 3 full service grocery stores, including the basic one, the middle one,.and the whole foods, and most daily services that people could need all within a mile or 2 depending on which part you are in. All but a handful of people still drive everywhere,all the time. Sure, they'll walk the dog or go on a jog. But if they're going to a store,no matter how close, they will drive.
One US difference is how much we invest in handing out free parking to drivers. Free or cheaply metered curbside parking, vast amount of off-street parking by government mandate (which the Freedom! crowd never complains about.) There's a lot of evidence that parking creates driving.
Make drivers pay a market price for their parking and whoosh, behavior would change so fast.
I love the way you introduce these ideas unobtrusively and without sounding preachy. Ideally this will make people who haven't really thought about the implications of our car centric world truly ponder if the benefits are worth the costs.
Low density development has made housing more expensive, transportation more expensive, health outcomes worse, and environmental outcomes worse.
Maybe it's time to rethink how we do things.
The thing that strikes me is when you see a motorway with 4or more lanes, you can understand that all of those people have at least a part of their trip in common, if not the would’t be stuck in a traffic jam.
At least in the common part a form of rail transit would have enough demand to self-sustain.
Last mile is always the problem as most of us aren't going from directly adjacent the motorway to somewhere else directly adjacent. If I need to drive ten minutes to reach the motorway and need to drive ten minutes after exiting, then you need transit at both ends as well.
I would love to see a video mentioning zoning laws.
ewww hmm .. Need mor Pake ing lots for CARRSS..
Seperating roads vertically is also even more ludicrously expensive than regular roads already are
Elevated and underground roads can often cost several times what a regular surface road would cost
I currently have to take a 12 minute drive from my home to where i work. I f I could take a 30-40 minute bike ride instead, I would absolutely bike without a second thought
You drive??? So not free
This video should have 180 million views instead of 180K but like other comments have said the people that need to see this and learn from it wont. We are seriously doomed as a society.
This is a good way of looking at things, but you neglected to mention that in most cases SPEED IS IRRELEVANT for 2 reasons:
1. The highway itself is almost never the bottleneck, the limitter is usually intersections at the destination. If the popular intersection can only move 500 cars per hour, and there are 500 cars on the road ahead of you, it doesn't really matter if the limit is 30 or 130, you're still going to take an hour to get there.
2. Relatedly, because safe following distance being typically based on something like 2 seconds, a single lane will NEVER move more than one vehicle every 2 seconds. This means that if the highway is at capacity, the actual speed you move on the highway is dictated by the slowest speed of any car ahead of you
"the actual speed you move on the highway is dictated by the slowest speed of any car ahead of you"
Which is why people change lanes a lot. But then that reduces the average capacity of the lanes; often doesn't actually do much in practice; and contributes to 10% of crashes.
This is true wherever their is mountains always that one slow dude that has atleast 5 cars behind him
@streetcraft, which software do you use for drawing the solutions for the intersections and animating them? =)
The answer to "why are you sitting in traffic" is, and always has been, and always will be, "you ARE traffic". If you don't like it choose some other mode, sorted.
Bro said teleport where you need to go instead of driving
You have to look at the whole infrastructure problem, not just the cars and roads. It should be possible and legal to build a grocery store, a school, access to forest and sea or lake within walking distance in all residential areas. I live in Copenhagen so I can swim in the harbour. The bicycle and public transport are the fastest way around the city, so there are no traffic jams in the cities. I use the car when I go to the countryside. It is only those who live here, in the countryside outside residential areas, who need a car on a daily basis.
Love it when Streetcraft drops a new video
Another beautiful presentation. Glad to have met you at Strong Towns! “Only way to reduce traffic is to bring origins and destinations closer together” -PE, PTOE
Memorial Day Weekend and summer tourism in Florida. That all means one thing: Traffic, Traffic, TRAFFIC!!! Car dependency is killing us.
"Car dependency is killing us."
Literally.
For some reason this video reminded me of an issue we had in Memphis, TN back in the 1970s. People were writing letters to the editor complaining about the lack of parking spaces at the local university. Another writer said there was no problem... just come in earlier and there are plenty of parking spaces.
I hope most people will understand the fault in this "logic".
I'm fond of quipping that "traffic is other cars" every time someone complains about bike lanes going in
I always think its cute when people try to proclaim the virtues of 19th century technology when the future is self-driving vehicles.
6:35 I think it wouldnt. there is always a point where people have to take an exit and if there is a lot of traffic it would fall back on the 100 lane highway as well.
I wish we had interstate trains 😭😭 I hate driving long distance and planes are way too expensive!!
Not where I live, we got 3 stop lights in the entire county (431 square miles)!
It's a culture thing with things like time. Some Americans think they're so fed up with things to do they can't spare 10 more minutes to ride a bus or metro, but waste hundreds of hours yearly on social media.
Or they can't walk a few city blocks from a parking space but they'll walk across a big mall parking lot.
In your list of variables you forgot “People that shouldn’t be on the road”
Including but not limited to rubberneckers, device users, indecisive people that won’t just pull over, those that don’t use the passing lane as a passing lane, and a whole host of other, driver related, problems
Excellent point! With car dependency, they have no choice, and removing them from the road would be the same as cutting them out of the work force, or at leats close to it.
Add reasonable alternatives, and driver standards can be raised and enforced, because these people don't NEED to be on the road any more.
Houston, tx has multiple lanes & all of them will still be backed up 😅😅😂😂!!
best video i've seen on this topic. i think you're the only guy that doesn't annoyingly insert his own politics into this subject + you actually mentioned the fact that people use their cars because it gives unmatched personal freedom and privacy. you > not just bikes, road guy rob etc etc
I'm a big fan of your content, keep up the great work. The clean visuals really help me understand your topics.
Thanks!
Wow this channel is perfect! I can't believe that UA-cam algorithm just made a video from this channel pop in my shorts. Thanks you very much!
For some reason, your videos in particular make me realize that I'm stuck in an Urbanist bubble. Your videos are gorgeous to look at, pleasant to listen to, well written, and I agree with almost everything mentioned, but I've heard it all before. Nothing in this video was something I wasn't already aware of.
Even if I agree with it, it makes me kind of uneasy to listen to the same thing over and over again, as it makes me aware I'm in an echo chamber where my opinions are continuously affirmed, but rarely challenged.
It feels a lot like the flat earth thing. Obviously flat earth is a nonsense conspiracy theory that assumes basically everything we know about the world is false, while urbanism boils down to "hey wouldn't it be nice if we made better use of our land?", but that whole flat earth thing got big because the social media algorithms pushed endless similar content to people affirming what they believe in. That hint of similarity between insane conspiracies and the things I believe in is the source of my uneasy feeling.
And just to be clear, these videos are still great, especially as an introduction to urbanism (so I'm not really in the target audience), I just wanted to write about this feeling I've had for a while now.
When you actually go and fight for this stuff through local advocacy, calling into council meetings, and talking to government staff and engineers, you'll find all the opposition you are looking for. That's why there is such value in spaces like this to share and connect with people who value the same things as you, as it is _extremely_ helpful to have such other people to encourage you through the rough work of dealing with all of the above.
I don't know what to really think about this channel. I would recommend Build the Lane, watching Dutch planners on UA-cam like in the 'Bringing Dutch planning to Bend' video, and NJB's traffic light video.
You will find that Dutch planners have very different ideas especially in the role of intersections in the act of reducing lanes, how far main intersection should be from one another, etc. A specific thing to watch would be 16:03 in 'How I become a Dutch planner' by Build the Lane
While it's good in general to worry about echo chamber effects, I don't think it's really a worry here. You _know_ that different kinds of places exist: Houston, Phoenix, Atlanta; San Francisco, Boston; Amsterdam; Tokyo. You can go to Google Maps Street View and see for yourself what different places look like on the ground. You should know by now that in some places driving is essential and parents drive their 15 year olds around and buy cars for their 16 year olds, while in other places 6 year olds can walk or bike to school, or even take trains across the country if someone slips them enough money. Places where "no one" bikes and places where 25% or 40% of trips are done by bike. Places where "everyone" drives and places where a car is an expensive and unnecessary luxury.
None of this can be an echo chamber, you can verify it directly. You can go look at photos, or look up statistics. There is no flat earth possibility in saying "San Francisco exists" or "places with narrow streets exist and have strong economies" or "places where kids bike to school in snowy winters exist".
And then the question becomes what kind of place do you want to live in?
As a transit option, I am intrigued by the possibilities of autonomous bus-train hybrids within cities and suburbs. Perhaps the autonomous part could be delayed until the technology is refined, but since it runs on streets/roads, even with added dedicated lanes, it would be easier, cheaper and less disruptive to build than many other systems. I do believe easing zoning laws to allow in-fill and mixed use communities is essential. High speed rail, yes!
so you mean bi-articulated buses which are just worse forms of trams and light rail?
@@sanitygone-l9y Well, the system as I have heard it presented are like ART in Albuquerque. Granted, it is not autonomous, at least not yet, but it seems to offer a more practical option (and faster to establish) than all the infrastructure work for some of the rail based systems. Don't get me wrong, if a rail system can be built, and work well, go for it! I suspect that in many communities, especially those mostly created by the post-WWII suburban model, a combination will have to be created.
you forgot to mention by doubling time we quadruple energy consumption, which is only good for texs oil companies.
The actual problem:
All of us are expected to go to work within the same 2 hour window and go back home in the same 2 hour window.
Confucius say, when all persons drive at the same time, bad will traffic be.
Also it’s bad because people fight over the next 12 feet of road space and cause crashes.
Thats 1 reason but there are multiple more too
Just reduce the distance between homes and workplaces/stores and add trains, trams or busses to connect communities with cities and when the distance between home and work is small enough people tend to use the bike and not the car or they walk to work for 14 minutes.
And the USA was literally build on Trains, the concept of Manifest Destiny wouldn't exist without trains, there would not be a west coast without Trains.
Horrific idea
@@elliotwilliams7421 okay big auto shill
@@moekitsune okay ya big gas, oil and corporate shill.
The big highway in Melbourne (Monash) having traffic randomly go from 80kph down to a dead stop and back to 30 then down to 8 then up to 72 and down to a dead stop then suddenly back up to 80kpm for no reason. There's no traffic lights, and all of the lanes are stopping including the express lanes. It makes no sense to me. ... till I see people cutting across 5 lanes to try to get to an exit. Why travel in the express lanes if you need to get off the highway at the next exit?
I just have to say that we desperately need more high speed rail between places...
Why? To carry government and financial employees from one city center to another? Who wants to go to Downtown LA? Or Market Street in San Francisco? There's nothing there. I certainly wouldn't want to arrive in Downtown LA at midnight Saturday. How do you think people get from, say, San Jose to San Diego right now? Are they desperately lacking affordable and rapid transportation?
@@floycewhite6991 not just in California, I mean state to state and city to city
@@rikb.7772 Even the biggest rail system strands passengers unless there's already a robust auto-road system and a complete air system already in place to do what rail cannot. But if there's already a car and plane system that goes everywhere needed, why do we need rail? Clearly, there are some who want to strand car and plane passengers by replacing auto roads with railways.
@@floycewhite6991 maybe you just want less options... I never said "get rid of other modes of transportation" I said we need more rail... All you are is a troll. Troll again and be reported... Russian
The bigger and denser the city, the better these bike/walk/rail solutions work. The further you move out to the countryside, though, the more cars driving far and fast is the solution- often the only one that's practical, in fact. I liked your balancing the pros & cons with those bar graphs.
Fair but no one is building a 11 lane freeway in the countryside
Sad to see the US is such an unoptimized country when it comes to traffic. Dump traffic lights, almost no roundabouts, basically no busses (with express lanes) or trains/trams/metros and cycling there is just asking to die early. It horrifies me that someone from the US can rent a car here in Europe, their driver license is a joke (which also doesn't help with traffic flow). I hope the US will look at countries like the Netherlands, Germany or other examples.
Bus slow
@@clydedoris5002 Bus is fast here, because it gets priority access on the road. It has transponders so it almost always gets a green light.
So cool to see such a comprehensive set of topics all covered and linked together in a video. Makes it super simple for anyone to understand, even people who have never thought about this topic before!
Country of freedom of choice: you can only and have to drive cars to get to essential places :)
"You can have your Model T in any colour you want, so long as it's black! And I'll throw a hissy fit if anyone wants a different colour, because I like my freedom to drive my black Model T, and I'll take any desire for options as a sign you want to take away my freedumb to drive a black Model T!"
--Car people in urbanist discussions, 2024, colourized
You're not sitting in traffic. You ARE traffic.
Stop building new freeways and build new alternatives instead. A high speed rail doesn’t have a huge ROW nor potholes
Keep making more of these!havent watched this yet but have been binging your other content. Wanted to post on newest vid. Super interesting and engaging format with practical solutions. I plan to become a long-term viewer!
He doesn't offer any practical solutions, nobodybhas, that's why every video is an attack on cars and not a video promoting walking and giving details.
It's pure propaganda
Spending money on car infrastructure is %1000 of the time a waste of money. We need bike lanes and transit and to stop letting the auto industry own our entire lives.
Imagine, if you will, a world where taking a combination of bicycle or personal vehicle (like electric scooter, even if it is sit-down) is faster, cheaper, and less stressful than taking a car to your destination in the same population center as your residency.
Don't even have to imagine it, just visit some other cities in the world to experience it.
Another wonderfully clear and well presented video. I think its incredibly important to help people understand the true cost of our car dependent infrastructure and how alternative land uses and transportation options actually make driving better.
Here in New York if there's traffic we're just like "screw our travel patterns and take the bus or subway." And we don't have to widen our roads
Actually we may be doing that anyway
Why is this so entertaining.
Like, you just keep a neutral voice and super chill BG music, yet I can watch an entire video.