Another thing to consider: Height restrictions, parking lot requierements and single family housing zones. These all force the city to expand horizontaly rather than verticaly, which makes public transit less cost-efective, which forces people to use cars instead.
We have created the need in our cities to have to drive everywhere through bad zoning (seperating where we live from where we work and buy things) , parking minimums, and lack of density
As someone into city planning, I very much agree with this. They have zoning that ensures low density, large distances to destinations, dangerous and unpleasant roads/streets for those not in a car, and ineffectiveness of public transit/cycling for commutes
As someone into city planning, I very much agree with this. They have zoning that ensures low density, large distances to destinations, dangerous and unpleasant roads/streets for those not in a car, and ineffectiveness of public transit/cycling for commutes
Most driving is done to buy useless items which can just be bought online. Get together with your employees and demand to be able to work from home for as many days out of the week as possible. This alone could reduce congestion 50% or more.
"Most of the time when we talk about reducing congestion, it means I'm gonna get in my car and it's gonna go faster." There's your problem. By this metric, Tokyo has terrible traffic, and yet very few people in Tokyo complain about traffic because they walk/ride a train for most trips.
that guy was an imbecil...type of person that thinks only he should drive, and its "other people's fault". Public transit, bike lanes & congestion taxes is the only solution!
"Having good public transit doesn't reduce congestion, look at new york" What is that crappy & selective argument? That's basically saying that public transit has no impact on congestion. If we were to destroy all public transit in New York and force everyone in a car, it wouldn't impact congestion?! Jeez...
New York is a demonstration of why you cannot have a functioning city without public transit. Sure the streets are jam packed 24/7 but I remember seeing that everyone would need 48 highway bridges and a layer of parking the size of the whole island if everyone who commutes to Manhattan were to drive. Also most of those drivers aren't local anyway
@@blitzn00dle50 the point he is trying to make, but didn't quite explain very well is this. People will chose the mode of transport that it most convenient for them, based on speed, comfort.... If the trains are jammed pack but the roads are empty, some people will choose to drive. If the roads are congested but the trains fast, convenient and empty, people will chose to take the train. It works until an equilibrium is reached. That is why places with good public transport Tokyo, London, Hong Kong... still have congestion.
It does not matter how much you build for the car, eventually your streets will end up being clogged. Cars just take up too much space. Building less dense cities might give cars a bit more space, but travel times will only increase because the distances will become greater too. Plus, spread out cities make it almost impossible to let people bike or build a good public transport system. The only option is indeed to create alternatives. Here in Amsterdam, for every trip within the city I can take the car, bike or take public transport, and so does almost everyone else. Yes, traffic can still be bad here. Because on an almost empty street, the car is almost always the fastest option so people will keep using it. However, because there are alternatives, many people will prefer taking public transport or their bike, resulting in a better quality of life in the city.
A reason cars take up too much space is because they have crumple zones & no one is standing. Public transport does away with that, so for safety reasons buses go slower, while trains need more advanced signalling systems to keep them further apart
@@deathtrooper2048 And still , almost all trips, like going to a supermarket, can be done faster in New York due to proximity of services, which is only possible in dense environments.
@@deathtrooper2048But if you bike or use public transport, you don't experience traffic nor you contribute anything to it. If you dont drive traffic doesnt matter to you, except for noise and air pollution.
I've driven through LA and New York (and have seen car commutes in Tokyo). Both are headaches but I can definitely get through New York quite a bit faster than I can get through LA. Maybe mass transit doesn't eliminate congestion but a robust system helps a fair bit, and I think that's where LA is lacking.
I agree, but also want to add New York and Tokyo are way more populated than LA. Using them as examples for cities that still have traffic problems despite having public transport is a bit misleading. It should be easier for LA to avoid congestions via public transport and better zoning laws (groceries shops in residential areas would help to avoid traffic)
No, you definitely don't know how to navigate in L.A. in N.Y.C. is wayy worse than L.A. in L.A. you can avoid the freeways and take shortcuts. But not in N.Y.C. ! Since everything is very compacted and congested everywhere! Lol
@@mrm7058 no, it doesn't matter how much "population" it is from L.A. people come from all over the place to L.A. every single day! They come from Orange County, Ventura, San Bernandino.. etc.. that's why there's the "highway traffic" but not all of Los Angeles gets clogged up like the compacted area in N.Y.C. I find N.Y.C. wayy worse to avoid traffic. Plus all of the traffic lights so close makes it a bit annoying too!
I've been looking at that for awhile and concluded it's not enough. You have to make public transit attractive and cheap enough for adoption. So, for example here in San Diego public transit is operated as a normal business and although it's utilized by people, IMO it falls far short of its potential. You get charged a pretty fair amount depending on distance travelled and no free transfers, so you fee essentially multiplies each time you transfer to another bus or rail line. Bottom line is that public transportation is not cheap, can be convenient but generally takes a lot longer compared to an Uber, Lyft, or your own vehicle. In cities I've visited like Chicago and Atlanta, the transit fee is heavily subsidized often able to travel any distance with any number of transfers for a very low price and I've seen better utilization but I don't know how much unrealized potential there is. Actually, I'd be curious as much as fares are subsidized if those cities might not be best off by eliminating fees altogether and running them entirely off collected taxes and any available assistance from State and Federal. It's not actually that much more a leap from what is being charged now. So, it's a bit of a puzzle how much to invest in public transportation, and who pays for its maintenance and operation.
@@tonysu8860 Contrary to many American's belief in both Canada and the US. Transit is not meant to make money it's meant to be a sunk cost that reduces traffic and quality of life for everyone.
@@tonysu8860 Having transit that is affordable is important, but to get there you first need to have extensive systems that get people where they need to go, and high frequencies. The road network is one of the most subsidized things in america and if we gave some of that to transit it would be better. (The look and comfort of transit also has to be better, hopefully not just metal boxes in the future.) People probably wouldnt be upset about paying for transit if it was a good system. The cost of driving a car is thousands every month, but those costs aren't just purchase costs, they are hidden in gas prices, maintanance, and the car being worth less the more you drive it. When you look at it that way, $5 for a ride isn't that bad, if you look at it from a monthly point of view.
It's mostly down to residential/business zoning. Everyone drives from the residential zones into the business zones to work at the same time. If businesses were allowed to fully spread out and become more localised it would change everything. Other countries allow a better mix than US cities.
Japan is great at this, their zoning is very interesting with the ability to have housing mixed in with small factories and offices as well as restaurants, shops and schools. Only large industrial complexes have to be separated from residences which makes sense.
"Commercial business down the street that I can conveniently walk to? Nooo! That will ruin the character of the neighborhood and generate traffic!" -NIMBY
@@DennisMartinezCalifornia And funny enough Japanese neighborhoods are full of character and buzz, meanwhile american suburbs are boring asf and that's why the streets are usually empty. There is simply nothing to do in most neighborhoods here.
People in Europe and East Asia do not have so much of a NIMBY attitude when it comes to mixing residential, commercial, and light industrial zones. But probably most Americans do...
In what way does transit not reduce congestion? Every person in a train is a person not in a car. Every person in a bus is not a person in a car. Every person on a bicycle is not a person in a car.
the thing is is that that's not necessarily true, I thought the same thing until someone explained it to me but basically with other public transit options yr not taking people driving in cars off the road an into rail or mass transit, yr taking people who were essentially devoid of any means of transportationin the 1st place, Those with no licenses, those who cannot drive because of some disability or some other issue. Or maybe you can't afford a car. Mass transit spokennoise allowed people that were not going anywhere. Do you go somewhere? It wasn't taking people in cars off the roads. It was just simply allowing a greater number of the public. To be going places who before couldn't go anywhere at all. But that's still if you look at it, it's still a good thing you want. The greatest number of people in a givin region to be free of restrictions to transportation. now these people suddenly have a means to get to a job ther spending more time outdoors, becoming more sociable thru public interaction
@@austinharding9734it’s still means that there are less cars on the road, and sometimes there are people who have cars who actually choose to take transit. Like me, I have access to a car at home and could drive at anytime, yet I take public transit everywhere. Just because you are on public transit, doesn’t mean that everyone on it is take it because it is their only choice.
There are two major reasons that can explain this situation: First, LA zoning is terrible as everyone knows. Second, homeless crisis is still a major problem in LA, which scare people from choosing public transportation system as they're afraid their safety is not guaranteed. I believe that the improvement of safety in public transportation is essential to completely solve LA traffic congestion. Otherwise, there is such no parents allowing their kids to take a bus on evenings and early mornings.
@@burgerpommes2001 Yes, if YOU built them. Homeless people have hands too, they can get themselves sorted. Most of them want to do nothing but feel entitled to live in downtown L.A.
@@jirislavicek9954 honestly the true problem is lack of national hospital systems. All of neurosis homeless who have not relatives or friends to help should be in these hospital systems. I know that we used to have the national hospitals, but former presidents eliminated them to save budget for Middle East wars. I hope the government will rebuild the system again so both the homeless and insurance issues will be solved. I guess you also notice that the majority of homeless has problems with their mental health.
@@burgerpommes2001 it's not that easy due to LA strict building code. In general, CA has one of the most strictest building Code in the US. Builders and real estate developers can't just easily build affordable housings or normal apartments due to these building code. Which is why the majority of new apartment complex nowadays always start with so-called "luxury standard", and therefore the price is expansive although they use cheap materials to build.
@@CaliSteve169 no, aristocrats in suits met to decide to buy the rail carts, and scrap then while pushing automotives as freedom. They then decided to make everything suburban so you can't walk the streets anymore. Cars are the cornerstone of the police state.
@@jjoohhhnn I respectfully disagree. To me, cars are freedom. You can get in your car whenever you want and go wherever you want. Being stuffed in a railroad car with a bunch of other people, going to designated areas whenever they are available is not freedom at all. Having lived in a communist country, I feel very strongly about that.
@@CaliSteve169 no, they have to respect your rights to unreasonable search and seizure. On the road, if you get randomly pulled over and mouth off there's all manner of extrajudicial punishment they can dole out. The idea of insurance that goes up when you use it is a racket, too. Rail doesn't have a crazy entrance fee and Nazi cops every couple miles to make sure you're not acting up. How many of your unwanted police encounters have been via being pulled over?
In addition to public transportation, if you still want to use car with minimum traffic, you need to make car owners face the actual price of driving the automobile. E.g. no free parking, paid city entrance, miles driven tax, higher gas taxes.
@@oleksiifedorenko4619 No, that’s way to much. Not everyone wants to go on public transportation and forcing them to pay even more with gas fees that are already insane is ridiculous.
@@georgebalan6201 You dont understand, that we are reaching a point, where you people will have to understand, that space is fully occupied and you wont be able to do, whatever you want to do. If the space is used up and there is nowhere to build, you wont build. If you drive, just because you "dont want to go on public transport", well tough luck. People with actual need have priority, such as deliveries, emergency services, people that drive for living... If you dont want to go through public transit on your trip to a mall, too bad for you, you arent the only person living on the planet anymore...
@@georgebalan6201 well, that is economics. Government has subsidized driving for decades with free roads, parking and unrealistically low gas prices (by free I mean you do not directly pay for their construction and service, but everyone pays for them through general taxes, no matter how much you use those services). We just need to at least reduce those subsidies to cope with the damage driving creates to our cities, health and environment. Moreover, driving is a very inequitable mean of transportation, which cannot be used by the young, old, disabled and people with low socioeconomic status. So, why should government even subsidize it?
Compare LA (where I lived) to one of the many European or Asian mega-cities (where I also lived), and you'll see that zoning, lack of proper public transportation, and dependence on cars (vs. scooters & bicycles) lead to this problem. The solution is more affordable housing closer to the workplace, better zoning laws, more robust public transportation, and more willingness from employers to allow remote work!
@@thejquinn and every other country that has adopted the US model of government for itself has seen its democracy and then its republic collapse into authoritarian dictatorship. Now it's the US's turn. We would have been much better off with a parliamentary system.
Yes, and no, but train stops have to be well considered. The reason people prefer trains to buses is because buses stop more often than trains do, which is why so many cities are installing rapid bus lanes, with fewer stops; You’re right though, we need to reduce freeway capacity and putting trains in lanes is a start. But, look at America today. A significant percentage of the population still believes the 2020 election was stolen, that Putin is better than Biden, and that drinking your urine is better than getting a covid shot, none of which is the sort of thinking that solves any problem, let alone serious problems like this.
@@Gryphonisle very sad that in 2022, people still believe that the earth is a spinning space ball hahaha but in reality outer space is a hoax, earth is stationary plane not a planet with a firmament aka dome above us, which is the ceiling of the earth. it's 2022 please wake up eat organic natural GOD given healthy foods and stop eating gmo synthetic man made foods plus injecting synthetic v. I cannot believe that I have to explain this to you, wake up
@@Gryphonisle Just responding to the bus vs train point you made. We here in BC have rapid transit buses that have less stops. They also are either double decker or bendy buses to allow for more riders. That could be a solution
As a native New Yorker, I feel like if you have to drive everywhere, what’s the point of living in a major city? At that point you might as well live some place rural.
I used to be in NYC with some frequency, and I always used the subway in the city. I thought it was great, cost efficient vs. cabs, and convenient. If I actually lived in NYC, no way I’d own a car. No reason for it.
When I visited NY a few years ago I was impressed by the subway system Every few blocks there would be an entrance to a subway station. It was so convenient
And the crazy thing is NYC Subway is a shell of what it could be due to decades of neglect. Its needs are too numerous to list but perhaps it most desperately needs direct links between Bronx-Queens-Brooklyn that avoid passing through Manhattan.
@@eriklakeland3857 ya the subway was designed to bring everyone to Manhattan. Sadly due to high rents most people are trying to get from one outer-Borough to another. Can take over an hour by train to get just a few miles from Brooklyn to Queens, or queens to the Bronx. As you need to take a train to midtown then transfer back around. Direct train lines would make the subway way less crowded. Plus no direct train to the airports yet. La guardia, Kennedy and Newark should be on a massive loop. Currently system dumps eveyone off in Manhattan. Then they take an Uber back to Queens. Makes more traffic. 😢
Transit isn’t enough, you also need universally good priority for not just transit but for bicycles and pedestrians. It isn’t until it’s not just easy to get anywhere by means other than cars, but when cars are second-class citizen interlopers in cities oriented around foot traffic, bicycles, and transit, that people get out of their cars and traffic starts to calm down.
Definitely true, if you just built bus routes and they get stuck in the same traffic as cars, no one will take it unless they’re poor or desperate. But if you have bus lanes and the buses are faster than driving and are cheap, reliable and safe, a lot of people will take them.
To get that started mixed developments and design of districts need to be a requirement. That is an important step to reach the goal your talking about. Until zoning laws change that want ever be a reality.
The only way public transit would be allowed to take off and grow is by loosening our zoning laws. Currently people are simply not allowed to build communities that would support transit because single family housing with no retail or business is the only type of construction allowed.
I come from Croatia, Europe. and this is totally incomprehensible to me. In our cities where ever you live in the city, you have a convenient store in walking distance. As well as bakeries, pharmacy, farmers market and most important of all coffee shops. You really need to live in a wary rural area not to be able to do your daily shopping without a car.
We need to address why people want single family homes. When white people leave you cry like brats about white flight. When white people bring in jobs you scream gentrification. So there is no win here. People in cities, ranging from young white leftists to minorities, created a fake devil that they used to force blame. Who wants to live in cities when crime is sky high, police are public enemy number one, schools are horrible and endless supply of people keep coming? The problem lies in the mentalities and thought processes of many who live in American cities. Major cities vote blue. There lies the problem!
The definition of congestion as “I’m going to get in my car and it is going to go faster” is the classic example of car-focused thinking. All people care about is “Can I get where I want to go with relatively low effort and time, and can I do what I want when I get there.” Focusing on getting cars to places ignores how that fundamental human want can be fulfilled by safe bicycle infrastructure, public transport, and multi-use-and-dense development.
Car Transit makes up over 70% of commuting, so ya screw buses and bikes. I wouldnt be caught dead on a bus. I dont know about you, but I dont like being dependant on things and that is exactly what you get when you let someone else take you somewhere. If my car doesnt start then thats my problem. The bus dont show up, then im not going to be very happy
@@breadfan9 It really depends on the public transport system. Sure, if a bus comes every hour and often is delayed or does not show up, I would not take it either. If a bus comes every 5 minutes, even if it will not show up, the next one will be in 9 minutes or less. I take public transport several times a week and it does not make me dependent. Because with that logic, a traffic jam would make you dependent as a driver as well, because it can easily make your trip several minutes longer. In L.A., public transport and bike lanes have to be built and expended, so people will have alternatives. People that absolutely want to stick to their car still can then.
@@Marchanthof You still have to "wait". Does a bus take you to a friends house? To the movies? To the hospital? TO the doctors. Picking up a date? You must be single man. You are limited to WHERE you can go. I want to be able to get in my car at 3 in the morning and run down to the grocery at will. That is NOT defendant on SOMEONE. You are dependent on a person AND a vehicle to get you somewhere. F that
@@breadfan9 It's okay to like cars, single family homes, etc. But don't expect to have good trafic. (I don't know about you in particular, but many car users want car and low trafic at the same time, which is quite unreasonable)
@@breadfan9 In properly designed system, anyone should be able to reasonable do all that with the efficient public transit system. There should be a good enough network where you can move from one transit circuit to another and get dropped off very close to key locations like a large commercial area that has all the stuff like entertainment(movies) and stores(clothing, tools, groceries, parts, hospital etc.) And by "reasonable" you should not expect public transit to take you to your mistress that lives 100 miles away secluded from your wife(lol). And by dependent, the transit system should be fully autonomous and have multiple train cars that constantly move around the network at consistent time intervals.
This isn't a traffic problem, it's a zoning problem. Most of SoCal has been zoned single family residential. Increasing density will give people more options on how to move around.
What if they don’t want that type of density? Do you force them into it? Might explain why so many rich individuals moved into the western interior during the “plandemic”.
@@davestewart2067 Right now they have no choice. Everything is zoned SFR. You can't get medium or high density even if you want to. People are leaving because SFR is unaffordable for a large segment of society.
It’s kind of insulting to hear Tokyo being listed with NY and HK as being heavily congested. Sure we have traffics but only under certain conditions and not even close to being as bad as the US, and it IS thanks to the public transport, mainly trains for ease of travel and less obesity because we walk a lot.
The average commute time in Tokyo is slightly less than an hour compared to Los Angeles 30.9 minutes. Tokyo has a worse congestion issues than any major US cities
Sounds like you folks aint from round these parts let me tell you about L.A. traffic has gotten so bad if you can afford you get private helicopters to pick you up, the rich don't care if they can fly over it.
@@xyx10 you are comparing pears to apples there. Los Angeles is only 59% of Tokyo. The Tokyo area also covers over 37 million residents whilst the Los Angeles metropolitan area only has over 18 million inhabitants. Tokyo simply wouldn't be possible without good mass transportation. 20 lanes each just wouldn't work.
Thank you for touching the "Induced Demand" concept. SoCal is the poster child for Induced Demand. One person in one car is a failed transportation plan and adding more lanes/roads/freeways won't change that fact.
Yes, but I think it's not as they described it. They basically say, when there are more roads, more people want to drive. But actually, if you use more space for cars, there is less space for anything else, locations become further apart and more people HAVE TO drive. That is IMHO the actual problem with building more roads and highways in cities.
Real problem is the planning of city. LA need mixdeveloped areas, where people can live, work, and take a rest(schools, shops, cafes and etc). Ok, you can invest to public transportation, but without density of population it will be just a "money dark-hole".
Yeah because a factory next to my house makes sense. Never heard “mixdeveloped” in my life but you’d be great at RCI zoning. Literally the whole video is that we don’t have subways because of earthquakes. Only SF does.
@@Lybrel Mixed development doesn't mean industry next to housing, it can allow for offices and corner shops to coexist with housing units in the same buildings/neighborhoods. A fair amount of traffic would be alleviated if you could just walk a few minutes to grab some groceries for dinner instead of having to take a 10-15 minute drive from suburbs to strip malls. Thinking that it's an all-or-nothing scenario where either you have a sea single family homes in a neighborhood or an industrial waste plant in your backyard is narrow-minded. Also LA does have a few subways, the Red and Purple Lines. Tunnels are typically far safer from earthquakes than being on the surface. EQs aren't really the concern, it's just that tunnels are far more expensive to build so the city has opted to make a majority of its rail transit above ground light rail. Unfortunately it's constructed in a way where the light rail has to wait at stoplights for intersecting traffic, which greatly defeats the time-competitiveness of public transit during something like rush hour.
A part of the solution to traffic congestion is making our cities more livable. Improve the infrastructure, lower crime, improve inner city schools, provide safe & efficient mass transit, provide affordable housing and parks & recreational facilities. If you provide these things than folks wouldn’t want to run to the suburbs. Which adds to the horrible congestion. If folks felt safe in the city they will stay. If folks have good schools for their kids they will stay in the city. If there are clean parks and other green spaces than folks will stay in the city. If there are good, clean, and efficient mass transit, people will stay in the city.
*Why Traffic Is So Bad In Los Angeles?* Because you made it un-walkable, un-bikeable, and encouraged everyone to buy cars with massively subsidised Gas costs [$12 a gallon in the UK now] Then you built 16 lane highways and made everything drive through, the public transport is sh!t to none existent - and you are surprised people use their cars for EVERYTHING.
@@tinytownsoftware3837 Actually, that's not true. Where I live, there are lots of people who bike that or more to work. The older ones just use an electric bike.
@@tinytownsoftware3837 10 miles is easy to do with a e-bike. Besides if you build denser cities, towns and villages most people won't even need to travel 10 miles.
One of the best ways to reduce traffic is to put new rail lines in view of the road, like inbetween or above the highway. Then all the drivers can watch the commuters race by them and think, "I could get to work faster and with less stress." Also increasing the cost of parking can work as an alternative to a congestion fee, since most people expect to pay for that already. The last suggestion I have is to increase housing density. That means midrise apartments and duplex/triplexes. And make larger apartments for families, 4+ bedroom with play areas and other family friendly spaces. Don't forget mixed use zoning as well, bring the pub into walking distance along with the pharmacy and some groceries.
that is only true if the rail line is built well and has easy connections to pedestrian friendly areas. The areas around highways are extremely bad for walking so getting off a train in those areas would make the whole experience terrible.
That's not good for riders. Then you'll need to walk a mile to get on the train. Rail should run closer to main avenues. Usually highways are off the beaten path for those walking.
"was metra an option today" and "the real way to fly" along expressways are some of the most effective advertisements for metra rail here in Chicago, imo
The fix? 1. Invest in mass transit systems i.e. high speed rail, etc. 2. Have more people work from home and thus, staying off the roadways. 3. Get rid of the 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. work schedule and offer more options so that not everyone has to be on the roadways on the same times.
If your thinking about transit as a way to avoid traffic, your thinking about it wrong and your transit will fail. Public transit should be the easier and most convenient way to get around. The car should be the last option. Yes I know the environment we build in America makes it extremely hard for transit to work but we have to fix the city that we broke, all to make room for the car
Funny in the sad way. One great thing that came of 2020 was that downtown Culver City had closed most lanes of traffic westbound and made them street side dining areas for all the restaurants there. Every night was like a festival with the sounds of music, laughter, people chilling out, the smells of food and drink and just a general mass of good times. It was uncontestably a wonderful thing. A lot like parts of Paris, Barcelona or any other great city for that matter. Now, of course, that's been rolled back so we can give a little more of our good life and joy away because some people just need to get home from work faster. I grew up driving. Driving a car was a gigantic, cool right of passage. But, god damn it is time we change and start protecting, promoting and enjoying other aspects of life even if they clash with quick drive times.
The problem with LA is its so expansive, and people work in so many different places, and live in so many different places. So, this transit system would have to be massive and efficient enough for people to use. Current public transit is a joke, but at least a subway is under construction
I don’t think there is a transportation system that is simultaneously possible to build and actually satisfies LA transportation needs. It would be more fruitful to figure out ways to let people move closer to where they need to be in the first place. Or how to move the places where they need to be closer to where they already are. If frequent traffic needs can be cut to a fraction of what they currently are, it becomes possible to satisfactorily “solve” traffic.
@@hylje This answer makes no sense since large megalopolises like Tokyo, Seoul and Shanghai have expansive, clean, well-maintained subway networks in addition to high speed rail that link satellite cities.
I think there there lies the problem. Most of the traffic is caused by commuting to and from work. If people are able to choose to live closer to work or find a job closer to where they lived then a large chunk of the issue would be resolved. For many reasons this is not possible, whether it is cost of homes or the area they worked was not where they wanted to live.
@@HPN620 that's the problem with having one large CBD or downtown. Some countries have learnt to incorporate offices and commercial into or nearby residential dwellings, but America continues to sprawl its suburbs further and further from shopping centres, business parks etc.
@@herooo.2928 Large megalopolises are also functionally divided into mostly self-sufficient districts, so most people don’t have to travel all the way across the entire region just to get to work every day. Even with most people (e.g. the person working at the convenience store) living locally to most of their needs and duties, due to the sheer population of the region you still have a large number of people who have to occasionally or regularly travel a longer distance, hence the subways, high speed rail lines and yes, even expressways and private cars. But it all works because the average distance any one person in the whole region needs to travel is actively minimized. Every trip you don’t need to make is an ideal trip that doesn’t cause congestion.
Me too. I-5 and the 405 in LA are unbelievable. Traffic goes about 5 MPH even when it is not 7-9AM or 4-7PM. LA is the armpit, without antiperspirant, of California.
@@Bertuzz84 Yup, its pretty much brake and move a few feet, then repeat for a while... Literary movin like 0-3mph at times I feel like, bumper to bumper. It gets much worse if there was a big accident, then ain’t moving much at all. I hate the freeway tbh lol
Nobody in Los Angeles considers driving to be free. We pay the highest sales tax when we buy a car, the highest fuel tax when we fill it up, the highest registration fees every year, and high fees for parking. People just find a way to budget it in, which unfortunately takes money away from other things in their budgets. When I was my daughter's age I would take the bus all over LA by myself, but these days public transportation is not safe enough to let kids do the same in LA.
Have you ridden mass transit in LA? Waiting for a bus in downtown LA was one of the scariest moments in my life next to being involved in a home invasion robbery. The actual bus ride was just as bad. Now I understand why people drive everywhere in LA.
I used to live in the SF Valley west and north of downtown, and I always got good service using RTD. Buses were timely and fairly frequent on busier routes. I’ve not lived there since the mid 90s, so things I’m sure have changed since then.
My friends are from Japan and they came here to work at a university. They are in Chicago and they say public transportation is crap here. In Tokyo they said train comes every 2 minutes and you don't have to walk far to a station.
L.A. have more than enough highways… the interesting thing is how those highways intersect and how to merge on/off. Inconveniently placed entrances squeezed into crammed spaces along with the flow of traffic is a common theme. Carpool lanes poorly used and connection points that suddenly disappear. At any point, you can go from six lanes to three without warning. Expecting all these cars to squeeze into these spaces without congestion is crazy.
This. I was surprised on how rare this gets mentioned when people question traffic issues in LA. There's been so many instances I can think of when going through rush hour traffic where the real congestion starts when the right lane requires merging to the left or vice versa out of nowhere. One instance I encountered this so often in my usual drive route is when going from the 105 east to 110 north. Not only did we need to merge once to get to the 110, but we also need to worry about merging at least one more time as the 110 north suddenly requires another merge like not even 1/4th of a mile after the 105. I do not know why the hell that is needed but that has added the headaches for drivers especially those trying to get onto the 110 from the 105 to begin with. Another is going from 101 west to the 110 south in downtown. Similar situation except compounded by the other inflow of traffic going from 101 east to 110 south.
I think that the main cause is America's focus on cars for transportation. Have a look over here in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe, where we have a completely different infrastructure. As a result, people have more access to efficient & affordable public transportation, can ride a bike on a safe way and can take a walk for some groceries in a nearby supermarket.
@@comicsandsoftime7978 exactly, which is where HSR steps in to cut those times down to 1/3 that, by averaging 210mph like they do in the rest of the developed world.
It's such a shame cause the USA had the first plans for a train to go 200mph and the auto industry scrapped it, bought out the trollies, and the rail families turned into insurance brokers for cars, and clamped down on rail. Nothing democratic, free or even in the spirit of capitalism about American transit.
@@comicsandsoftime7978 can you drive for 10 hours and not get across LA if there were no traffic? He’s not saying nation wide public transit or biking across the nation he means INTERCITY TRANSPORTATION.
It is easier than it seems. Just change zoning regulations to allow building schools, small shops, etc close to houses. Then even if you will have to drive to work (provided that you do not work in your area) it will sitll make roads less congested.
Congestion pricing does not seem like a viable solution unless there are also good transit options. As city centers gentrify, lower wage workers are pushed further out and have to commute to work. Congestion pricing would hurt those workers and cause other problems in a city already struggling with a labor shortage.
Exactly it’s the same with the let’s ban car morons or the mileage tax folks people drive because they have to of course there’s a lot of people that will always want to drive and refuse alternatives but there’s probably a lot more that will leave the car in the garage and take a bus, train, bike, or there own two feet if that was actually an alternative
@@AmericansAlwaysFree Even hard core car guys might consider using transit if it gives them the freedom to have something fun and impractical on the side that is not used for daily commuting.
The best way to reduce traffic in LA? The COVID-19. Ironically, that was the only time I did not see heavy traffic in LA and no one said LA highways were free parking lots😢
@@AskMiko Well, I was an essential worker at the time so WFH was not an option so I had to drive sadly 😥 You know, in the beginning of the COVID-19, - a lot of businesses shut down - some people got generous unemployment benefits - Vaccines were not even available at the time I would say the emerge of the virus reduced traffic in LA.
I heard that in the early days of the pandemic despite traffic being so, low the total amount of highway deaths were the same due to lots of illegal racing on the highways.
My wife and I have travelled to Paris and London in the last 10 years and the public transportation systems in those two cities are light years ahead of Los Angeles. While in London we bought weekly passes on The Underground and it was an incredibly efficient way to get around and super cheap too. We were able to get anywhere in London we wanted to go very quickly. We only took taxis to and from Heathrow airport. The London Underground was very easy to understand and we never once took the wrong train.
It's going to take years of targeted densification to build the demand for subways. Light rail is a better bet in the medium term. You need to build up downtown / next to downtown to start building up demand. Look at what Toronto and Ottawa are doing. Don't disregard the simple bus. Busses can build up mass transit demand and turn it into LRT and Subways. It won't happen overnight. It won't happen in 10 years even.
Cars are not the problem; car DEPENDENCY is. If walking and biking and transit were viable, or even pleasant and convenient, way more people would do it, shifting transport away from cars. Cars then become one of many tools, rather than the only mode available.
What's crazy to me is that many people will still go out of their way to advocate for no public transportation or building denser, all while being stuck in traffic for an hour on their way to work. Here in the Dallas metro a 30 minute drive is RARELY 30 minutes, it's going to be 50 minutes to an hour because traffic is inevitable, seeing a wreck on the freeway is inevitable. America needs to really change the way we build out cities, it's such a wasteful use of our resources and the beautiful land we have.
DESIGNING THE MOST EFFECTIVE COMMUTE SYSTEM SHOULD START WITH ESTABLISHING WHY PEOPLE COMMUTE IN THE FIRST PLACE ...Some congestion is easily avoidable for instance, by ensuring that people are able to live near where they work and can therefore walk or cycle to work..
If only LA had Tokyo’s metro system. Not sure why LA didn’t adopt Tokyo’s style metro and instead built New York’s style metro. Tokyos metro blows NY’s out of the water.
People are saying car companies which is partially true. But the bigger thing is that LA sprung up around Oil and doesn't have the geographic barriers that NYC had. So it made sense to use cars primarily at the time.
the problem is simple. A city of this csize should have several 100 miles of metro rail as a backbone with many light rail lines as a secondary mode, and a number of major and minor BRT systems. Building tolly lines in and near buisy areas of the city and taxing drivers so they want to use mass transit means you can have an extensive trolly network; and this city is a perfect city for evening trolly travel!!!
Cool. Now like any other major infrastructure project, who and how is going to fund the trillions of dollars of up front costs for the benefits which won't come until afterwards?
@@tonysu8860 If you know how the US spends its money and its history, then you wouldn't even be asking such a question. Decrease the military budget. That's a start. Nearly a trillion is spent on it every year and it keeps going up and up and no one talks about that. Quit subsidizing the fossil fuel and automobile industry. They could have never made it on their own. It was the government that bailed them out, like Chrysler during the 2008 recession. Stop subsidizing them and start taxing them instead. Gas tax, mileage tax. Also, it was the government spending trillions of dollars that got us to this point too. Look up the federal highway act. Actually make the rich start paying their taxes. The two richest men in the world have actually gone a year without paying a penny in federal taxes. Many corporations don't pay income tax either.
They definitely could have kept the trolly lines like San Francisco did. In San Francisco they kept multiple existing lines and in downtown they built a subway tunnel under market street to speed the trolleys up. Los Angels probably could have done the same
Ive lived in New York for about 10 years and traffic is everywhere, on the highways, on the side streets, everywhere! I live in LA now and find that congestion, traffic and road rage in general is much worse in New York. What I absolutely do miss about New York was that my partner and I could virtually ride our bicycles ANYWHERE in the city! LA has got to do better to give cyclists a chance! If a city with so much going on like New York can install bike lanes the same can happen here in LA too!
You’re actually kinda right. In the Bay Area during and after the pandemic hit Facebook went Remote and stayed remote. The bridge that connects the lower Peninsula and the East Bay loosened a lot of congestion ever since they went online. And funnily enough their big utopian office buildings are empty and are just big facades adding more traffic lights. But it’s rough though for intercity transit buses because Ridership on Transbay Buses decreased.
That is partially true. It doesn't solve the problems with the enormous roads you have in US, the funding of them and the lack of alternatives. Can you imagine to live without a car? Walk to a shop, or for a coffee with friends?
A county wide network of Bus Rapid Transit would be an effective solution to give people more options. Like the UCLA professor said in the video, LA has a lot of medium-low density that makes traffic worse here than elsewhere. BRT is a lot cheaper than rail and can be more flexible using the existing road network.
@@gitgut4977 it’s a trade off. Lower capital cost vs higher operating costs. With how spread out LA county is and how decentralized job centers are, we need a network that creates a positive feedback loop. I still support rail investments where they make sense though.
BRT is a terrible choice unless you can hire good drivers for a low wage, which is basically impossible in the developed world. In addition, BRT still has the terrible ride quality of a bus (big heavy vehicles lurch around unless they are held in a guideway like with rails). Moreover, the costs are not that much cheaper than rail (you're literally just saving cost on the rails, and the slightly cheaper vehicles -- you still have to build the stations, maintain the right of way, fare payment systems, etc.) BRT works best in developing countries where they can get drivers for cheap and run a lot of smaller vehicles at high frequencies. Yes, it's slightly cheaper to deploy, which is important for a poor country, but in a developed nation it's penny-wise pound-foolish. The biggest enemy of transit in the US are permitting and construction costs. Usually a huge chunk of the money goes into lawyers fighting lawsuits, consultants conducting years worth of unneeded studies, and corrupt contractors that charge 10x what one in Europe would, despite paying the construction workers almost the same.
The answer to the question of where it should go is straightforward: transit, transit and more transit. The idea that congestion pricing is a regressive tax is defensible if it's not actually improving people's lives. Money towards roads doesn't improve people's lives in any way. The road may be in better condition, but they are still spending lots of money on driving. Transit, by contrast, completely changes that
We do NOT need more tolls. We already pay tax on the car, pay for the license, pay for registration, pay a gas tax, pay county taxes for the roads etc. I cannot stand being forced to pay to get to work and shows (full-time musician) and mass transit is impossible because of how much gear we need to bring. More direct highways is my call. I can get from A to B faster by taking more direct roads with less exits and no traffic lights.
3:28 "I'm gonna get in my car, and it's gonna go faster." Dude, if you're getting in your car, you're generating traffic and thus congestion. Contrary to your claim, reducing congestion totally means getting people to not take their cars--unless what you mean is that everyone else should clear the streets for you personally. Getting people to not take their cars, ideally, involves their not needing to do so, either because where they have to go is within walking distance, or because there are better transit solutions.
@@TJ-vl1ff a tram system along with busses, and light rail as well as having the ability to walk or bike to places although LA is to sprawled for the final 2 options.
A factor to consider is the reliability of the transit system. Here in Vancouver we have an elevated rail line that zooms past traffic through multiple municipalities with little delays. People would not want to take the bus if the bus arrives late often. It didn't reduce car traffic, but it provides a great alternative than driving. Another factor is mixed use developments. Imagine your work or shop is just a 5 to 10 minute walk from your house. You don't need a car to get there. Many new developments, especially near busy roads here, are incorporating businesses on the first floor and residential suites on top of that.
I had ideas for this problem for a while, but it takes an open experimental approach by all parties. 1- Modify the schedules for different types of industries, and public institutions, just one hour change escalation, will easy the flow. 2- When many streets run parallel from downtown to other cities, have one street every one or two miles exclusively for non motorized transportation, and walking or running people, when you mix cars with bicycles, that's a recipe for disaster. 3- Use one line on the freeways or build one for electric transportation, you can travel to the next city easily on your electric bicycle. 4- Create an app where people can book a trip in the city from point A to point B, you can send the right size vehicle to speed up the trip, and not making people wait for a bus that stops every corner. 5- Trains everywhere, with the same booking trip app, if only 20 people are heading from Los Angeles to Las Vegas on specific time, send only a wagon straight and do the same for close cities. This are my ideas, but I can be ignorant in many structural and engineering issues, but I think when different people brainstorm, is more probably a solution can come.
There are a couple light rail lines in LA. Problem is that LA county is enormous, far more than even a vast network of light rail can serve. And of course something like light rail can easily be built only before people move in. It's so dense now that it's not a practical solution.
@@tonysu8860 The old Pacific Electric and Los Angeles Railway networks were also huge and expansive and could get you pretty much anywhere you wanted to go in Los Angeles. The problem is that automobile lobbies demanded that cars be able to drive on the same roads the streetcars used, thus causing the traffic that slowed them down and made them unusable.
The congestion charge in the UK works well, it encourages people to walk or take the tube (metro). We also have something called the ULEZ or Ultra Low Emission Zone, which is in london and Manchester and Bradford in the UK. It charges people only in the most polluting vehicles to drive into a dense area of a city. While this is primarily to reduce air pollution, it still reduces traffic and gives people chance to look for alternatives
@@MC_MMV that is exactly what the UCLA prof explained. The fee that you charged in congestion fee, you invest it back into public transportation, bicycle lane, and pedestrian infrastructures.
@@MC_MMV "Otherwise you’re just making life more expensive for everyone." It doesn't make it more expensive for everyone. The money collected doesn't vanish (unlike the time spent in traffic jams).
Well you can't apply a copy and paste solution to another city with a different infrastructure and different population mentality. Have you see LA streets? Who would want to walk there. Plus everything in America is so spread out it wouldn't make since to walk.
Stop! Accommodating! Cars! Induced demand works almost in reverse for mass transit and walkable/localized/dense planning. But building wider roads will only create more traffic.
Need to make it so waitresses can work just down the street instead of driving 20 miles to work. Same with many retail stores where people can transfer to a store closer to home. Another problem is people need to learn to drive right... constantly changing lanes only slows down the rest. Write tickets for going to slow. Mass transit is a joke in California. What we have and what people think we should have. It won't work here at all.
For that, you need densification. It's not the 60 storey office towers, but the 4 - 25 storey condos and rental apartments. A waitress can own a 800 - 1000 sq ft condo 5 min walk from work and live a good life. Start with spots close to downtown, and on major intersections for densification. Keep the ground floor for commercial and build up. There is no reason why you can't have 5-6 stories of condo on top of a Wallgreens.
Right, the real problem is the fact people have to commute long distances for work. People have to commute because cities are too expensive to live in and the crime is so bad in some cities they are unlivable. Cars and car ownership is not the problem.
@@thejquinn except all the McJobs created by retail will disappear and then you're going to have this *huge* underclass that will become homeless and resort to crime in short order. It will be made worse when Wish and Amazon's fulfillment centers and delivery systems become fully automated.
90% of american cities are zoned with single family houses only, making public transit very expensive. Medium density 3-4 story multi use housing and commercial is needed to lessen traffic. When people got to travel 15 miles by car because of urban sprawl or 2 km by bike to a small office or grossery store to go to work or sum it lessens traffic
Tolls don’t work when they are one of the few options people have to get around in car depended, congested, sprawled out cities. . Texas has more tolls than California and our cities are just as congested. More tollways do not discourage people from driving when they have no other options.
Adie Tomer out there spitting facts. While he didn't mention the Downs-Thomson paradox by name, he mentioned the underlying call to action. In big cities, traffic will only get as bad as transit allows it. If you build great transit, you end up eliminating a bunch of trips by car. Of course, good transit is only cost effective with higher density of uses, so zoning changes are also necessary.
"Not Just Bikes" channel on youtube got the answers! Waht do you expect when you build ugly suburbs depending on car? Thank God I'm in Europe , i don't drive and i go everywhere I want without the need of owning an and wasting my money on polluting and noisy cars
I was soo surprised that london ranked highest on one of their trafic metrics. when London has some bike infrastructure, the tube, busses, and you can walk reasonabley most places.
@@mapmuncher5587 I think that probably due London reduciing the amount of space for cars in the city, removing lanes for bike lanes ect, so the few people who are driving around london will be waiting longer, its purposely a nightmare to drive in London. Almost everyone commutes via public transport or walks instead so I think that metric is probably a little misleading as to it being a huge issue because such a small percent of the population actually drive anywhere.
Thumbs up on that channel! I have lived in LA, Chicago, NY, Silicon Valley, Research Triangle, mid-sized midwestern cities, and several European cities and towns. The 'stroad' is by far the worst thing ever. Right now, Bucharest is exploding with stroads, and it is becoming the worst possible nightmare for people I have ever experienced. And awful for driving. The car dealers and developers love it because they shove the problems onto other people as they maximize the amount of crap they sell. "We need more roads" is always their solution, and it always requires more on top of it.
Been to Paris during a strike by railroad workers and the city's traffic ended up being worse than anything I've seen in the I-405. This is why we need an efficient and sophisticated public transportation system here in Los Angeles.
Wondering how much the jam is caused by bad driving behavior as well...I literally saw hundreds of times where there is a traffic jam but no accident and turned out there is just a super slow car on the surpass lane😅
And that is why I advocate a speed limit. Still, in California although there is no law saying how slow you can go, there is a law that says that no matter what the posted limits might be that drivers are obligated to drive safely and with the flow of traffic. That means that within your judgement what is safe, you cannot be too much slower or faster than other drivers around you.
That's why you always keep your distance with the car in front of you, just one car suddenly braking in the middle of a highway can cause traffic even miles back
"Mass transit does not save a city from congestion"? Well, car traffic will always get slower until alternatives are faster. So build public transport so fast most people will use it, freeing up the roads for the rest. Watch some "Not just bikes".
Yes, you are right. I would like to add that public transport must run very frequent; say 15-10 minuten in each direction. So when you miss your bus/ street car/ tram, you can cat catch the next one.
You guys missed out the most important thing...urban planning. US has one of the worst city zoning system in the world. Change that and increase public transit, you will see improvement.
I'd like to see an experimental car-free zone created in a major city in conjunction with adding bike lanes and a good trolley network. Only delivery and moving trucks would be allowed in during certain hours.
If you want to implement a congestion-based toll model, charge those who cause the problem in the first place: the employers that expect butts in seats at a specific time. Nobody actually WANTS to sit in traffic- we do it because we have to. Even if commuters could take other forms of transit, the story accurately points out that you're not really solving the problem; you're just trading one set of problems for another. Charge higher for desired arrivals at peak times, and incentivize them to flex start times to better manage transit demand in all forms.
Not every trip is to work. LA has traffic all day long, not just at 7:30am. Commuting is actually only about 1/3 of trips in the US. Plus if you charge employers for it, then many will just pay the fee for you or offer an incentive to employees that avoid the toll by taking transit or biking. Maybe with a yearly bonus or a free transit pass. So the burden goes back the employee for choosing how they get to work.
@@adamt195 hahah, what part of "all of the place" are you not understanding. San Bernadino & Ventura ain't from the L.A. metro area. 😂 u know nothing sir. But in NYC is worse the traffic cause most NYkers own a car & also foreign traffic; but smaller roads and the grid system screws it up! So many lights to stop, you can't turn right on a red light (unless posted) unlike L.A. etc! And construction all of the time cause of the weather.
Replace freeway lanes with rail transit. Literally the cheapest way to do it - no land acquisitions needed as the highways are already owned by the government.
Interesting how in this era of virtual networks we can't find a solution to having more people work from home thus reducing traffic. As already stated adding more lanes is definitely not the solution. Giving incentive to more people staying close to home for work, shopping, etc will help. I'm Montreal where I live, a network of light rail lines is being built, and mostly elevated, so it does not interfere with existing roads. Once fully completed in the next two years, one can make it to the downtown core from most suburbs in 30 minutes or less, and here's the real kicker, these trains will run every 4 minutes at rush hour so you don't even have to worry about the schedule.
Another thing to consider: Height restrictions, parking lot requierements and single family housing zones. These all force the city to expand horizontaly rather than verticaly, which makes public transit less cost-efective, which forces people to use cars instead.
It’s amazing LA’s gotten away with having very few high rises.
@@bobbuilder7952 And it's inhabitants are paying for it.
@@gorgthesalty Yes. But i had these conclusions way before i found NJB.
@@bobbuilder7952 earthquakes
@@williamerazo3921 that doesn’t stop Tokyo, a place with much more severe earthquakes
We have created the need in our cities to have to drive everywhere through bad zoning (seperating where we live from where we work and buy things) , parking minimums, and lack of density
Only an entitled rich person would say something like that
As someone into city planning, I very much agree with this. They have zoning that ensures low density, large distances to destinations, dangerous and unpleasant roads/streets for those not in a car, and ineffectiveness of public transit/cycling for commutes
As someone into city planning, I very much agree with this. They have zoning that ensures low density, large distances to destinations, dangerous and unpleasant roads/streets for those not in a car, and ineffectiveness of public transit/cycling for commutes
Most driving is done to buy useless items which can just be bought online. Get together with your employees and demand to be able to work from home for as many days out of the week as possible. This alone could reduce congestion 50% or more.
@@TKUA11 No, only an entitled rich person would *deny* that. It's obvious to everyone else.
"Most of the time when we talk about reducing congestion, it means I'm gonna get in my car and it's gonna go faster."
There's your problem. By this metric, Tokyo has terrible traffic, and yet very few people in Tokyo complain about traffic because they walk/ride a train for most trips.
He just perfectly summed up the American carbrain in one sentence.
One word: trains
that guy was an imbecil...type of person that thinks only he should drive, and its "other people's fault". Public transit, bike lanes & congestion taxes is the only solution!
"Having good public transit doesn't reduce congestion, look at new york" What is that crappy & selective argument? That's basically saying that public transit has no impact on congestion. If we were to destroy all public transit in New York and force everyone in a car, it wouldn't impact congestion?! Jeez...
New York is a demonstration of why you cannot have a functioning city without public transit. Sure the streets are jam packed 24/7 but I remember seeing that everyone would need 48 highway bridges and a layer of parking the size of the whole island if everyone who commutes to Manhattan were to drive. Also most of those drivers aren't local anyway
@@blitzn00dle50 the point he is trying to make, but didn't quite explain very well is this. People will chose the mode of transport that it most convenient for them, based on speed, comfort.... If the trains are jammed pack but the roads are empty, some people will choose to drive. If the roads are congested but the trains fast, convenient and empty, people will chose to take the train. It works until an equilibrium is reached. That is why places with good public transport Tokyo, London, Hong Kong... still have congestion.
It does not matter how much you build for the car, eventually your streets will end up being clogged. Cars just take up too much space. Building less dense cities might give cars a bit more space, but travel times will only increase because the distances will become greater too. Plus, spread out cities make it almost impossible to let people bike or build a good public transport system. The only option is indeed to create alternatives. Here in Amsterdam, for every trip within the city I can take the car, bike or take public transport, and so does almost everyone else. Yes, traffic can still be bad here. Because on an almost empty street, the car is almost always the fastest option so people will keep using it. However, because there are alternatives, many people will prefer taking public transport or their bike, resulting in a better quality of life in the city.
A reason cars take up too much space is because they have crumple zones & no one is standing. Public transport does away with that, so for safety reasons buses go slower, while trains need more advanced signalling systems to keep them further apart
New york has alternatives and still has terrible traffic.
@@deathtrooper2048 And still , almost all trips, like going to a supermarket, can be done faster in New York due to proximity of services, which is only possible in dense environments.
@@deathtrooper2048But if you bike or use public transport, you don't experience traffic nor you contribute anything to it. If you dont drive traffic doesnt matter to you, except for noise and air pollution.
@@deathtrooper2048so does every city that big
I've driven through LA and New York (and have seen car commutes in Tokyo). Both are headaches but I can definitely get through New York quite a bit faster than I can get through LA. Maybe mass transit doesn't eliminate congestion but a robust system helps a fair bit, and I think that's where LA is lacking.
I agree, but also want to add New York and Tokyo are way more populated than LA. Using them as examples for cities that still have traffic problems despite having public transport is a bit misleading. It should be easier for LA to avoid congestions via public transport and better zoning laws (groceries shops in residential areas would help to avoid traffic)
No, you definitely don't know how to navigate in L.A. in N.Y.C. is wayy worse than L.A. in L.A. you can avoid the freeways and take shortcuts. But not in N.Y.C. ! Since everything is very compacted and congested everywhere! Lol
@@mrm7058 no, it doesn't matter how much "population" it is from L.A. people come from all over the place to L.A. every single day! They come from Orange County, Ventura, San Bernandino.. etc.. that's why there's the "highway traffic" but not all of Los Angeles gets clogged up like the compacted area in N.Y.C. I find N.Y.C. wayy worse to avoid traffic. Plus all of the traffic lights so close makes it a bit annoying too!
Naaaaaah nyc is far worse.
New York is worst. You just don't don't know the shortcuts and take congested main roads.
This is why we need to build or expand public transit in cities across America
I've been looking at that for awhile and concluded it's not enough.
You have to make public transit attractive and cheap enough for adoption.
So, for example here in San Diego public transit is operated as a normal business and although it's utilized by people, IMO it falls far short of its potential. You get charged a pretty fair amount depending on distance travelled and no free transfers, so you fee essentially multiplies each time you transfer to another bus or rail line. Bottom line is that public transportation is not cheap, can be convenient but generally takes a lot longer compared to an Uber, Lyft, or your own vehicle.
In cities I've visited like Chicago and Atlanta, the transit fee is heavily subsidized often able to travel any distance with any number of transfers for a very low price and I've seen better utilization but I don't know how much unrealized potential there is. Actually, I'd be curious as much as fares are subsidized if those cities might not be best off by eliminating fees altogether and running them entirely off collected taxes and any available assistance from State and Federal. It's not actually that much more a leap from what is being charged now.
So, it's a bit of a puzzle how much to invest in public transportation, and who pays for its maintenance and operation.
@@tonysu8860 Contrary to many American's belief in both Canada and the US. Transit is not meant to make money it's meant to be a sunk cost that reduces traffic and quality of life for everyone.
@@tonysu8860 Having transit that is affordable is important, but to get there you first need to have extensive systems that get people where they need to go, and high frequencies. The road network is one of the most subsidized things in america and if we gave some of that to transit it would be better. (The look and comfort of transit also has to be better, hopefully not just metal boxes in the future.) People probably wouldnt be upset about paying for transit if it was a good system. The cost of driving a car is thousands every month, but those costs aren't just purchase costs, they are hidden in gas prices, maintanance, and the car being worth less the more you drive it. When you look at it that way, $5 for a ride isn't that bad, if you look at it from a monthly point of view.
ua-cam.com/video/MoUM44C26oQ/v-deo.html
Its hard to go to Costco on public transit.
It's mostly down to residential/business zoning. Everyone drives from the residential zones into the business zones to work at the same time. If businesses were allowed to fully spread out and become more localised it would change everything. Other countries allow a better mix than US cities.
Japan is great at this, their zoning is very interesting with the ability to have housing mixed in with small factories and offices as well as restaurants, shops and schools. Only large industrial complexes have to be separated from residences which makes sense.
"Commercial business down the street that I can conveniently walk to? Nooo! That will ruin the character of the neighborhood and generate traffic!" -NIMBY
MUH NEIGHBORHOODS CHARACTER BLAH BLAH BLAH "WRONG TYPE OF PEOPLE" BLAH BLAH BLAH
@@DennisMartinezCalifornia And funny enough Japanese neighborhoods are full of character and buzz, meanwhile american suburbs are boring asf and that's why the streets are usually empty. There is simply nothing to do in most neighborhoods here.
People in Europe and East Asia do not have so much of a NIMBY attitude when it comes to mixing residential, commercial, and light industrial zones. But probably most Americans do...
In what way does transit not reduce congestion?
Every person in a train is a person not in a car. Every person in a bus is not a person in a car. Every person on a bicycle is not a person in a car.
the thing is is that that's not necessarily true, I thought the same thing until someone explained it to me but basically with other public transit options yr not taking people driving in cars off the road an into rail or mass transit, yr taking people who were essentially devoid of any means of transportationin the 1st place, Those with no licenses, those who cannot drive because of some disability or some other issue. Or maybe you can't afford a car. Mass transit spokennoise allowed people that were not going anywhere. Do you go somewhere? It wasn't taking people in cars off the roads. It was just simply allowing a greater number of the public. To be going places who before couldn't go anywhere at all. But that's still if you look at it, it's still a good thing you want. The greatest number of people in a givin region to be free of restrictions to transportation. now these people suddenly have a means to get to a job ther spending more time outdoors, becoming more sociable thru public interaction
@@austinharding9734it’s still means that there are less cars on the road, and sometimes there are people who have cars who actually choose to take transit. Like me, I have access to a car at home and could drive at anytime, yet I take public transit everywhere. Just because you are on public transit, doesn’t mean that everyone on it is take it because it is their only choice.
There are two major reasons that can explain this situation: First, LA zoning is terrible as everyone knows. Second, homeless crisis is still a major problem in LA, which scare people from choosing public transportation system as they're afraid their safety is not guaranteed. I believe that the improvement of safety in public transportation is essential to completely solve LA traffic congestion. Otherwise, there is such no parents allowing their kids to take a bus on evenings and early mornings.
If you build more affordable midrises the homeless problem solves itself
@@burgerpommes2001 Yes, if YOU built them. Homeless people have hands too, they can get themselves sorted.
Most of them want to do nothing but feel entitled to live in downtown L.A.
@@jirislavicek9954 you is a government private partnership
@@jirislavicek9954 honestly the true problem is lack of national hospital systems. All of neurosis homeless who have not relatives or friends to help should be in these hospital systems. I know that we used to have the national hospitals, but former presidents eliminated them to save budget for Middle East wars. I hope the government will rebuild the system again so both the homeless and insurance issues will be solved. I guess you also notice that the majority of homeless has problems with their mental health.
@@burgerpommes2001 it's not that easy due to LA strict building code. In general, CA has one of the most strictest building Code in the US. Builders and real estate developers can't just easily build affordable housings or normal apartments due to these building code. Which is why the majority of new apartment complex nowadays always start with so-called "luxury standard", and therefore the price is expansive although they use cheap materials to build.
If you build a car culture, then you’ll have lots of cars🤷🏼♂️
What’s not to understand?
The us didn't get to vote on it, it was decided by aristocratic suits behind closed doors before anyone knew what was happening
@@jjoohhhnn Aristocratic suits decided to give individual freedom of movement to the masses?
@@CaliSteve169 no, aristocrats in suits met to decide to buy the rail carts, and scrap then while pushing automotives as freedom. They then decided to make everything suburban so you can't walk the streets anymore. Cars are the cornerstone of the police state.
@@jjoohhhnn I respectfully disagree. To me, cars are freedom. You can get in your car whenever you want and go wherever you want. Being stuffed in a railroad car with a bunch of other people, going to designated areas whenever they are available is not freedom at all. Having lived in a communist country, I feel very strongly about that.
@@CaliSteve169 no, they have to respect your rights to unreasonable search and seizure. On the road, if you get randomly pulled over and mouth off there's all manner of extrajudicial punishment they can dole out. The idea of insurance that goes up when you use it is a racket, too. Rail doesn't have a crazy entrance fee and Nazi cops every couple miles to make sure you're not acting up. How many of your unwanted police encounters have been via being pulled over?
The ONLY way to fix traffic is to provide good public transport and cycling and walking alternatives. There is no other way
In addition to public transportation, if you still want to use car with minimum traffic, you need to make car owners face the actual price of driving the automobile. E.g. no free parking, paid city entrance, miles driven tax, higher gas taxes.
@@oleksiifedorenko4619 No, that’s way to much. Not everyone wants to go on public transportation and forcing them to pay even more with gas fees that are already insane is ridiculous.
@@georgebalan6201 You dont understand, that we are reaching a point, where you people will have to understand, that space is fully occupied and you wont be able to do, whatever you want to do.
If the space is used up and there is nowhere to build, you wont build.
If you drive, just because you "dont want to go on public transport", well tough luck. People with actual need have priority, such as deliveries, emergency services, people that drive for living...
If you dont want to go through public transit on your trip to a mall, too bad for you, you arent the only person living on the planet anymore...
@@georgebalan6201 well, that is economics. Government has subsidized driving for decades with free roads, parking and unrealistically low gas prices (by free I mean you do not directly pay for their construction and service, but everyone pays for them through general taxes, no matter how much you use those services). We just need to at least reduce those subsidies to cope with the damage driving creates to our cities, health and environment. Moreover, driving is a very inequitable mean of transportation, which cannot be used by the young, old, disabled and people with low socioeconomic status. So, why should government even subsidize it?
@@oleksiifedorenko4619 alternatevely, make driving slower so smart people choose transit. i. e. removing freeways and replacing them with transit
Compare LA (where I lived) to one of the many European or Asian mega-cities (where I also lived), and you'll see that zoning, lack of proper public transportation, and dependence on cars (vs. scooters & bicycles) lead to this problem. The solution is more affordable housing closer to the workplace, better zoning laws, more robust public transportation, and more willingness from employers to allow remote work!
All of that requires an effective government which the US doesn't have at any level thus why its a failed state
@@thejquinn and every other country that has adopted the US model of government for itself has seen its democracy and then its republic collapse into authoritarian dictatorship. Now it's the US's turn.
We would have been much better off with a parliamentary system.
You'll love the channel Not Just Bikes
@@rolandboerhof9391 Thank you 🙂 It is a great channel! Cheers.
@A P
That’s easy for you to say.
Have you actually ridden a Metro?
Specifically, the Metro A (Blue) Line from 7th/Flower to Downtown Long Beach?
Replace every carpool lane with a train track, and place train stations at every interchange.
Yes, and no, but train stops have to be well considered. The reason people prefer trains to buses is because buses stop more often than trains do, which is why so many cities are installing rapid bus lanes, with fewer stops; You’re right though, we need to reduce freeway capacity and putting trains in lanes is a start. But, look at America today. A significant percentage of the population still believes the 2020 election was stolen, that Putin is better than Biden, and that drinking your urine is better than getting a covid shot, none of which is the sort of thinking that solves any problem, let alone serious problems like this.
@@Gryphonisle very sad that in 2022, people still believe that the earth is a spinning space ball hahaha but in reality outer space is a hoax, earth is stationary plane not a planet with a firmament aka dome above us, which is the ceiling of the earth.
it's 2022 please wake up eat organic natural GOD given healthy foods and stop eating gmo synthetic man made foods plus injecting synthetic v.
I cannot believe that I have to explain this to you, wake up
@@Gryphonisle Just responding to the bus vs train point you made. We here in BC have rapid transit buses that have less stops. They also are either double decker or bendy buses to allow for more riders. That could be a solution
As a native New Yorker, I feel like if you have to drive everywhere, what’s the point of living in a major city? At that point you might as well live some place rural.
I used to be in NYC with some frequency, and I always used the subway in the city. I thought it was great, cost efficient vs. cabs, and convenient. If I actually lived in NYC, no way I’d own a car. No reason for it.
When I visited NY a few years ago I was impressed by the subway system
Every few blocks there would be an entrance to a subway station. It was so convenient
And the crazy thing is NYC Subway is a shell of what it could be due to decades of neglect. Its needs are too numerous to list but perhaps it most desperately needs direct links between Bronx-Queens-Brooklyn that avoid passing through Manhattan.
@@eriklakeland3857 ya the subway was designed to bring everyone to Manhattan. Sadly due to high rents most people are trying to get from one outer-Borough to another. Can take over an hour by train to get just a few miles from Brooklyn to Queens, or queens to the Bronx. As you need to take a train to midtown then transfer back around. Direct train lines would make the subway way less crowded. Plus no direct train to the airports yet. La guardia, Kennedy and Newark should be on a massive loop. Currently system dumps eveyone off in Manhattan. Then they take an Uber back to Queens. Makes more traffic. 😢
it is also spectacularly falling apart due to greed and neglect
If you think NY subway is impressive, you should visit Tokyo, Hong Kong. You’ll be blown away by their convenience, and their SAFETY.
NYC subway system is one of the shittiest in the world, right up there on par with the London Underground.
Transit isn’t enough, you also need universally good priority for not just transit but for bicycles and pedestrians. It isn’t until it’s not just easy to get anywhere by means other than cars, but when cars are second-class citizen interlopers in cities oriented around foot traffic, bicycles, and transit, that people get out of their cars and traffic starts to calm down.
Definitely true, if you just built bus routes and they get stuck in the same traffic as cars, no one will take it unless they’re poor or desperate. But if you have bus lanes and the buses are faster than driving and are cheap, reliable and safe, a lot of people will take them.
To get that started mixed developments and design of districts need to be a requirement. That is an important step to reach the goal your talking about. Until zoning laws change that want ever be a reality.
The only way public transit would be allowed to take off and grow is by loosening our zoning laws. Currently people are simply not allowed to build communities that would support transit because single family housing with no retail or business is the only type of construction allowed.
As an Indonesian, That's a dumb rule for me 🤣. Mixed zoning is the best for convenient
YUP
I come from Croatia, Europe. and this is totally incomprehensible to me. In our cities where ever you live in the city, you have a convenient store in walking distance. As well as bakeries, pharmacy, farmers market and most important of all coffee shops. You really need to live in a wary rural area not to be able to do your daily shopping without a car.
We need to address why people want single family homes. When white people leave you cry like brats about white flight. When white people bring in jobs you scream gentrification. So there is no win here. People in cities, ranging from young white leftists to minorities, created a fake devil that they used to force blame. Who wants to live in cities when crime is sky high, police are public enemy number one, schools are horrible and endless supply of people keep coming? The problem lies in the mentalities and thought processes of many who live in American cities. Major cities vote blue. There lies the problem!
honestly mixed-use development is SO much better than zoning
The definition of congestion as “I’m going to get in my car and it is going to go faster” is the classic example of car-focused thinking. All people care about is “Can I get where I want to go with relatively low effort and time, and can I do what I want when I get there.” Focusing on getting cars to places ignores how that fundamental human want can be fulfilled by safe bicycle infrastructure, public transport, and multi-use-and-dense development.
Car Transit makes up over 70% of commuting, so ya screw buses and bikes. I wouldnt be caught dead on a bus. I dont know about you, but I dont like being dependant on things and that is exactly what you get when you let someone else take you somewhere. If my car doesnt start then thats my problem. The bus dont show up, then im not going to be very happy
@@breadfan9 It really depends on the public transport system. Sure, if a bus comes every hour and often is delayed or does not show up, I would not take it either. If a bus comes every 5 minutes, even if it will not show up, the next one will be in 9 minutes or less. I take public transport several times a week and it does not make me dependent. Because with that logic, a traffic jam would make you dependent as a driver as well, because it can easily make your trip several minutes longer. In L.A., public transport and bike lanes have to be built and expended, so people will have alternatives. People that absolutely want to stick to their car still can then.
@@Marchanthof You still have to "wait". Does a bus take you to a friends house? To the movies? To the hospital? TO the doctors. Picking up a date? You must be single man. You are limited to WHERE you can go. I want to be able to get in my car at 3 in the morning and run down to the grocery at will. That is NOT defendant on SOMEONE. You are dependent on a person AND a vehicle to get you somewhere. F that
@@breadfan9 It's okay to like cars, single family homes, etc. But don't expect to have good trafic. (I don't know about you in particular, but many car users want car and low trafic at the same time, which is quite unreasonable)
@@breadfan9 In properly designed system, anyone should be able to reasonable do all that with the efficient public transit system. There should be a good enough network where you can move from one transit circuit to another and get dropped off very close to key locations like a large commercial area that has all the stuff like entertainment(movies) and stores(clothing, tools, groceries, parts, hospital etc.) And by "reasonable" you should not expect public transit to take you to your mistress that lives 100 miles away secluded from your wife(lol).
And by dependent, the transit system should be fully autonomous and have multiple train cars that constantly move around the network at consistent time intervals.
This isn't a traffic problem, it's a zoning problem. Most of SoCal has been zoned single family residential. Increasing density will give people more options on how to move around.
this would also help with more efficient and cost effective public transportation!
What if they don’t want that type of density? Do you force them into it? Might explain why so many rich individuals moved into the western interior during the “plandemic”.
@@davestewart2067 Right now they have no choice. Everything is zoned SFR. You can't get medium or high density even if you want to. People are leaving because SFR is unaffordable for a large segment of society.
It’s kind of insulting to hear Tokyo being listed with NY and HK as being heavily congested. Sure we have traffics but only under certain conditions and not even close to being as bad as the US, and it IS thanks to the public transport, mainly trains for ease of travel and less obesity because we walk a lot.
The average commute time in Tokyo is slightly less than an hour compared to Los Angeles 30.9 minutes. Tokyo has a worse congestion issues than any major US cities
Sounds like you folks aint from round these parts let me tell you about L.A. traffic has gotten so bad if you can afford you get private helicopters to pick you up, the rich don't care if they can fly over it.
@@xyx10 Tokyo is also twice as big as LA
Amsterdam, Copenhagen, and Tokyo all have better options than just driving.
@@xyx10 you are comparing pears to apples there. Los Angeles is only 59% of Tokyo. The Tokyo area also covers over 37 million residents whilst the Los Angeles metropolitan area only has over 18 million inhabitants.
Tokyo simply wouldn't be possible without good mass transportation. 20 lanes each just wouldn't work.
Thank you for touching the "Induced Demand" concept. SoCal is the poster child for Induced Demand. One person in one car is a failed transportation plan and adding more lanes/roads/freeways won't change that fact.
Yes, but I think it's not as they described it. They basically say, when there are more roads, more people want to drive. But actually, if you use more space for cars, there is less space for anything else, locations become further apart and more people HAVE TO drive. That is IMHO the actual problem with building more roads and highways in cities.
@@mrm7058 The entire suburban sprawl in SoCal is directing linked to induced demand. I think they could've elaborated on that point.
Real problem is the planning of city. LA need mixdeveloped areas, where people can live, work, and take a rest(schools, shops, cafes and etc).
Ok, you can invest to public transportation, but without density of population it will be just a "money dark-hole".
Yeah because a factory next to my house makes sense. Never heard “mixdeveloped” in my life but you’d be great at RCI zoning. Literally the whole video is that we don’t have subways because of earthquakes. Only SF does.
Knock it all down, and start again?
In addition to not building schools on ( main )streets. Stupidest idea anyone ever had
@@Lybrel Mixed development doesn't mean industry next to housing, it can allow for offices and corner shops to coexist with housing units in the same buildings/neighborhoods. A fair amount of traffic would be alleviated if you could just walk a few minutes to grab some groceries for dinner instead of having to take a 10-15 minute drive from suburbs to strip malls.
Thinking that it's an all-or-nothing scenario where either you have a sea single family homes in a neighborhood or an industrial waste plant in your backyard is narrow-minded.
Also LA does have a few subways, the Red and Purple Lines. Tunnels are typically far safer from earthquakes than being on the surface. EQs aren't really the concern, it's just that tunnels are far more expensive to build so the city has opted to make a majority of its rail transit above ground light rail. Unfortunately it's constructed in a way where the light rail has to wait at stoplights for intersecting traffic, which greatly defeats the time-competitiveness of public transit during something like rush hour.
@@michaeloreilly657 Well, just rebuild better after the next big earthquake
A part of the solution to traffic congestion is making our cities more livable. Improve the infrastructure, lower crime, improve inner city schools, provide safe & efficient mass transit, provide affordable housing and parks & recreational facilities.
If you provide these things than folks wouldn’t want to run to the suburbs. Which adds to the horrible congestion.
If folks felt safe in the city they will stay. If folks have good schools for their kids they will stay in the city. If there are clean parks and other green spaces than folks will stay in the city. If there are good, clean, and efficient mass transit, people will stay in the city.
NOPE, they would rather spend a million dollars incarcerating someone then a million dollars on making their lives livable.
Facts. I took subway before I had a car and it was hell. Homeless camping in trains and stations. Not to mention the stench. Never again.
@@alextogo8367 how’s you get a car?
*Why Traffic Is So Bad In Los Angeles?* Because you made it un-walkable, un-bikeable, and encouraged everyone to buy cars with massively subsidised Gas costs [$12 a gallon in the UK now]
Then you built 16 lane highways and made everything drive through, the public transport is sh!t to none existent - and you are surprised people use their cars for EVERYTHING.
Well if you live 10 miles away from work, you're hardly gonna walk or bike there. Even if there's 100 bike lanes. You still need a car.
@@tinytownsoftware3837 Actually, that's not true. Where I live, there are lots of people who bike that or more to work. The older ones just use an electric bike.
@@tinytownsoftware3837 10 miles is easy to do with a e-bike. Besides if you build denser cities, towns and villages most people won't even need to travel 10 miles.
@@dennis3667 I don't believe you. I seriously doubt that "lots" of people would bike to work every day more than 10 miles.
@@Bertuzz84 The fact that you used the word "village" tells me you don't live in the USA. You have no idea of the distances here.
One of the best ways to reduce traffic is to put new rail lines in view of the road, like inbetween or above the highway. Then all the drivers can watch the commuters race by them and think, "I could get to work faster and with less stress."
Also increasing the cost of parking can work as an alternative to a congestion fee, since most people expect to pay for that already.
The last suggestion I have is to increase housing density. That means midrise apartments and duplex/triplexes. And make larger apartments for families, 4+ bedroom with play areas and other family friendly spaces. Don't forget mixed use zoning as well, bring the pub into walking distance along with the pharmacy and some groceries.
Love this idea
that is only true if the rail line is built well and has easy connections to pedestrian friendly areas. The areas around highways are extremely bad for walking so getting off a train in those areas would make the whole experience terrible.
That's not good for riders. Then you'll need to walk a mile to get on the train. Rail should run closer to main avenues. Usually highways are off the beaten path for those walking.
"was metra an option today" and "the real way to fly" along expressways are some of the most effective advertisements for metra rail here in Chicago, imo
watch not just bikes you must
The fix?
1. Invest in mass transit systems i.e. high speed rail, etc.
2. Have more people work from home and thus, staying off the roadways.
3. Get rid of the 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. work schedule and offer more options so that not everyone has to be on the roadways on the same times.
If your thinking about transit as a way to avoid traffic, your thinking about it wrong and your transit will fail. Public transit should be the easier and most convenient way to get around. The car should be the last option. Yes I know the environment we build in America makes it extremely hard for transit to work but we have to fix the city that we broke, all to make room for the car
Funny in the sad way. One great thing that came of 2020 was that downtown Culver City had closed most lanes of traffic westbound and made them street side dining areas for all the restaurants there. Every night was like a festival with the sounds of music, laughter, people chilling out, the smells of food and drink and just a general mass of good times. It was uncontestably a wonderful thing. A lot like parts of Paris, Barcelona or any other great city for that matter. Now, of course, that's been rolled back so we can give a little more of our good life and joy away because some people just need to get home from work faster. I grew up driving. Driving a car was a gigantic, cool right of passage. But, god damn it is time we change and start protecting, promoting and enjoying other aspects of life even if they clash with quick drive times.
The problem with LA is its so expansive, and people work in so many different places, and live in so many different places. So, this transit system would have to be massive and efficient enough for people to use. Current public transit is a joke, but at least a subway is under construction
I don’t think there is a transportation system that is simultaneously possible to build and actually satisfies LA transportation needs.
It would be more fruitful to figure out ways to let people move closer to where they need to be in the first place. Or how to move the places where they need to be closer to where they already are. If frequent traffic needs can be cut to a fraction of what they currently are, it becomes possible to satisfactorily “solve” traffic.
@@hylje This answer makes no sense since large megalopolises like Tokyo, Seoul and Shanghai have expansive, clean, well-maintained subway networks in addition to high speed rail that link satellite cities.
I think there there lies the problem. Most of the traffic is caused by commuting to and from work. If people are able to choose to live closer to work or find a job closer to where they lived then a large chunk of the issue would be resolved. For many reasons this is not possible, whether it is cost of homes or the area they worked was not where they wanted to live.
@@HPN620 that's the problem with having one large CBD or downtown. Some countries have learnt to incorporate offices and commercial into or nearby residential dwellings, but America continues to sprawl its suburbs further and further from shopping centres, business parks etc.
@@herooo.2928 Large megalopolises are also functionally divided into mostly self-sufficient districts, so most people don’t have to travel all the way across the entire region just to get to work every day. Even with most people (e.g. the person working at the convenience store) living locally to most of their needs and duties, due to the sheer population of the region you still have a large number of people who have to occasionally or regularly travel a longer distance, hence the subways, high speed rail lines and yes, even expressways and private cars.
But it all works because the average distance any one person in the whole region needs to travel is actively minimized. Every trip you don’t need to make is an ideal trip that doesn’t cause congestion.
Come to Bangalore, you will see what " traffic congestion " is .Here the average speed of car is 25 km per hour .
That’s nothing, average speed in Paris is 16km/h, as quick as a bike
Sure, and that was already implicitly mentioned (world rankings). But we are trying to solve traffic in LA here...
LOL - the couple times I've been in LA traffic, I could have walked faster.
Haha exactly. I wanted to laugh when they said traffic in LA. Ive driven there. Breeze compared to bangalore.
Spending two hours commuting every working day was the shittiest time of my life. Walkable, varied neighbourhoods are wonderful.
Sure, but then you'd walk/bike for an hour to work.
Sounds nice, too expensive (for the wealthiest nation on the planet)
@@tinytownsoftware3837 that is where efficient public transport (buses, streetcars, LRT) comes in.
@@Justin87878 If you live in the city, sure. If you live outside of the city, things are too spread out in the USA to have effective public transport.
@@tinytownsoftware3837 this video is talking about Los Angeles. The prof of UCLA also explains it well.
God, the Copium in this is actually painful. You need fewer cars!!
Moved out of SoCal a few years ago and DO NOT miss the traffic, and cost of living.🙄
I drove 5 miles 1 hour when I visited LA, no accidents
Me too. I-5 and the 405 in LA are unbelievable. Traffic goes about 5 MPH even when it is not 7-9AM or 4-7PM.
LA is the armpit, without antiperspirant, of California.
Dang that slow, i ride that in 15 minutes on my high speed e-bike. No car is needed.
@@Bertuzz84 Yup, its pretty much brake and move a few feet, then repeat for a while... Literary movin like 0-3mph at times I feel like, bumper to bumper. It gets much worse if there was a big accident, then ain’t moving much at all. I hate the freeway tbh lol
Nobody in Los Angeles considers driving to be free. We pay the highest sales tax when we buy a car, the highest fuel tax when we fill it up, the highest registration fees every year, and high fees for parking. People just find a way to budget it in, which unfortunately takes money away from other things in their budgets. When I was my daughter's age I would take the bus all over LA by myself, but these days public transportation is not safe enough to let kids do the same in LA.
💯🎯
I used to take two busses to school. If I wouldn't let my kids use the school today.
You must have lived in the glory days.
Cars cause traffic. Cars are the least efficient form of transportation.
Idk the Vegas Hyperloop is pretty terrible.
@@jjoohhhnn thats just cars underground
@@OMGtehEPICNESSS they're put on little platforms, so it's a car with extra steps and removed use because it's on rails still
Have you ridden mass transit in LA? Waiting for a bus in downtown LA was one of the scariest moments in my life next to being involved in a home invasion robbery. The actual bus ride was just as bad. Now I understand why people drive everywhere in LA.
I used to live in the SF Valley west and north of downtown, and I always got good service using RTD. Buses were timely and fairly frequent on busier routes. I’ve not lived there since the mid 90s, so things I’m sure have changed since then.
My friends are from Japan and they came here to work at a university. They are in Chicago and they say public transportation is crap here. In Tokyo they said train comes every 2 minutes and you don't have to walk far to a station.
And traffic is worse there😂
L.A. have more than enough highways… the interesting thing is how those highways intersect and how to merge on/off. Inconveniently placed entrances squeezed into crammed spaces along with the flow of traffic is a common theme. Carpool lanes poorly used and connection points that suddenly disappear. At any point, you can go from six lanes to three without warning. Expecting all these cars to squeeze into these spaces without congestion is crazy.
This. I was surprised on how rare this gets mentioned when people question traffic issues in LA. There's been so many instances I can think of when going through rush hour traffic where the real congestion starts when the right lane requires merging to the left or vice versa out of nowhere.
One instance I encountered this so often in my usual drive route is when going from the 105 east to 110 north. Not only did we need to merge once to get to the 110, but we also need to worry about merging at least one more time as the 110 north suddenly requires another merge like not even 1/4th of a mile after the 105. I do not know why the hell that is needed but that has added the headaches for drivers especially those trying to get onto the 110 from the 105 to begin with. Another is going from 101 west to the 110 south in downtown. Similar situation except compounded by the other inflow of traffic going from 101 east to 110 south.
it almost seems as if there's too many highways
The problem is cars
+ far too many service interchanges
The solution is not to add lanes
I think that the main cause is America's focus on cars for transportation. Have a look over here in the Netherlands and the rest of Europe, where we have a completely different infrastructure. As a result, people have more access to efficient & affordable public transportation, can ride a bike on a safe way and can take a walk for some groceries in a nearby supermarket.
Many forget how huge the US is. I can drive 10 hours and still be in my same state.
@@comicsandsoftime7978 exactly, which is where HSR steps in to cut those times down to 1/3 that, by averaging 210mph like they do in the rest of the developed world.
It's such a shame cause the USA had the first plans for a train to go 200mph and the auto industry scrapped it, bought out the trollies, and the rail families turned into insurance brokers for cars, and clamped down on rail. Nothing democratic, free or even in the spirit of capitalism about American transit.
@@comicsandsoftime7978 can you drive for 10 hours and not get across LA if there were no traffic? He’s not saying nation wide public transit or biking across the nation he means INTERCITY TRANSPORTATION.
@@skygge1006 they said America. I'm talking about America, not LA. America is huge hence why the focus has always been on cars.
There’s no mention of ways to make driving unnecessary, such as making it affordable for people to live close to work etc.
And shops, and recreation nearby. Short distances make walking and cycling viable options.
It is easier than it seems. Just change zoning regulations to allow building schools, small shops, etc close to houses. Then even if you will have to drive to work (provided that you do not work in your area) it will sitll make roads less congested.
@@jus4795 Totally agree. School drop offs creates a huge amount of traffic. You can see the difference during school holidays.
zoning laws. Get rid of em. Allow mix-use development so that there aren't massive hotspots of solely commerce, or work, or living
Congestion pricing does not seem like a viable solution unless there are also good transit options. As city centers gentrify, lower wage workers are pushed further out and have to commute to work. Congestion pricing would hurt those workers and cause other problems in a city already struggling with a labor shortage.
Exactly it’s the same with the let’s ban car morons or the mileage tax folks people drive because they have to of course there’s a lot of people that will always want to drive and refuse alternatives but there’s probably a lot more that will leave the car in the garage and take a bus, train, bike, or there own two feet if that was actually an alternative
A public transportation and limiting car ownership might work.
@@AmericansAlwaysFree Even hard core car guys might consider using transit if it gives them the freedom to have something fun and impractical on the side that is not used for daily commuting.
moved from the UK to LA for college (USC) people think i am weird for walking to school, which is only a 25 min walk at most?
The best way to reduce traffic in LA?
The COVID-19. Ironically, that was the only time I did not see heavy traffic in LA and no one said LA highways were free parking lots😢
So you’re saying remote work… not a virus
@@AskMiko Well, I was an essential worker at the time so WFH was not an option so I had to drive sadly 😥
You know, in the beginning of the COVID-19,
- a lot of businesses shut down
- some people got generous unemployment benefits
- Vaccines were not even available at the time
I would say the emerge of the virus reduced traffic in LA.
I heard that in the early days of the pandemic despite traffic being so, low the total amount of highway deaths were the same due to lots of illegal racing on the highways.
@@BradThePitts no illegal racing , people like myself were just speeding sometimes . Not use to open highways
Build more railway systems for trains and stop car companies from lobbying congress.
Lobbying=Corruption
@@ro7601 exactly, corporations shouldnt be allowed to lobby in the first place
Don't forget about insurance, oil, police and tire/rubber companies.
My wife and I have travelled to Paris and London in the last 10 years and the public transportation systems in those two cities are light years ahead of Los Angeles.
While in London we bought weekly passes on The Underground and it was an incredibly efficient way to get around and super cheap too. We were able to get anywhere in London we wanted to go very quickly. We only took taxis to and from Heathrow airport.
The London Underground was very easy to understand and we never once took the wrong train.
yea but all people in france do is eat cheese smoke and fucc all day. they dont pull trailers or put heavyshit in the back of their trucks
London and Paris are far denser than Los Angeles though, just like NYC. Much easier to build good public transport than Los Angeles
@@pottymouthmexican how many people in LA do that? 15%
It's going to take years of targeted densification to build the demand for subways. Light rail is a better bet in the medium term. You need to build up downtown / next to downtown to start building up demand. Look at what Toronto and Ottawa are doing. Don't disregard the simple bus. Busses can build up mass transit demand and turn it into LRT and Subways. It won't happen overnight. It won't happen in 10 years even.
Yet London and Paris still have terrible traffic. 🤔
Cars are not the problem; car DEPENDENCY is. If walking and biking and transit were viable, or even pleasant and convenient, way more people would do it, shifting transport away from cars. Cars then become one of many tools, rather than the only mode available.
Well said!
What's crazy to me is that many people will still go out of their way to advocate for no public transportation or building denser, all while being stuck in traffic for an hour on their way to work. Here in the Dallas metro a 30 minute drive is RARELY 30 minutes, it's going to be 50 minutes to an hour because traffic is inevitable, seeing a wreck on the freeway is inevitable. America needs to really change the way we build out cities, it's such a wasteful use of our resources and the beautiful land we have.
You have my vote
I'll prefer public transportation.
DESIGNING THE MOST EFFECTIVE COMMUTE SYSTEM SHOULD START WITH ESTABLISHING WHY PEOPLE COMMUTE IN THE FIRST PLACE ...Some congestion is easily avoidable for instance, by ensuring that people are able to live near where they work and can therefore walk or cycle to work..
Turn lanes as well.
I live in a city that doesn't have them. And one guy turning can slow down an entire lane.
Not that they can help it...
@@emuriddle9364slip and turn lanes are dangerous for people who aren’t driving. they also take up way more space
Because of extreme car-dependency, obviously
When you have car dependency built into society... it's hard to reverse it.
Vancouver did it. It's not impossible.
Simple outlaw cars, we outlawed alcohol for a time, why not cars?
@@thejquinn Because this isn't North Korea.
@@s4nder86 Its getting there.
@Larry S Thats outlawed, just as cars should be
densification as a public policy was not mention... disappointing
Urban sprawl?
Densification is a good idea but how much public support is there for it?
Ottawa and Toronto are doing densification fairly well. Start close to downtown, and start at major intersections.
Are large parts of LA not densifying already?
@@yanDeriction sometimes the public shouldnt have a say.
Enough cabs, public buses, and trams can solve LA's traffic problem.
Stop Euclidean zoning.
If only LA had Tokyo’s metro system. Not sure why LA didn’t adopt Tokyo’s style metro and instead built New York’s style metro. Tokyos metro blows NY’s out of the water.
The city was in bed with oil and car companies, that's why. Can't make money on cars when people don't need cars.
People are saying car companies which is partially true. But the bigger thing is that LA sprung up around Oil and doesn't have the geographic barriers that NYC had. So it made sense to use cars primarily at the time.
the problem is simple. A city of this csize should have several 100 miles of metro rail as a backbone with many light rail lines as a secondary mode, and a number of major and minor BRT systems. Building tolly lines in and near buisy areas of the city and taxing drivers so they want to use mass transit means you can have an extensive trolly network; and this city is a perfect city for evening trolly travel!!!
Cool. Now like any other major infrastructure project, who and how is going to fund the trillions of dollars of up front costs for the benefits which won't come until afterwards?
@@tonysu8860 um, whoever funds the trillions spent on freeways and road infrastructure that benefits only car owners?
@@tonysu8860 If you know how the US spends its money and its history, then you wouldn't even be asking such a question.
Decrease the military budget. That's a start. Nearly a trillion is spent on it every year and it keeps going up and up and no one talks about that.
Quit subsidizing the fossil fuel and automobile industry. They could have never made it on their own. It was the government that bailed them out, like Chrysler during the 2008 recession. Stop subsidizing them and start taxing them instead. Gas tax, mileage tax. Also, it was the government spending trillions of dollars that got us to this point too. Look up the federal highway act.
Actually make the rich start paying their taxes. The two richest men in the world have actually gone a year without paying a penny in federal taxes. Many corporations don't pay income tax either.
And lots of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure too.
Nooooooo car lovers of LA will get angry
Mass transit is the best way to avoid traffic. Not just bikes and city beautiful ❤️
They definitely could have kept the trolly lines like San Francisco did. In San Francisco they kept multiple existing lines and in downtown they built a subway tunnel under market street to speed the trolleys up. Los Angels probably could have done the same
Ive lived in New York for about 10 years and traffic is everywhere, on the highways, on the side streets, everywhere! I live in LA now and find that congestion, traffic and road rage in general is much worse in New York. What I absolutely do miss about New York was that my partner and I could virtually ride our bicycles ANYWHERE in the city! LA has got to do better to give cyclists a chance! If a city with so much going on like New York can install bike lanes the same can happen here in LA too!
The answer to this question is working from home. If most jobs were remote then we would have less traffic. Most office jobs CAN be done remotely.
Boss would have to come to your home if needs to give any thrashings, thats why businesses are calling all employees to office.
Build GOOD public transport
You’re actually kinda right. In the Bay Area during and after the pandemic hit Facebook went Remote and stayed remote. The bridge that connects the lower Peninsula and the East Bay loosened a lot of congestion ever since they went online. And funnily enough their big utopian office buildings are empty and are just big facades adding more traffic lights. But it’s rough though for intercity transit buses because Ridership on Transbay Buses decreased.
Ya so many tech jobs in LA too. No need to be at the office. Have a secure remote server. Make workers stay on camera all day if boss is nervous.
That is partially true. It doesn't solve the problems with the enormous roads you have in US, the funding of them and the lack of alternatives. Can you imagine to live without a car? Walk to a shop, or for a coffee with friends?
Lack of decent mass transit, and frankly just too many damn people living in the LA area.
A county wide network of Bus Rapid Transit would be an effective solution to give people more options. Like the UCLA professor said in the video, LA has a lot of medium-low density that makes traffic worse here than elsewhere. BRT is a lot cheaper than rail and can be more flexible using the existing road network.
BRT has high wage costs!
@@gitgut4977 it’s a trade off. Lower capital cost vs higher operating costs. With how spread out LA county is and how decentralized job centers are, we need a network that creates a positive feedback loop. I still support rail investments where they make sense though.
BRT is a terrible choice unless you can hire good drivers for a low wage, which is basically impossible in the developed world. In addition, BRT still has the terrible ride quality of a bus (big heavy vehicles lurch around unless they are held in a guideway like with rails). Moreover, the costs are not that much cheaper than rail (you're literally just saving cost on the rails, and the slightly cheaper vehicles -- you still have to build the stations, maintain the right of way, fare payment systems, etc.)
BRT works best in developing countries where they can get drivers for cheap and run a lot of smaller vehicles at high frequencies. Yes, it's slightly cheaper to deploy, which is important for a poor country, but in a developed nation it's penny-wise pound-foolish.
The biggest enemy of transit in the US are permitting and construction costs. Usually a huge chunk of the money goes into lawyers fighting lawsuits, consultants conducting years worth of unneeded studies, and corrupt contractors that charge 10x what one in Europe would, despite paying the construction workers almost the same.
The US would definitely benefit from a truly good bus network like Europe, although HSR between metro areas helps as well.
@@NozomuYume bring the LRT and streetcars back, where they dissapeared during idustrialization era.
The answer to the question of where it should go is straightforward: transit, transit and more transit. The idea that congestion pricing is a regressive tax is defensible if it's not actually improving people's lives. Money towards roads doesn't improve people's lives in any way. The road may be in better condition, but they are still spending lots of money on driving. Transit, by contrast, completely changes that
We do NOT need more tolls. We already pay tax on the car, pay for the license, pay for registration, pay a gas tax, pay county taxes for the roads etc. I cannot stand being forced to pay to get to work and shows (full-time musician) and mass transit is impossible because of how much gear we need to bring.
More direct highways is my call. I can get from A to B faster by taking more direct roads with less exits and no traffic lights.
Why take the bus if it sits in the same traffic? They need their own express roads that are bus exclusive.
They have their own lanes. Express buses drive the shoulders on the freeway and the city routes drive the inside lane stopping every couple blocks.
3:28 "I'm gonna get in my car, and it's gonna go faster." Dude, if you're getting in your car, you're generating traffic and thus congestion. Contrary to your claim, reducing congestion totally means getting people to not take their cars--unless what you mean is that everyone else should clear the streets for you personally. Getting people to not take their cars, ideally, involves their not needing to do so, either because where they have to go is within walking distance, or because there are better transit solutions.
The solution is to reduce the amount of cars, by any means possible
Ok.. and the alternative for transport would be?
@@TJ-vl1ff a tram system along with busses, and light rail as well as having the ability to walk or bike to places although LA is to sprawled for the final 2 options.
A factor to consider is the reliability of the transit system. Here in Vancouver we have an elevated rail line that zooms past traffic through multiple municipalities with little delays. People would not want to take the bus if the bus arrives late often. It didn't reduce car traffic, but it provides a great alternative than driving.
Another factor is mixed use developments. Imagine your work or shop is just a 5 to 10 minute walk from your house. You don't need a car to get there. Many new developments, especially near busy roads here, are incorporating businesses on the first floor and residential suites on top of that.
Better transit, better zoning, problem solved
All the major metropolitan areas in the us got the same problem!
Even I thought south Florida was the worst where I live
I had ideas for this problem for a while, but it takes an open experimental approach by all parties.
1- Modify the schedules for different types of industries, and public institutions, just one hour change escalation, will easy the flow.
2- When many streets run parallel from downtown to other cities, have one street every one or two miles exclusively for non motorized transportation, and walking or running people, when you mix cars with bicycles, that's a recipe for disaster.
3- Use one line on the freeways or build one for electric transportation, you can travel to the next city easily on your electric bicycle.
4- Create an app where people can book a trip in the city from point A to point B, you can send the right size vehicle to speed up the trip, and not making people wait for a bus that stops every corner.
5- Trains everywhere, with the same booking trip app, if only 20 people are heading from Los Angeles to Las Vegas on specific time, send only a wagon straight and do the same for close cities.
This are my ideas, but I can be ignorant in many structural and engineering issues, but I think when different people brainstorm, is more probably a solution can come.
this will not work you need less government control not more
Light rails, streetcars are your best options. As well as restricting cars from parts of the city at certain time of the day.
Commuter train is good too
I would support light rails over street cars.
They usually don't rely on taking-up road space.
Yes these are good options. They need to be safer and more frequent though.
There are a couple light rail lines in LA.
Problem is that LA county is enormous, far more than even a vast network of light rail can serve.
And of course something like light rail can easily be built only before people move in. It's so dense now that it's not a practical solution.
@@tonysu8860 The old Pacific Electric and Los Angeles Railway networks were also huge and expansive and could get you pretty much anywhere you wanted to go in Los Angeles. The problem is that automobile lobbies demanded that cars be able to drive on the same roads the streetcars used, thus causing the traffic that slowed them down and made them unusable.
Just one more lane bro...
solution: Don't drive
The congestion charge in the UK works well, it encourages people to walk or take the tube (metro). We also have something called the ULEZ or Ultra Low Emission Zone, which is in london and Manchester and Bradford in the UK. It charges people only in the most polluting vehicles to drive into a dense area of a city. While this is primarily to reduce air pollution, it still reduces traffic and gives people chance to look for alternatives
It would only work if you have infrastructure to replace cars. Otherwise you’re just making life more expensive for everyone.
@@MC_MMV LA had that, then they just removed all the streetcars because cars and highways seemed like the future back then
@@MC_MMV that is exactly what the UCLA prof explained. The fee that you charged in congestion fee, you invest it back into public transportation, bicycle lane, and pedestrian infrastructures.
@@MC_MMV "Otherwise you’re just making life more expensive for everyone."
It doesn't make it more expensive for everyone. The money collected doesn't vanish (unlike the time spent in traffic jams).
Well you can't apply a copy and paste solution to another city with a different infrastructure and different population mentality.
Have you see LA streets? Who would want to walk there. Plus everything in America is so spread out it wouldn't make since to walk.
Stop! Accommodating! Cars!
Induced demand works almost in reverse for mass transit and walkable/localized/dense planning. But building wider roads will only create more traffic.
Need to make it so waitresses can work just down the street instead of driving 20 miles to work. Same with many retail stores where people can transfer to a store closer to home. Another problem is people need to learn to drive right... constantly changing lanes only slows down the rest. Write tickets for going to slow. Mass transit is a joke in California. What we have and what people think we should have. It won't work here at all.
For that, you need densification. It's not the 60 storey office towers, but the 4 - 25 storey condos and rental apartments. A waitress can own a 800 - 1000 sq ft condo 5 min walk from work and live a good life.
Start with spots close to downtown, and on major intersections for densification. Keep the ground floor for commercial and build up. There is no reason why you can't have 5-6 stories of condo on top of a Wallgreens.
Right, the real problem is the fact people have to commute long distances for work. People have to commute because cities are too expensive to live in and the crime is so bad in some cities they are unlivable. Cars and car ownership is not the problem.
Then tell them to get a job closer to their home or move closer to their job.
Luckily retail will be a thing of the past soon, and that'll ease up congestion, and hopefully bring about the revolution this country needs
@@thejquinn except all the McJobs created by retail will disappear and then you're going to have this *huge* underclass that will become homeless and resort to crime in short order. It will be made worse when Wish and Amazon's fulfillment centers and delivery systems become fully automated.
because it was built out, not up, and los angelinos refuse to spend money on public transportation.
90% of american cities are zoned with single family houses only, making public transit very expensive. Medium density 3-4 story multi use housing and commercial is needed to lessen traffic. When people got to travel 15 miles by car because of urban sprawl or 2 km by bike to a small office or grossery store to go to work or sum it lessens traffic
LA needs 2 things: more railways and more tolls!
And a lot less restrictions they have way too many
Tolls don’t work when they are one of the few options people have to get around in car depended, congested, sprawled out cities. . Texas has more tolls than California and our cities are just as congested. More tollways do not discourage people from driving when they have no other options.
@@jwellsmediainc.4593 That's why it needs more railways
Thinking like a true communist.
@@moon7583 what do you mean? Commuter train is best transport system for from suburb to downtown
And many europe and asia country alredy do that
Adie Tomer out there spitting facts. While he didn't mention the Downs-Thomson paradox by name, he mentioned the underlying call to action. In big cities, traffic will only get as bad as transit allows it. If you build great transit, you end up eliminating a bunch of trips by car. Of course, good transit is only cost effective with higher density of uses, so zoning changes are also necessary.
"Not Just Bikes" channel on youtube got the answers! Waht do you expect when you build ugly suburbs depending on car? Thank God I'm in Europe , i don't drive and i go everywhere I want without the need of owning an and wasting my money on polluting and noisy cars
I was soo surprised that london ranked highest on one of their trafic metrics. when London has some bike infrastructure, the tube, busses, and you can walk reasonabley most places.
@@mapmuncher5587 I think that probably due London reduciing the amount of space for cars in the city, removing lanes for bike lanes ect, so the few people who are driving around london will be waiting longer, its purposely a nightmare to drive in London. Almost everyone commutes via public transport or walks instead so I think that metric is probably a little misleading as to it being a huge issue because such a small percent of the population actually drive anywhere.
@@BenMattthews Yep, i think using car flow for measuring traffic flow is very misleading.
Thumbs up on that channel! I have lived in LA, Chicago, NY, Silicon Valley, Research Triangle, mid-sized midwestern cities, and several European cities and towns. The 'stroad' is by far the worst thing ever. Right now, Bucharest is exploding with stroads, and it is becoming the worst possible nightmare for people I have ever experienced. And awful for driving. The car dealers and developers love it because they shove the problems onto other people as they maximize the amount of crap they sell. "We need more roads" is always their solution, and it always requires more on top of it.
Been to Paris during a strike by railroad workers and the city's traffic ended up being worse than anything I've seen in the I-405. This is why we need an efficient and sophisticated public transportation system here in Los Angeles.
It is a fact that public transit is better than car traffic. STOP PRETENDING CARS ARE BETTER.
Wondering how much the jam is caused by bad driving behavior as well...I literally saw hundreds of times where there is a traffic jam but no accident and turned out there is just a super slow car on the surpass lane😅
And that is why I advocate a speed limit.
Still, in California although there is no law saying how slow you can go, there is a law that says that no matter what the posted limits might be that drivers are obligated to drive safely and with the flow of traffic. That means that within your judgement what is safe, you cannot be too much slower or faster than other drivers around you.
That. And the fact that some parts of the highway don't have a Shoulder.
Which creates a perfect combination for slow traffic. Because of accidents.
That's why you always keep your distance with the car in front of you, just one car suddenly braking in the middle of a highway can cause traffic even miles back
@@tonysu8860 it's also people driving too fast for the conditions.
Your bogus car centric design makes a city poorer . People buy car to work and they work to pay for car .
It wasn't democracy that gave Americans the car, it was police, insurance, oil, rubber and auto lobbies that made the decision.
"Mass transit does not save a city from congestion"? Well, car traffic will always get slower until alternatives are faster. So build public transport so fast most people will use it, freeing up the roads for the rest. Watch some "Not just bikes".
Yes, you are right. I would like to add that public transport must run very frequent; say 15-10 minuten in each direction. So when you miss your bus/ street car/ tram, you can cat catch the next one.
@@mardiffv.8775 Here in Paris I knew I had adapted when I caught myself thinking that 6 minutes was a long wait for the metro. 😁
You guys missed out the most important thing...urban planning. US has one of the worst city zoning system in the world. Change that and increase public transit, you will see improvement.
Idk maybe it's because the metro has 12.5 million people and isn't walkable...
I'd like to see an experimental car-free zone created in a major city in conjunction with adding bike lanes and a good trolley network. Only delivery and moving trucks would be allowed in during certain hours.
Will never happen
Look at Pontevedra, Spain. The entire city centre is pedestrianised.
It seems Amsterdam wants to go that way if "not just bikes" channel is anything to go by
Superblocs in Barcelona!
@@auroramothergoddess Already has B)
Solution is to improve public transportation like train, bus, cycle, carpooling, even the one Taxi we use in Africa (Matatu) that carry 12 people.
New York City is waayyy denser than LA.
LA: We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas.
Atlanta is the same lol 😂
Adding congestion fee doesn't work, if there's no other public transit options
If you want to implement a congestion-based toll model, charge those who cause the problem in the first place: the employers that expect butts in seats at a specific time. Nobody actually WANTS to sit in traffic- we do it because we have to. Even if commuters could take other forms of transit, the story accurately points out that you're not really solving the problem; you're just trading one set of problems for another. Charge higher for desired arrivals at peak times, and incentivize them to flex start times to better manage transit demand in all forms.
Good idea . Make the congestion charge refundable by employers by law. U'll see how many will tell you to work from home instead
Not every trip is to work. LA has traffic all day long, not just at 7:30am. Commuting is actually only about 1/3 of trips in the US. Plus if you charge employers for it, then many will just pay the fee for you or offer an incentive to employees that avoid the toll by taking transit or biking. Maybe with a yearly bonus or a free transit pass. So the burden goes back the employee for choosing how they get to work.
@@adamt195 looks like you found the solution actually
@@adamt195 hahah, what part of "all of the place" are you not understanding. San Bernadino & Ventura ain't from the L.A. metro area. 😂 u know nothing sir. But in NYC is worse the traffic cause most NYkers own a car & also foreign traffic; but smaller roads and the grid system screws it up! So many lights to stop, you can't turn right on a red light (unless posted) unlike L.A. etc! And construction all of the time cause of the weather.
Too many cars plus too few roads equals, guess what? Bad traffic. Please move along, you're blocking.
Replace freeway lanes with rail transit. Literally the cheapest way to do it - no land acquisitions needed as the highways are already owned by the government.
Interesting how in this era of virtual networks we can't find a solution to having more people work from home thus reducing traffic. As already stated adding more lanes is definitely not the solution. Giving incentive to more people staying close to home for work, shopping, etc will help.
I'm Montreal where I live, a network of light rail lines is being built, and mostly elevated, so it does not interfere with existing roads. Once fully completed in the next two years, one can make it to the downtown core from most suburbs in 30 minutes or less, and here's the real kicker, these trains will run every 4 minutes at rush hour so you don't even have to worry about the schedule.