Transport planner reacts to 'Urban planning YouTube has a HUGE problem'
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 лют 2024
- See the original video here: • Urban planning UA-cam...
My website: philipmallis.com
-------------
SOURCES
'Bust of Pericles'. User: Jastrow (2006). Wikimedia Commons. commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...
School of Mines workshop, Adelaide [PRG 280/1/43/620]'. State Library South Australia. collections.slsa.sa.gov.au/re...
McIver, Phil, ' Liverpool University: The Victoria Building (1976)'. 1976. www.flickr.com/photos/philmci...
SimCity 2000!. 2 July 2012. www.flickr.com/photos/3990890...
Hunt, Elle, 'Meet the Numtots: the millennials who find fixing public transport sexy'. The Guardian. 5 July 2018. www.theguardian.com/cities/20...
'Transmilenio'. Michael. Flickr. July 2013. www.flickr.com/photos/hopkins..., Kirubi. 'SGR train'. 10 May 2017. Flickr. www.flickr.com/photos/mwangee...
Paulus, Daniel. 'Integrated Metro Shuttle'. 2 December 2023. Flickr. www.flickr.com/photos/djkpaul...
TriMet, 'TriMet bus with TriMet is Hiring display'. 10 February 2017. www.flickr.com/photos/trimet/...
Agriculture.vic.gov.au. vro.agriculture.vic.gov.au/dp...
-------------
I acknowledge the traditional owners of the lands on which this video was filmed, the Wurundjeri Woi Wurrung people. I pay respects to Elders past, present and emerging, and their extensive and continuing connection to land, water and country.
Thank you for the response! I'm bummed I'm only now seeing this, but yes, you are correct up and down the video here. Cheers!
The part where you mentioned government workers that can't express their own opinions about their work is very real. Many of my friends work in transit or planning and can't advocate for bettering our systems/cities because of their job. It leaves a hole of information that remains empty in public policy, and oftentimes rely on people like me to spread their opinions instead.
Just wanted to say that I really enjoy your videos Alan. I think you’re one of the most considered voices in this field. Really great to see you watching some content from my country 😀
Seems that it's a global problem - thanks for the comment!
I guess it depends on where you live. I'm a government official where I live and I'm also a part of a community civic engagement board that interacts with the government. Of course there are times at those meetings where issues come up that fall within the purview of my work, but I just recuse myself from those discussions. However broad brush sentiments, such as advocating for more housing, public transit, etc. are chalked up to my rights as an individual to share my opinions.
@@philipmallis a global issue? Eeks.
Great video Philip, good to hear a planner's perspective. I do think the Australian context is very different to the American one, and that the Nth Review video was very much in response to North American urbanism. I agree that we need more urbanist channels outside North America. It's a shame the Australian scene remains so small, but in a way the Australian UA-cam urbanist scene has really only just begun and there's surely more to come. I hope to see more and more Australian channels in the years ahead!
I’m glad to see that there are great videos from Australian UA-camrs that are popping up! I wish we had someone making videos like yours for Melbourne, I don’t know anyone making videos as part of YIMBY Melbourne. There are great websites, Facebook groups, PTUA etc but there aren’t really many places on UA-cam where the “how” is addressed, other than small things like Julian O”Shea recommending the BikeSpot map.
Good to see you commenting here, Sharath. One problem I have with a lot of urbanist UA-cam is that only is it UScentric, as has been mentioned, but they are comparing their urbanism to Western European urbanism. A lot of Western Europe needed to be rebuilt, literally from the ground up in some cases, 80 years ago, which I feel helped. Nothing like starting from scratch for urban planning :) Also whilst we do have a decent population density along the SE corridor, so basically along the coast from Brisbane to Melbourne, that population does seem to spread out more in our cities than in the US, with massive urban sprawl here. European cities are quite centralised, and many US cities are as well. Of course, we don't have the same climate issues that Europe and the northern parts of the US and Canada deal with, such as cold icy winters, thus requiring different, more heat and humidity tolerant, solutions here.
Nz and Aussie are a great mix between American and European cities keeping freedom of movement and great transport
I am a planner from the United States, and thank you for the great video. I see a couple of major problems with urban planning in the US, and you hit the nail on the head when it comes to worrying about your job. I graduated with my Master's in 2015 was the oldest student in the class and had prior experience with politics. However, many of the people I went to school who were great people would get all excited when they read books that told them to go out and be activist planners, and I knew they were in for a rude awakening. Then you have groups such as Strong Towns that seem to blame all the problems on planners. However, planners have to answer to those who run the organization and that is the City Council Members and the Mayor. You have to follow what their goals are (even if you don't agree with them); otherwise, they will get rid of you and find someone else who will do what they want. I also know consultants that are working on projects where they disagree with what the client wants but once again have to tow the line or loose their jobs.
Your comment about being worried about upsetting government equally applies to my profession of Civil Engineering. It is only when you retire or get to the end of your career when your financial position is less of a worry that you speak out. I lament the lack of social commentary from such a large group of professionals in Australia
What a considered and balanced perspective!
6:50
As someone who has a rather immediate understanding of what a government that effectively pursues applying oppressive leverage on any possible dissent ends up with, I think the idea of having to keep your mouth shut in order to maintain employment is an extraordinarily problematic phenomenon that is not sufficiently recognised let alone addressed.
Responsible planning and engineering is only possible where planners and engineers are allowed to express their professional opinions, and the outputs of their work are never commercial in confidence or any other kind of hidden from the public.
As an Urban Planner in Scotland. Well send and thank you
So glad I found you and other Australian YTers when I moved here a year ago. I don’t think we have any channels like this in New Zealand due to having piss poor public transit.
I agree. A big gripe I have with transit oriented channels is when they're talking about a subject not native to where they live and seeing how poorly informed they are about the topic, instead treating it like a general blanket concept that'll work everywhere
I read Jane Jacobs when I was in high school, so in the 1960's when our Portland, Oregon community was threatened by red-lining and Interstate freeway plans I got involved in our neighborhood association. That led to a career in transportation service planning, but I had to piece together an education because most schools taught only how to cater to ever-expanding traffic. I learned a lot from out-of-town newspapers and agree that it's important to have some understanding of local politics before criticizing.
Love it. Very considered discussion of a cutting edge media topic. Thanks.
Well said Philip, planning is vital to cityscapes and to fix mistakes of the past etc..
This is very true. Most people are not even aware that there is an alternative way of planning cities. Without that knowledge we cannot expect people to support planners and other activists in their struggles in real life. In that sense alone urban planning awareness is extremely important
It's already too late for me. I found NJB and other similar channels over the last two years. I already couldn't help but notice some times where infrastructure is terrible in design, but now I can't help but see it everywhere, where it's good and where it's bad.
I like how you pointed out Victoria, and that localisation is important. I live in regional NSW, and used to live in Sydney, and you're right about city councils and the role of government. We also don't really have city councils, except perhaps in Sydney CBD, but Local Government Areas or LGAs. They can be quite small, as you’d see in inner city Sydney, to quite large, as you see here out west in NSW, even more so since the NSW government went on an LGA or council merger spree about 10 years, or so, ago. From what I understand a lot of public transit in Melbourne, and even wider Victoria, is privatised, with some public services, such as VLine if I'm not mistaken? NSW is similar, though more government operated than not. Parts of Sydney have government buses, whilst other parts, especially outer suburbs, have private buses. All passenger rail, light and heavy, is government owned and run. In the regions you have a mix of buses, with private entities running local services, and some long distance services, with the government running some others under the Trains for NSW banner, to service areas not serviced by rail...though they should be IMO. I'd love to see some branch lines reopened, but I can also see why they will never be.
Excellent video! A welcome bit of contextualization for NthReview's video.
Very interesting video here. There isn't really a lot if youtubers that are making any urban planning related content in regional Australia yet, but I have been working on a huge new video recently about my local bus network over in Albury/Wodonga, im just getting the final touches done. Ive been advocating for changes for many years, the local community, bus operators and local MPs are aware of rhis issue. But i don't think they're proactive in this area. The closest thing ive made so far is the video i made on the overcrowding problem on my line between Albury and Melbourne on the Vlocity trains.
Hopefully the government gets serious about the HSR connection between Melbourne and Sydney, because it would directly benefit Albury. Trains build wealth. Cars destroy it.
I would say one of the biggest things not addressed by urbanist channels isn't how to get from A to C, but how smart planning and urbanism leads to gentrification. Sprawl is caused by poor planning, but only in part. It's also caused by the high cost of living in urban centers, particularly "well-planned" urban centers. The better a neighborhood gets, the more expensive it becomes, the more that well-planned space becomes an oasis for the upper middle class. Many people don't particularly care about urbanism because they view it like so many other government policies: Designed to make things better for people other than them. This conflict manifested spectacularly in Long Island City, where residents fought off Amazon's efforts to site their HQ2 there. Residents realized, in real time, that this wasn't for them. The "jobs" and "parks" and "public transit" that come with it would be enjoyed by new - more affluent - residents.
The other thing urbanist channels ignore is the housing crisis. It'd be great to have parks and public transport and restaurants and shops. But it'd be even better to have a home. Most urbanist philosophy favors "mid-rise" housing. But that type of housing artificially limits the number of units that can be built and actually encourages sprawl. Imagine thinking less homes should be built, in the face of a housing crisis, so that smart planning concepts are advanced.
I think you misunderstand a lot of what is being said in the space then. Midrises are advocated for because they are at the sweet spot where it's not too tall where the height is rapidly increasing the cost and not too small where the density is rapidly increasing the cost, urbanist philosophy as you call it does in deed want to address the housing crisis (most don't believe 'less' houses should be built, more that more dense housing should be built).
The gentrification concern is valid but I would dare say that a lot of modern urbanist ideas are about reversing it, the suburbs are highly gentrified and are hostile places to those without while more urban areas are easier to survive and thrive in without money.
So while yes we should ensure current residents aren't pushed out and that no one is left behind, heaving just more of the same with a highly suburban environment isn't the option. There isn't enough room for everyone to live comfortably in a detached house there is however enough room for overone to live comfortably in an apartment.
@@oscarewen9751 That's, unfortunately, not how it ends up working out. The way it works is that poor people are pushed out wherever neighborhoods are "improved." Not to be completely reductive about it, but it's just capitalism. Devs want maximum rents; better neighborhoods allow them to charge higher rents, pushing people who can't afford those rents out, the very people who most need to be close to their jobs. In 20 years of my practice, it has never failed to work in precisely this manner. It's happening at light speed in Hackensack, NJ as we speak.
Just want to add one more thing. The cost of adding floors - on a cost per floor basis - is not a straight line up. It goes down until you reach a height where steel is needed, then it goes down again until you reach a height where more robust systems are needed, such as additional elevators and wind bracing, and continues to go up and down as more issues need to be addressed.
@@babbaganush9659
@babbaganush9659
1. In response to your capitalism point, that does not have to be the be all and end all, not every place is as anti communist as America is (also specify that your American, not that your from a state in America, multiple countries have states and the internet is global). While yes capitalism is a problem it is not the singular problem and stating it as such is doing a disservice to how complicated things can be: people wanting to preserve property value may be related but they may also have racist ideas or misconceptions. You can make things better for people without having a 'loser' how to go about this is different for different people and areas BUT I would like to restate that detached housing which is the norm in Australia (where I'm from) and America (where you're from) is not the solution in in my view mid rise from 5 to 10 stories high are a good idea.
2. In regards to your second point, I am aware of the fact that building cost can be complex and did not intend to imply that it's a straight line up. What I was referring to was the cubic square law, the fact that the area of the cross section of a given support has to increase in relation to the volume of a structure (this is given that the support has to remain the same), within this of course building more floors makes the per capacity cost go down but only to a certain height where due to advanced supports being needed for mega skyscrapers the cost per occupant goes up again. This is a simplistic model but it's a good visualisation of why people are asking for 5, 10, 20 floor midrises and not for skyscrapers.
Circling back to the capitalism point, nothing's going to get better if we don't aim for it to get better and car centric infrastructure with highly spread out living spaces only serves to increase the amount of things you need to pay for to live (petrol, insurance, etc) but it also serves to isolate people, preventing communities from building as easily, and making people rely on more material things to spend their time on (games, shows, and movies are fun but it'll be nice if it didn't require a drive to talk to my friends). At the end of the day we're still going to have our differences of opinion but it's something to think about.
Well presented Philip and discussed 👍
Philip, I'm totally over having to sit on the ground while waiting for a train in Melbourne. I understand the concept of anti-homeless amenities, but is this the case for PTV? Why so few benches? Is there something more going on? I 'm an adult but I feel like I'm about to cross my legs and do 'show and tell' for fellow commuters. Thanks, keep up the great work.
Hi and thanks! I don't actually work for PTV, probably best to contact them directly: www.ptv.vic.gov.au/footer/customer-service/feedback-and-complaints/
@@philipmallis Thanks for reply. I know you don’t work for PTV. I just thought you might have some general thoughts or insight. There must be a reason for the lack of benches. Id be interested to know why.
Thanks for this insight. There is a lot of frustration with planners and engineers, while the focus should really be turned more upstream, to their bosses. How do we focus on getting what we want from politicians and bureaucrats, that come and go every few years? And then even if they put on paper some policies with words daying what we want, what actually happens, and keeps happening, on the ground seems to be merely following more of the deeply entrenched strategic and systemic preferences decided 'behind closed doors' by who knows whom - how do we deal with that? Do we have to go to the oil companies and tell them we want better? I really haven't worked out who we have to go to, let alone how we get to them. Surely we have to know the who before we work out the how.
There is also the standard left/right dichotomy of urbanism and planning for transport. Just look at Melbourne where every decision is justified by the words Jeff Kennett. Urbaists will claim to want to advocate for improvements but only if it is there 'chosen means. Yesterday on the train to Gippsland I once again found myself crawling both in an out of Melbourne behind suburban services yet have not heard one word from the PTUA or other advocate about the missed opportunity with the skyrail project to provide extra track capacity.
Further there has been no discourse of the SRL which remains for all intents a series of worksites and a genal plan of the path way but no discussion on why we must go through the enormous costs of a dedicated tunnel when 1km east and of the current estimated route via Syndal we have both the former outer circle and current Alemain lines and the entire Easttlink corridor that is greenfield for a much cheaper above ground route - and significantly closer to the currently unserved suburbs of Rowville and Doncaster.
Apart from the airport, which clearly isn't important seeing as the western end in the Airport rail link was cancelled part way through construction what TOD would the SRL be supporting and for whom would the project be deriving a benefit? At this point we need to ask would it not be cheaper to move Monash Clayton?
So where are the urbanists questioning the costs, priority, and the logic behind this project? Compared to say, Geelong eletricifcation, Clyde extension, increasing capacity through physical plant on the existing lines, the complete segregation of Vline from Metro services and that is only priorities in Melbourne.
I enjoyed the video and really appreciate your angle. Your point on localised information makes me wish for "NJB viewers guide" style videos, targeted at specific cities. It would help jostle away the malaise of not knowing where to even start, and provide insights onto how certain concepts do or don't apply locally. And it'd be an interesting view into other cities around the world, too - to get an idea of the sort of structural/political challenges people face, and build a larger conversation.
Very interesting! Thanks for sharing!
An intelligent and informative clip. I'm almost irritated that I can't find flaw with it.
I understand the conflict of interest that practitioners experience. However, there might be some scope for more information being shared about conceptual, engineering and economic aspects; in a way that is not specific or controversial, but enables people to better appreciate the 'real world' constraints within which urban planning necessarily operates. It's the antidote to ideological fantasies and fetishes that sometimes drive discussion.
Given a lot of the focus is on the more intensely urban landscapes, I would be particularly interested about how it is applied to smaller cities, outer suburbia and rural townships.
5:21, on that, does anyone know any ubran planning channels about places other than Australia, North America and Europe?
One that I can recommend is @tehsiewdai - he does some great videos showcasing things in South East Asia (plus a Melbourne video!) www.youtube.com/@tehsiewdai
The SNES Sim City game was awesome 👍. I played it a few months ago
The channel 'Altis play' for a Parisian perspective \m/
Where I live, Metro Orlando, I'm reasonably sure they never did any planning ever. It's so poorly laid out even for cars.
"other people who work in related field like transport engineering". I'm not sure what it's like elsewhere, but up here in Brissy the transport "engineers" (which I put in scare quotes because it's not a real field of engineering accredited by Engineers Australia-and even _software_ engineering somehow manages to be a proper field of engineering) are _part of the problem._ You can check out videos from the Brisbane-based cycling advocate Chris Cox for specific examples, but the bottom line is that they're incredibly conservative and they'll literally find any excuse they possibly can for _not_ providing safety improvements for cycling, and it's a widely-known fact up here that their modelling does not account for induced demand in the slightest. Somehow the government department seen in Utopia is actually _more_ functional than in real life…
And of course the conservative politicians who want to keep entrenching car culture absolutely _love_ this. They get to just point to the "engineers'" guidance and say "see, we can't possibly provide safety improvements".
You're issue likely isn't actually the transport engineers. In terms of determining what should be built, transport modelling largely just determines staging and scale. Transport modellers are provided designed options to assess, they don't actually do any designing themselves.
Basically, they're given a road project and asked what would happen to traffic if it was implemented. There are obvious flaws in relying on this alone to decide what you should and shouldn't build, but the planning system isn't fully reliant on just transport modelling outcomes in the first place.
Basically, building a road in the first place is a strategic decision rather then a technical one. The issue for transport engineers is they typically aren't deployed in a strategic role, they're used for technical input.
So once the strategic decision has been made to build a road, the transport engineers can't really do much more then provide data on how that might turn out.
A lot of the issues are occurring at systematic levels, which makes it very difficult for individuals to break down. I am sure you are correct that there are many conservative transport engineers out there who are perfectly content with the staus quo, but the ones I have worked with are well aware of what induced demand is and are doing what they practically can do chip away at the system from the inside.
@@91Caesar no, it very specifically is the engineers. You can ask them a question like "this road is on the Principle Cycle Network Plan, so why hasn't this project included cycling infrastructure?" and they'll give answers like "oh, there just isn't enough room for us to do that" or "it's too difficult due to the topography", while in the process of adding more lanes to allow dedicated turning lanes into a housing development with just a couple dozen residents.
If you want to see more, I recommend Chris Cox's videos entitled "Does your city force you to drive? Car Culture 4: Baking in car dependence" and "Is your city lying to you? | Fig Tree Pocket Road update | Brisbane City Council taking the piss".
@@JimCullen I've watched them, and as I mentioned in my initial reply, they over estimate the level of control traffic engineers actually have in these processes. Transport engineers don't really design the plans, they just assess them, and those assessments are heavily influenced by the inputs and expectations of who ever orders the analysis in the first place.
I would direct you to the pinned comment by cdjwright on "Does your city force you to drive? Car Culture 4: Baking in car dependence", where he succinctly explains how these outcomes occur despite whatever intentions the traffic engineers have towards active transport. The key take away here is that cycling isn't properly considered in the input data of the task when it is presented to traffic engineers in the first place, nor is it particularly valued when decision makers take the traffic engineer's outputs and decide what to do with them. Without that consideration, whether the traffic engineer is properly considering active transport or not is just not a real factor in getting proper active transport infrastructure.
When you do transport modelling, you don't actually make assertions on what options are best. You only really provide data on the expected outcomes of those options. A traffic engineer can quite easily demonstrate through modelling the benefits of providing better cycling infrastructure, but that won't matter if the decision maker is fixated on finding the option that best suits road users.
Look at Chris Cox's comparison between the Fig Tree Pocket case and the Monier Rd case, where there was at least some provision of active transport infrastructure. Do you think that had anything to do with the traffic engineers on Monier Rd project? Lets say that those traffic engineers did better account for active transport to such a degree that they were able to push for design options that included at least a painted bike lane. Well then clearly traffic engineers are capable of promoting active transport and trying to claim the whole industry is blind to anything beyond cars is asinine. Alternatively, lets say that the bike lanes were added in spite of traffic engineers on the project who place no value on anything that isn't a car. Well then clearly the provision of active transport infrastructure wasn't their call in the first place. Somewhere else in the process, some other decision maker has forced the active transport infrastructure into the design. So why didn't that occur at Fig tree pocket?
Traffic engineers are working within a system that heavily favours private vehicle based transit on a multitude of levels. That systematic bias does more to taint their outputs then the sensibilities of any individual professional involved. Your issue isn't that traffic engineers turn every transport problem into a road project, it's the other way around. Politicians and government bureaucracies present transport problems to traffic engineers as road problems, and request road solutions from them. Transport engineers don't set the parameters of these problems, they are assigned to them by the client.
@@91Caesar I'm sorry, but it's professional malpractice for an engineer to just accept the parameters as given to them if they know that those parameters are wrong. The fact that the outcome here is "we didn't build something to keep people safe" should make no difference compared to a more direct example like "we built a bridge which collapsed because we were told to ignore wind".
Unfortunately, engineers only get held responsible if they build something and it fails, not if they fail to build something and that failure causes injury or death.
Hi Phillip. First of all, it's an awesome video! About the conflict of interest issue, suppose a public transit planner has a personal blog that chronicles his experiences riding his city's transit routes. How could that pose a potential conflict of interest?
Hello, thanks very much! There are many cases where a planner can publicly comment on things - like a personal blog on experiencing a transport system. I and many others have done this and even criticised some aspects of our transport system. But there is a limit. For example, at work I work on many cycling and walking projects. As these have to be approved by elected councillors, go through community consultation and many other parts of a process in which I am involved professionally, I can't try to unfairly influence or bias a particular outcome. Governments need its public servants to be and be seen to be independent experts in their particular fields - we're not politicians. Hope that helps!
I became obsessed with urbanism years ago, mostly because of UA-cam. Instead of complaining I decided to be on my local city’s Planning and Zoning Commission. I’m now on the commission and feel like I help bring actual change to my city of 70,000 in Idaho in the USA. It’s been a fun journey.
Great vid. I think the idea that informing the public 'isn't giving them the tools' is a bit lazy - the Nth review is in a position to do the thing they're complaining about. Besides other than having a broad understanding of good urbanism and being encouraged to engage with local policy what else is there to do? As you point out each project and context are potentially hugely different, and those nuances can be sorted out with local planners through political engagement.
Town planning in Australia means paving the way for god awful development. to maximize the profits for private developers. Treeless suburbs, multi-lane freeways and soul less shopping precincts.
Isn't it a lot to so with politics , ideology and where the perceived votes are.
If we don't have the blight of urban freeways it might be treated as, "A war on cars."
Good video. I watch many of those channels for entertainment. Most urban planners in them always get it wrong currently because pretty much all of them are anti-car right from the start, which means they totally ignore why people use cars , why people like cars and while they will continue to use them. But many urban planers act as if all people are just waiting for a good bus or train to abandon a car. Rather than recognise that cars are transport and will remain as part of the overall scheme. Plus they often think everyone wants to live in tiny apartments above shops.
No-one is denying that particularly privileged people in global North countries like Aus want to keep pumping out SUVs whilst the climate crisis escalates and threatens the livelihoods of billions of people. We need to have an honest conversation about the speed and scale of the auto industry in an economy and society that objectively is failing to meet even relatively straightforward emergency decarbonisation goals.
@@kyletopfer7818yawn. Is that the climate crisis that requires an upswing in mining for EVs and to massively upgrade the various grids or another climate crisis. The same
Climate crisis wehere the cultists bang on about Net Zero while leaving common sense at door that Net Zero is not even a remote possibility in any shape or form. The very same cultists that see no issue with stopping others doing things but won’t stop having children themselves creating little new consumers or traveling?
@@kyletopfer7818thanks for proving my point. Hilarious. Denial is always amusing to listen to. By the way your going to have a great time decarbonisating everything and still expecting the earth to live.
You may well watch them, but I don't think you understand shit.
My qualification is in financial advice, and the absurd costs of cars are draining wealth from Australian families. The average household spends $25,000 a year on cars. It is not only idiotic from a transport perspective, but also from a financial perspective to design a city around the exclusive use of cars.
activists ...
No everything is run and done and seen as in my town, county, state here in good old US of A? i dont think such novelty concept will ever catch up on english-speaking internet, including YT, no matter if its urbanism or any other issue or field of interest...
You didn’t add that fact that in Australia our short terms in government and Australians don’t really care about environment or fellow Australians affects the people doing the planning. Most time the governing members will dictate a decision telling the planner no matter the outcomes to make it happen.
Being a transport planner since 1976, the roads will be clogged by motor cars and trains and a bus run by fossil fuels in 2024. Bicycles with be run by solar power units connected to your Gazan house. You will then pay to connected to connect.
Dude you should know by now that people only do these videos to get your reaction. You shouldnt have made this video. Now you'll be open to every troll video.
A major problem with urban planning in the current era is that everyone seems obsessed with bicycles, and re-engineering our cities to support a tiny percentage of the population that commute via bike, and making things worse for the vast majority of people that drive or use public transport.
Weird take, most journeys by cars in Aus cities are less than 5km and easily replaceable by bike or PT.
That's not what is happening at all. People actually want public transport that's up to the standards of the 21st century and less 10 lane highways running through the middle of our cities. It's become abundantly clear that cars and it's associated freeway infrastructure have completely obliterated cities all over the world. Just look at Melbourne and the Montague interchange. It's an absolute nightmare as a pedestrian, as a cyclist and as a car commuter.
What we want is better and safer alternatives to driving, be it separated bike lanes, or trains and buses that run more than every 20 minutes. If all we focus on is car infrastructure, then if course everyone will drive, and create traffic and pollute the cities air quality, because there's no other choice.
@@kyletopfer7818very weird response. Public transport can’t possibly go in every direction and no one wants to bike on 35 degree days or rain or with family needing to be dropped off in various areas if carrying groceries. Still must be fantastic in that alternate reality. The fact is when people can go door to door in comfort why will they go in heat or rain on a bike.
@@devilpizza123no they don’t. I’ve never met anyone ‘just waiting’ for another train line to take them to work because that’s not how public transport works. Because people don’t want to make two bus changes to get to work. People don’t want to carry their supermarket shopping for a fortnight on a train. Better public transport ISN’T why people use cars and it’s hilarious again you think so. It just demonstrates that despite in the inner suburbs where PT is great (there is a train line, tram and 5 buses within 300 metres of my place) most people STILL use cars for a multitude of reasons.
@@kyletopfer7818Maybe if you live in Melbourne and parking is rubbish. Living in regional Victoria, I don't care if I work 5 minutes up the road, I will drive.