And Texas is going to massively widen I-35 in Austin, I-45 in Houston with its downtown stretch relocated, and US-59 / I-69 in Houston. All 20-lane freeways!! 🤮
Note that this is mainly only an issue in america or cities inspired by american cities, here in germany it is _very common_ for there to be like special bike streets rhat cars are literally not allowed on, and having special bus only lanes on many streets
Why would the U.S. Government support trains if they were the ones that killed the giant passenger railroads in America during the 1950s & 1960s from the 1st place.? Ever hear of the PRR? Or New York Central? Reading? B&O they killed them all. Now all we are left with is Amtrak and some government agencies railroads from different states that don’t even plan on building new railroads anywhere. But oh you want cars and new roads here you go…. Disappoints me sometimes!
I want to use public transport, but driving it takes me 15 minutes to get to work, versus 1.5 hours, where the buses drive roughly 5 times the distance. There's also the fact that people like me aren't safe on public transport. I've been help up at knife point several times on it. The problem is that all of them are run by profiteering companies who want to generate the maximum profit from minimal input. For me a car costs the same as public transport, except it's safer, quicker, more convenient, more comfortable and leaves me with more time I can do things with.
US Transit projects do genuinely also cost too much even If the scrutiny should be directed at Auto infra as well. Australian cities manage to build mainline rail, light rail and Metro rail significantly cheaper to a higher standard which means a similar country has a lot more Projects and these are completed with less controversy.
Boston Massachusetts built its Big Dig project which was a massive state highway construction project at a cost of more than US$1 bln a mile in 1990-2004 dollars. And Texas is like, that's nothing! And proceeds to build 20 lane freeways that are even more expensive. 🤮 It's high time highways started paying their own way.
@@Adamfandango have trains go there. Do you realise just how cheap, fast to make and easy to maintain railroad tracks are? Look up the cost of rail per mile to highway road per mile.
@@StormCrownSrHe's talking about going to non-urbanized places. Here's a fun story: I tried going from San Francisco to Marin Headlands, just across the Golden Gate, without a car. There's no direct bus service there anymore and it nearly ended in disaster. I was stranded and I had to beg some strangers to give me a ride in their *evil car* .
Depends on where you're talking about, this is not true everywhere at all. But even where it is true, it's fed by what's invested into: if car infrastructure is invested into more, it's easier to own a car than use public transit. When public transit is invested in more, less people need or want to own cars.
@@kjhuang Cars are better for the individual if nobody else drove, but they take up a massive amount of space, spend most of their time just sitting there, and are extremely inefficient at moving many people in denser spaces. If you live in a rural community, a car is great, but anything approaching a city needs to have more public transit funding than car infrastructure alone.
@@jeffa7235 Agreed. Cities need to do things for both because both will be called for depending on the particular situation. Too many urbanists just condemn cars and romanticize public transit in a way that's absurdly out of touch with reality.
Public transit and cycling infastructure are funded by the taxes of peoole who will never use them and they don't generate the revenue to offset their cost of operation/maintenance let alone construction. If you want to live in an urban hellscape, renting a shoebox to live in and biking to work through heat rain and snow, thats your perogative. Don't browbeat people who would rather commute by car, own their homes, and live where wild animals and plants arent restricted to parks.
Have you seen South Florida? Or greater New Orleans on the south shore of the lake? No, most suburbs in the US are a suburban hellscape where HOAs dictate what plants and animals you're allowed to have, and wild animals are kept out.
Interesting as a study of roads equipped with bicycle infrastructure shows that businesses took in an average of 46% more than roads equipped solely for autos. Maybe it's because it's easier to park a bicycle and spend a little more time in the business than having to worry about finding parking and then paying for it.
He never did this though, he’s just trying to say that the option to use public transit should be available (or have a higher quality than it is now) for those who want to use it. People who love cars and suburbs are free to continue living there. But the choice for those who don’t want to shouldn’t be taken away.
But I'm sure adding another lane would fix all the traffic issues in the world! It's worked so well in cities like LA so far.
And the Katy freeway
And Texas is going to massively widen I-35 in Austin, I-45 in Houston with its downtown stretch relocated, and US-59 / I-69 in Houston. All 20-lane freeways!! 🤮
Ikr?! 😂😂😂
@@user-uo7fw5bo1oTexas is literally in love with freeways! Even their smaller cities are carved up by them.
Note that this is mainly only an issue in america or cities inspired by american cities, here in germany it is _very common_ for there to be like special bike streets rhat cars are literally not allowed on, and having special bus only lanes on many streets
Why would the U.S. Government support trains if they were the ones that killed the giant passenger railroads in America during the 1950s & 1960s from the 1st place.? Ever hear of the PRR? Or New York Central? Reading? B&O they killed them all. Now all we are left with is Amtrak and some government agencies railroads from different states that don’t even plan on building new railroads anywhere. But oh you want cars and new roads here you go…. Disappoints me sometimes!
Any video or source recommendations for people who dont believe me on this? Preferably with stats and sources.
Streetcraft’s newest video as I’m writing this comment, and NotJustBike’s “Why I won’t be raising kids in Suburbia”
I want to use public transport, but driving it takes me 15 minutes to get to work, versus 1.5 hours, where the buses drive roughly 5 times the distance. There's also the fact that people like me aren't safe on public transport. I've been help up at knife point several times on it. The problem is that all of them are run by profiteering companies who want to generate the maximum profit from minimal input. For me a car costs the same as public transport, except it's safer, quicker, more convenient, more comfortable and leaves me with more time I can do things with.
Sad but true. Sadly crime is a massive public transit issue that has seldom been addressed by Urbanist UA-camrs.
US Transit projects do genuinely also cost too much even If the scrutiny should be directed at Auto infra as well. Australian cities manage to build mainline rail, light rail and Metro rail significantly cheaper to a higher standard which means a similar country has a lot more Projects and these are completed with less controversy.
Where's the last clip from? It looks beautiful.
PATCO on the Franklin Bridge between Philly and Camden.
Boston Massachusetts built its Big Dig project which was a massive state highway construction project at a cost of more than US$1 bln a mile in 1990-2004 dollars. And Texas is like, that's nothing! And proceeds to build 20 lane freeways that are even more expensive. 🤮
It's high time highways started paying their own way.
If it was close and safe enough I would ride my bike to work everyday.
Image public officials supporting what the public wants.
And that's the issue-much, if not most,, of the public (in America at least) just wants 20 lane freeways everywhere.
@@Geotpf in the cities yes.
Yeah its fucked it's been fuckec and tge world is burning down
That’s great if you want to live in a city and never leave it.
Trains are a thing. Bus?
@@StormCrownSr trains go to other cities and small towns, buses the same. What about visiting small towns and villlages? Or simply the countryside?
@@Adamfandango have trains go there. Do you realise just how cheap, fast to make and easy to maintain railroad tracks are? Look up the cost of rail per mile to highway road per mile.
@@StormCrownSr tracks are cheap, trains, drivers and diesel are not.
@@StormCrownSrHe's talking about going to non-urbanized places. Here's a fun story: I tried going from San Francisco to Marin Headlands, just across the Golden Gate, without a car. There's no direct bus service there anymore and it nearly ended in disaster. I was stranded and I had to beg some strangers to give me a ride in their *evil car* .
I mean, yeah. More people own cars than use public transit.
Depends on where you're talking about, this is not true everywhere at all. But even where it is true, it's fed by what's invested into: if car infrastructure is invested into more, it's easier to own a car than use public transit. When public transit is invested in more, less people need or want to own cars.
@@jeffa7235Cars have some inherent advantages over public transit that will always make them desirable no matter how well funded public transit is.
@@kjhuang Cars are better for the individual if nobody else drove, but they take up a massive amount of space, spend most of their time just sitting there, and are extremely inefficient at moving many people in denser spaces. If you live in a rural community, a car is great, but anything approaching a city needs to have more public transit funding than car infrastructure alone.
@@jeffa7235 Agreed. Cities need to do things for both because both will be called for depending on the particular situation. Too many urbanists just condemn cars and romanticize public transit in a way that's absurdly out of touch with reality.
Cause no options
Yes please
Public transit and cycling infastructure are funded by the taxes of peoole who will never use them and they don't generate the revenue to offset their cost of operation/maintenance let alone construction.
If you want to live in an urban hellscape, renting a shoebox to live in and biking to work through heat rain and snow, thats your perogative.
Don't browbeat people who would rather commute by car, own their homes, and live where wild animals and plants arent restricted to parks.
Amen!
> live where wild animals and plants arent restricted to parks
Have you seen Los Angeles?
Have you seen South Florida? Or greater New Orleans on the south shore of the lake? No, most suburbs in the US are a suburban hellscape where HOAs dictate what plants and animals you're allowed to have, and wild animals are kept out.
Interesting as a study of roads equipped with bicycle infrastructure shows that businesses took in an average of 46% more than roads equipped solely for autos. Maybe it's because it's easier to park a bicycle and spend a little more time in the business than having to worry about finding parking and then paying for it.
He never did this though, he’s just trying to say that the option to use public transit should be available (or have a higher quality than it is now) for those who want to use it.
People who love cars and suburbs are free to continue living there. But the choice for those who don’t want to shouldn’t be taken away.
"infinitely cheaper" -- mathematically impossible unless its free.
Its a fucking expression
Unless which is free?
Booo
womp womp