You briefly mentioned Amsterdam, but I also want to further point out the fact that the incredibly high bicycle usage in the Netherlands is not cultural. In the 80s one of the council areas had put in schemes to redesign all the street vehicle usage and promote bicycle usage and there was a huge uproar and backlash, but it became so successful, that all the councils in the 3 major cities copied it, causing further resistance but now people seem to have forgotten what it was like in car centric cities and embraced it. Their weather is almost the same as the south of the UK too. So you will be looking at a rough 2 decades and then people will have forgotten the old car-centric ways in the city.
@@michaelhiggins9188 You have to admit it's a bit surprising its only been the way it is for such a short amount of time though. If you have ever been there or spoken to anyone below the age of 40, you'd swear it's always been bike centric.
@@Eoin-B Yea, and it is a great example of how, it is not too late for the us or the other car addicted countries to make the switch. It is a rough couple of years, but it is so worth it in the end.
Hell yes! Infrastructure and cultural change was an insightfully deliberate policy choice on the part of dutch lawmakers, which is what has made their cities so successful today.
A narrow sidewalk will gridlock if there's too many people. Widen the sidewalk! Oh hang on, that sounds like induced demand. Build a Metro to city limits! Wait, that's how suburbs can begin. Too many people, but not me, everyone else is wrong and needs to go. My F150 Riese & Muller Saloman mobility tech collab makes me the exception.
for some reason anglos are weirdly anti bike. Canada, UK, Australia, and the big daddy of car dependence, the USA. It is so weird. It's not just the Netherlands who loves their bikes. Milan, Germany, Barcelona, Bogota, are all doing great using bikes to transfer away from car dependency. It is super bizarre
I wouldn't go as far as comparing the UK, home of the railway to those three. Yes, there are some very stubborn, backwards, ethnically homogenous suburbs where everyone hates the thought of walking **Ahem Bromley Ahem** but taking the train is a normal part of life and most people commuted to work via public transport before the pandemic.
@@mildlydispleased3221it's not so much the mobility habits writ large that I'm connecting, rather the public attitude specifically towards cycling as a leasure activity vs a form of legitimate transportation
You might be on to something. It's related to immense focus on private property rights and laws in Anglophone society (John Locke's philosophy on property ownership). This means it's really hard to implement mass transit + property models like in Hong Kong, Japan, or Korea.
@@tonysoviet3692 That doesn't make sense though, the UK birthed the railway and the USA once had the best freight AND passenger system in the world. All this backlash to public transport or even the mere idea of sensibly designed cities is a very recent, and in my opinion very artificial attitude people have.
Something not mentionned is Carshare. IF your city has a good carshare system, you can get around with kids, for cheap, for long distances, without owning a car, for cheaper then renting a car. In montreal, where I'm from, you can use a carshare for like 300$ per year and then pay a fixed 25$ fee per day, which is wayyy cheaper then owning a car if you use it like 3-4 times per month
Motorists are some of the most ignorant arrogant straight out nasty entitled inhabitants of this island. Especially urban ones. I live in one of the biggest cities in the country and the amount of people I know who have a car but could easily do without one is just depressing. Don’t even get me started on the claims that less cars will kill city centres.
You’ve just described the vast majority of the adult population as “ignorant, arrogant, straight out nasty, entitled…” which includes most people on this page, most people you know, most of your family, most of your friends. You really sure about that?
So what are people that can’t access public transport? Are disabled people nasty and arrogant? Or people from rural areas where they have no other choice? I agree that we need to move away from car centric cities but you’re the one that sounds ignorant
@@alexcrawford6162Not everyone who drives sees themselves as a "motorist". More often than not when someone calls themself a "motorist" they are heavily invested in being a car driver, like it's an integral part of their identity. And these people do tend to be entitled and think only about themselves, pedestrians and cyclists be damned.
It's hard keeping a cool head when driving. So I try keeping a slow 40 kmh, but there's always incessant honking, then there's pedestrians you need to look out for. It can cause a few mistakes but you definitely need to be on your toes while driving
@@alehaim Agree 100%. But how? Just last week the PM caved in to the petrolhead demographic and scrapped lots of progressive policies just to get a few votes.
@@alehaim which is why I’m happy NYC is going to introduce congestion prices. Unfortunately I don’t trust them with building up public transport. If they actually do though then NYC will become a much more pleasant place
@@Ray03595 Hiring some more cleaning staff and restoring the subways would be a good start. Never understood how the biggest city in the richest country has such a depressing metro.
@@Ray03595Don't trains span the entire city? I feel like they're pretty convenient from the times I've been there. Getting across the river is also easy through bus and train
'Punishing londoners for driving a car' is an interesting way of phrasing it in the 'how london stops you driving' section. Personally I look at it more as just charging them proportionate to their impact.
Well negative incentives work hand in hand with positive ones to affect behavior. If driving was less of a nuisance, then less people would feel the need to switch to public transit, especially if they already have a sunken-cost car. The phrasing may seem a bit spin-y, but it is not disingenuous.
Yes, people always forget the negative externalities of a personal vehicle, and it's only when in a place that truly prices them according to their real societal cost (road infrastructure, negative health aspects of all sorts) like NYC or London do they complain about the price. People are so used to the innate subsidies built into vehicle ownership like free parking that they complain when they are taken away.
Motorists will constantly bitch about these things, yet they have no solutions to fix any of the problems. If the congestion charge didn't come in to place in 2003, then London would be at a standstill today. London's traffic is still terrible, just imagine how bad it could have been if all these measures were not taken. More people are cycling than ever before, which is really good.
@@garethhenshaw No, we just shouldn't artificially subsidize people who own a car with large amounts of public space and resources. It's much more expensive to support driving in dense cities, so it *should* be more expensive to drive there to support that. The alternative is continuing to subsidize drivers at the expense of the poorest among us, as those are the folks who rely on public transit the most and are affected the most by air pollution.
Public transport and biking lanes give people that cannot drive options due to medical conditions or age more options to stay more active connectivity, and foot traffic into businesses.
Most Londoners have cars as a status symbol and I believe it's increasingly becoming generational. Younger gens are less likely to care about a private car. I remember the amount of social pressure I got from my parents and grandparents who treated my refusal to buying a car like a declaration of war. They still can't understand. Bus, trams, trains and bikes is the way!
Yeah but new migrants don't care (and there are many of them). 1st thing they do when they make some decent money is buy a car, like most other people do around the world.
Well look who drives the Audis and the Beamers. Not exactly old people... And the boy racers in their ridiculous Subarus... In large parts of the demographics it is still considered an important symbol of masculinity and status to have a car.
Train services need to be improved significantly and made cheaper. Last year when I was commuting to Farringdon I logged my rail commutes and 80% of them were delayed at least 10 minutes which is enough to screw up evening plans. The seemingly infinitely long indutstrial action is hitting rail reliability this year. A lack of decent connections, poor and/or slow service in places often makes rail less practical or at best a slog. As for cost, for me to do a 500 mile round trip to visit my family, it costs around £75 by car or £117 by train because I can never get cheap advance tickets any more. Buses are good in places but in an urban area, I'd rather use my bike as it is quicker and more flexible. Whilst driving has the annoyance of traffic congestion, it is still more comfortable/pleasant for the majority than the alternatives.
Really interesting to know that Hackney is 70% LTNs. I moved here last year and always tell people about how nice and quiet it is in my neighbourhood and now I know why!
I live in south east London. I drive to sixth form college. If I took public transport, it would take me 30-50 minutes. Driving it takes me 10. I am a big cyclist, and would happily cycle if it were safe to do so. I’d also take public transport if it were quick and convenient. This is why many still drive.
That's the issue for many people I believe. I don't think people enjoy having to drive everywhere the go, but many English City's infrastructure simply does not allow for any other alternative...
Big on the safety. I agree with making people less dependent on cars and car sharing, however, this is the city where people break lime bikes and steal the one you own. Also, especially as a young woman travelling as it gets darker in the cold winter, that's low-key another reason added to the list. Not to mention commuters into london, and the strikes alongside increasing rail prices.
As someone who's been gentrified out of central London and wanted to maintain a certain comfort in my home, I can assure you that there are ,many areas where a car is needed to live comfortably. I can think of a few houses in Edmonton I've visited where the nearest supermarket was miles away on the North Circular. South London fares far worse, especially the south east. The outer zones are massive suburban sprawls where getting somewhere by public transportation will turn into a massive expanse and loss of time. Cycling from Zone 4 to Zone 1 isn't something everyone can do. This is the sad part of gentrification people don't see. There is also a difference between cycling friendly and motoring hostile cities. Amsterdam has smart traffic lights that, while giving away priority to pedestrians and cyclists, also do make sure you're never stopped at a red light if there's no traffic coming. Hence why Dutch drivers are happier with their infrastructure. There are two choices when trying to induce a change of behaviour. The carrot or the stick. And London is particularly stick happy...
I agree with you. People think that all of London is served by public transport and everyone has the same travelling privileges. In some areas you will need a car to live comfortably. Some people want no cars at all which makes the whole point of urban sprawl pointless. They don't get that some people are more car reliant so all of these Ltns and cameras are like an attack. But people think that they are selfish and only care about themselves. Another thing as well is that cars are not even a problem in London for pedestrians in general it isn't like America where you feel like you are going to be hit any minute.
@@K1989Lcars gives us freedom to to whatever place we need to be at our own preferred time it's called freedom of movement. Anything else is nothing but bullsh*,t.
@@lewis6565that's a lie, I live in Redditch which is the other town built and designed the same time as mk and I can tell you for free there's far too many petrol boxes on the road and the roundabouts don't help at all.
Great to hear from the cab driver that options for cars have been reduced. This is the only way to reclaim some of the wasted resources and address some of the damage cars do. Driving should be super expensive, not only in money, but also in inconvenience and time.
As long as the alternatives are good. Would be pretty stupid to harm car users if the public transport is super crowded and if there isn't enough bike infrastructure yet.
@@racool911 yup They're going to make it prohibitively expensive to own a car Which only affects the poor If you have a little pocket change, the experience will be enhanced🥂 Like Singapore where it costs $9500 PER YEAR to register a car😭🤣 So poor people all take the bus, cycle and walk🤣
Many of the discussions about car infrastructure focus on those people most impacted by reduced car infrastructure, as they deliver strong arguments against restricting car traffic (people who need cars for their work for example) yet I'd be more interested how many people on the roads are taking trips that could actually be replaced by public transport, bikes or walking. They are the ones that need to be incentivized most, either by making the car less attractive or alternatives more attractive (or in the best case, both). A big part of this discussion that some politicians tend to ignore is to not only to make the car unattractive, but to make public transport and cycling infrastructure more attractive. This can be challenging when so much space is still granted to the car, making cycle routes and buses less attractive in the process because you have to cross busy roads or the buses get stuck in traffic. Even if there is perfect cycling infrastructure along a route, I'd still get frustrated every time I have to cross a big, busy road. London's approach of financial incentives to get people to stop using the car is impacting low income families and people a lot more than those who can just afford the charges, forcing those with less money off the roads and those who can afford it onto them. The charges need to be income-based to equally impact everyone, with special regulations around businesses that need vehicles to operate.
Holy moly, cars make people entitled and psychotic. And everyone's insistence on cars demonstrates a hyper-individualist mindset that disregards the larger picture and how everyone could be made better off with far fewer of these space-wasting machines.
Yup, car obsession just feeds into hyper-individuality and egotism here in the US. Truly a living hell dealing with people around here. Good on London for punishing motorists. Meanwhile the US just keeps expanding more and more highways because lobbyists stuff money into our politicians pockets. Our gov is not concerned with improving quality of life for its citizens. Only enriching themselves and funding wars
@veodebouevthere's as much phones in Africa as anywhere else in the world. Have you never heard that China produces phones, and that they are far cheaper than anything made in western countries?
@@JohnFromAccounting of course that's the dream, but what this person is referring to is that you dont need a car to get around london when that's just not feasible for disabled people with london's current public transport
@@lauraqueentint The argument isn't that disabled people shouldn't use cars. The point is that those who are able-bodied (99+ percent) use cars even though most don't need to.
Anyone else noticed that younger people were overall positive even when they were inconvenienced at times, while older people were usually more negative about the changes?
Should note that most of the older large "carcentric" US cities "designed that way" were not exactly actually designed that way as they were already around before cars were even a thing. They were effectively *destroyed* to make room for the car (conveniently separating and isolating marginalized population as well as primarily destroying *their* homes to make room for those high ways in the process was *definitely totally* just an accidental side effect)
@GusM- I guess I got spoiled by the Moscow metro. Can't expect as much from the richest country on Earth. Although "fine" might be the right word. It's just not "good", that's the problem.
Unfortunately london transport isn’t the best - it can be very unreliable and expensive and bus services get cut all the time and if you start work at 4am your only option may be to drive
Great video, thanks! Apart from what others have said in the comments, I was also surprised by the claim about London having less space than eg us cities, though It really is true what they say - they were not primarily "built" for the car but bulldozed for them... luckily London and most of Europe in general didn't go quite as far (Also, why no mention of induced traffic/traffic evaporation? ...judging from the answers you got, not enough people seem to know about the main reasons for congestion in the 1st place)
8:03 The Westway was actually planned as part of the infamous London Ringways project (where it would be designated Ringway 1). There were four Ringways planned. Ringway 1 - Inner orbital route in London's congested areas (Not all built) Ringway 2 - Outer orbital route which half of it is occupied by the North Circular Road Ringway 3 - Orbital route outside Greater London which makes up one half of the M25 Motorway Ringway 4 - Another orbital route for those who want to avoid London altogether which makes up the other half of the M25 Motorway. The "Unfinished London" series documents the Ringways project in greater detail
I only know a couple of people who have a car in inner London. Once you get to outer London it's just as car centric as anywhere else in the UK. Places are just so far away. When I first came to London I brought my car with me but found it stayed parked most of the time. I used it mainly night time for going out. I think since then night bus and night tubes have got better (though still far from perfect). I do notice, outside London bus services tend to wind down after 6PM but here they are still fairly frequent till 11 or so. After that you might have to wait 15 minutes or so for the night service, some routes even 30 mins.
Why did you mostly interview car drivers? It feels like they are personally attacked. There is so much more that goes into these decisions made by urban planners. Proportional use of space, other external costs like accidents, induced demand, ...
The only unfair thing about the congestion fee is its high. if you on minimum wage, it’s basically no-go zone for you. If you’re rich banker, it’s nothing for you. The congestion fee should be strictly correlated to your - eg literally your hourly wage (equivalent to 1/2000 of your annual income)
You have also missed the point. Those charges affect people that are on low income more than the wealthy, is poverty taxation. The rich will still use the car regardless, even for the most mundane thing, the poorest won't even use it for essential journeys. Percentual charge works, just look at Switzerland using it for speeding fines. You charge £1000 to a guy on 80k p/a for speeding and he brushes it off (you even see it here, the Lamborghinis speeding past speeding cameras, no fucks given). If you charge the same to someone on 21k p/a that's it, they're ruined for months. It doesn't matter that it's not a pay-to-use service, it's about proportional taxation according to people's income. Carpet-blank taxation always affects the little people dramatically, never the wealthy. What wealthy person gives a fuck about £12.50 a day? He'll keep using his Audi A7 without a care in the world. @@RubbishGimpy
Ah, so you accept and endorse poverty taxation? Essentially what you are saying is that if you are on minimum wage you are not allowed the same mobility and agency allowed to wealthier individuals or groups. I'm really glad you're not writing policy. And don't give me the "it's just how it is" bollocks because that's just a cynical approach.@@mats7492
Having moved to London from the Netherlands, the cycling infrastructure is so far behind. Some motorists purposely leave no space between you and them and make you feel unsafe. Back at home I wouldnt hesitate to cycle 5km to work. Where I live in London this is unthinkable.
Old reply but 100% this, I was very lucky in that at one point my commute could be done 90% via canal paths and a small section of segregated cycle lane. The last 10% was having to share the road or in a bus lane. That last 10% felt so unsafe I just went back to getting the train. My borough 'invested' into some cycle highway projects along some main roads. Great! But pretty much completely useless because as soon as you needed to anywhere else have fun sharing the road with every impatient london driver who treats you as a target and not a person. Basically the lanes were useless to me because they didn't go anywhere I'd ever need to go. Same goes for public transport, it's great for getting me to the centre for work. I need to go anywhere else, it's going to be multiple slow bus rides. People don't realise that outer london is incredibly underserved for cycle infra and public transport. I'd love to live in inner London but it's completely unaffordable, rather than outer londons cripplingly unaffordable.
'You will own nothing and be happy'. Whether you believe the people who say that or not, you have to admit, you are proving them correct. It's a grim future for young people you picture. Car renting will just become a cash cow to milk young people, just like renting housing. It's not progress.
Like those are cheap! You have distance limits and you have to be wary of potential scams. It also depends how long you need the car for. It can seriously add up every single day you need it for. Plus, if you are a young driver with a clean driving record you cannot even get one, so road trip is over. Have a train trip instead. Actually, the only alternative really is your parents drive you with your mates or take a train. Some are quicker but quite expensive. I'm saying a private car is actually necessary for getting around for different peoples situations. I do not get why people are generalising everyone who chooses to drive is someone who wants everyone to die sooner. If people want to drive its their choice it is already expensive anyway.
I think with a lot of these dramatic policies there's a serious gap in nuance, and particularly in understanding how the cities that have reversed car usage have done it so well. Amsterdam in particular has focused WAY less on punitive measures and more on physical changing the urban landscape to encourage and discourage certain types of journeys and behaviours associated with cars - all through thoughtful design and not enforced rules that just make more normies really angry from what could be a totally preventable cause.
It can hardly be called "skyrocketing", considering it was at 216,000 offences in 2018, and is now at 242,000. It's an increase for sure, but nothing that would make it such a significant factor.
Its not "Skyrocketing" 5 MILLION use public transport every day.. its safe! Your chances of dying in a car crash are vastly higher than becoming a victim of a crime on public transport
@@Ruzzky_Bly4t Compare it to 50 years ago instead of 5 years ago. And no, I'm not talking about overall crime that includes harmless things like retail theft, I'm talking specifically about violent crime.
Invest in Light rail trams (Not a 'Subway") and bikes aren't that late for London city i guess, Mid-Dense neighborhoods and has lot of people there fits the requirements, converts some road into a pedestrian pathes with designated bikes or trams (could either both for moderate sized road/avenue) could help ease congestion, encourage more people to take mass transits or bikes and reduce pollutions.
There are already sorta light rail trams (Tram Link) in South London which are mostly separated from the road in a separated track from the street that is shared with passenger trains except for some stretches of track in busy town centre.
@@Tigerman303 I know that but I interpreted the commenter as saying that there aren't any light rail trams currently so I responded. I agree though that it would be quite hard to implement a light rail system in central London excluding the Docklands Light Railway
@@Tigerman303 There was a potential scheme to build a monorail in Oxford Circus but it got scrapped and monorail aren't a good solution to London's current urban planning situation
Having lived in London for 25 years, you can get away with not having a car. However there are places outside of London that I often go to where it is impossible to quickly get around without a one
The restrictions are frustrating for drivers but they improve the quality of life of the local residents, cyclists and pedestrians so much! As we see in America, even AI can not design a grid that accommodates everyone driving a car. It just turns into a big parking lot.
As someone who has now had a car in London for just over a year I personally think that in zone 1-3 you would be mad to buy a car but if you live in zone 4-6 it becomes more and more persuasive. For a start it’s often cheaper the same cost as getting public transport to drive somewhere if your journey is from suburb to suburb and hours faster. It takes me 40 minutes to drive to Brent Cross and two hours by bus if everything goes perfectly. It is an 8 mile journey. Secondly once you have a car you realise that there were many shops and services in your area that were built with the idea that they would be driven to. The second point isn’t a deal breaker but the first is.
I lived in London all my life and I was honestly surprised when I found out that roads outside of London are normally a 40 mph zone (in London majority of roads are 20 zones)
This video is pretty decently put together. However I think London is reaching a fairly decent equilibrium between car centrism and public transport. The public transport system is a world best, there’s no doubt about it, but on a per-journey basis it can get fairly costly (not as much as a car if you’re strictly on urban use). There’s also a big difference in the driving experience within the A406 (2019-2021 ULEZ) vs outside of it. I would argue that driving within the A406, especially as a resident is a complete waste of money. This is what many would consider “inner London”. In “outer London” or A406 to the M25, there’s a stronger case to be made for cars not to be given up so easily: you’re 15-30 minutes from the countryside, avoid extortionate national rail costs, can get between suburbs on a lower per-journey cost and save hours doing it. I know there are many places in the outer parts where people could drive 10-15 minutes or take 45-90 minutes via bus or train to reach their destination. A good hypothetical example is say you live in Hounslow and you want to get to Arnos Grove to visit a friend or family. You can take the Piccadilly Line end to end (including walking to and from the station) is all in all a 75-105 minute journey. Driving it can easily take 30-45 minutes door to door. The point around fines is also slightly over exposed in this video. It’s fairly easy to avoid them if you do a bit of background research before your journey. Plenty of places to park (for free even) and LTNs are more of a local driving issue (council by council). I would argue if your journey is more than 10 miles you may as well drive (depending on the exact course naturally). I’m not defending cars at all, I will be clear. I think the less of them there are on the roads, the better - however it’s a balancing act between cars and transport I would say. Transport has a huge way to go even in big old London, not to beat cars, but to serve the people in the way it’s intended to.
It’s a shame hey. Through many demonstrations, Vienna people finally took back all the busy centres from cars, now you have a situation where streets like Mariahilfe Strasse has more than 70 000 foot traffic a day, making the businesses make revenue they never dreamed of, simply because they narrows the road, grew trees, made it shared walking, cycling and residence-and-delivery-only-driving space where it used to be a busy car road with little foot traffic. They are now slowly closing many more roads to cars, but never fast enough sadly because the lobbyists are lobbying.
The way I see it, I think there are 4 ways you can resolve living in London with your daughter's needs. Of course, none of them will be perfect: 1. Use public transit exclusively, even when going out of London. If you can get her to tolerate it early on, it will help lots in the future. 2. Use the tube in London but go to the suburbs and rent a car when going out. Good bit more expensive but the comfort might be worth it. 3. Move to the suburbs, buy a car and commute in by bus. Most comfortable, but your car will be sat there collecting snow most of the time. 4. Get a new job outside of London and move out. Hard to do and will probably slash your salary in half but you get to drive your car comfortably.
Number 1 not possible in some areas public transport doesn't cover everywhere and some places have to rely on cars to get around. Number 2. The most realistic, but renting a car is not cheap especially in Europe. Alternative would be to instead of renting a car is taking a train and then using a taxi to leave the station. Number 3 is a faff housing market is not looking good. Number 4 is no way. He chose to move to London he wouldn't want to leave. Also a lot of people have to live in London with certain occupations.
@@danieltesfaye8517 Yup. I won't deny they're all hard. This is a difficult problem to solve. Personally, I wouldn't even consider options 3 and 4 but I mentioned them as plausible
In Germany, especially in my hometown Munich we have similar problems. However - here we’re super slow in implementing any kind of new infrastructure and while other cities in Europe go ahead we’re just discussing and think what we might do - at the end way to less happens. As someone who works in the branch of city / traffic planning I found the mentioned goal of London for 2025 very ambitious. Then I remembered: This is not Germany. We always stick to visions in 2030 or later and already knowing we want reach that goals due to huge bureaucratic barriers and slow and inefficient construction sites.
one problem of the current times is people buying bigger cars. if everyone in London drove smaller cars it would solve a lot of the issues. You're right, London is designed for smaller vehicles, so why do people drive in London with Chelsea tractors and massive Saloons. I also feel a reliance on mini cabs of the current generation has massively increased the issues, how many times have you had a to wait for someone doing a three point turn or just straight up ignoring give ways. Finally the M25 has just migrated the traffic problem, as someone who uses the A3 and A217 regularly the amount of excess traffic because of people avoiding the M25 is unreal, Rush hour has become a 2 hour affair.
Most american cities were not build for the car, they were bullodozed for it, in the most racialy discriminating way possible. London's problem is underinvestment in public transportation and regional connexions. Also, neoliberalism Just compare the Paris region to the London Region, it is painful to look at. I live in a small city 350 km from Paris but with a high speed rail station at 15 minutes walk from my home, I can get to the capital in just '1:30 and go basically anywhere without even feeling I miss out by not owning a car. And why would I be ?😂 Paris is a nightmare to drive through!
As a delivery driver in central london i can tell u driving in central doesnt make any sense. With the minefield of cameras, peletons of bikes, mazes of diversions, road closures, bus lanes, one way streets, no entry roads its difficult to keep your sanity. Now imagine all this loveliness in a hgv...
The way the Netherlands fixed this issue is by making good rules for new roads being built. Roads need to be maintained every x amount of years, if you just make sure the thing you build back works well for cyclist, pedestrians, public transport and a bit of cars, you will slowly solve the issue withou crazy extra investment needed, right?
One of my main reasons for never bothering to get my license to drive. London has two things: Bad Traffic & Hefty fines Real long living Londoners know that those back road blocks were put there to help clueless police from losing criminals who drive and know back roads like the back of their hand... It had Nothing to do with pollution. Now, all there is is traffic all throughout the day on the high roads, constant road works which only make traffic that much sweeter, and buses still with no AC during the summer or heating during winter but we All pay out the arse to keep these poorly things running. I'm buying a skateboard or Rollerblades
Can we stop calling public transit systems good, just because they are better than other transit systems, a good system is one where there are more rail lines than roads.
@@Ruzzky_Bly4t I never said it exists, but you can have a standard for something even if that something doesn't yet exist at the highest level or rating. I wouldn't be surprised if some areas of the netherlands had more square footage dedicated to rail lines than roadways.
@MegaLokopo You're mixing up "perfect" and "good". "Good" and "bad" are relative terms that depend on the context. That's like saying that a clean, modern, and quiet train that goes 200 mph isn't good, because unlike a potential maglev, it's not traveling at 500 mph and it still has some minimal vibration from the rails and some noise. No, it's good, just not perfect.
@@Ruzzky_Bly4t The way it is used in daily language good and perfect can be synonyms to most people, even if they don't realize it. That is why you have people arguing over how good a system is and how good a system would have to be for them to consider investing in it. My point is simply if we stop calling current systems good, then people will be more likely to support them in the future because we are making it clear that there is a ton of room for improvement, if we call current systems good when in reality they are all awful, people won't focus on what could be and will only focus on what is. And getting them to vote for more transit will be much harder.
@MegaLokopo I see your point. If you say that public transport is "good enough as it is", it will prevent it from evolving. But it's a double-edged sword. If you stop calling good systems good, people would see investment into public transportation as futile. Why bother if decades of hard work haven't resulted in anything good happening, even in places with the right policies and a lot of money? Your all or nothing approach would present public transport in a bad light, and car users would likely use the opportunity to highlight how good the roads are or something. It seems much more sensible to me to point out good examples of public transportation and show people that with enough effort, it can be a convenient and reliable way to move around, instead of relying on a car. Of course, the flaws and ways to improve it should always be mentioned as well. Saying that "all public transport systems in the world are awful" will only gain support from the ultra wealthy and avid car users, who think that it can never be as good as their vehicle.
I live in Brighton and cycle to work, some days traffic here is so bad that I can just weave past everything as though it weren't even there. We have one roundabout that is so bad I can't actually cross it until the build up of cars causes it to stop.
It's funny how they all ignore the option of microcars. Think of a scooter or minibike or bicycle, but with a cabin like a car, 4 wheels, and lights and turn signals (with reflective markings, to make smaller LEDs light up larger lights, for increased night-time visibility). The pedal-powered version would not have an engine, the minibike version would have both and engine and pedals for if the battery or engine's fuel tank is empty, and the scooter version would not have pedals. And all of them would need at least a tiny battery with a small (palm-sized or smaller) solar panel to recharge it (and during hot sunny days, it could circulate the air, to avoid the cars' melting and fire-starting problems), and it would be much cheaper to have a hybrid if noise pollution was a big factor in the taxes needed to be paid (so you could have a small battery powered by an electric motor, and a regenerative-breaking alternator and a very-efficient-and-quiet petrol engine to keep the battery charged quietly). Being much smaller, you can easily fit at least 3 of those in the space of a small car, and many more in the space of larger cars, and having a hybrid version with a fuel tank would allow people to use them for cross-country trips, if needed. And if enough such cars are made, there could be versions with a pop-up or sliding back, to make it longer for when you need to carry more, or a trailer with a single freely-rotating (in the yaw direction) wheel which mounts to the back of the microcar . Also, the default configurations for those microcars would be single-person (driver-only) with very little cargo space for like one bag of groceries, and a airplane-cockpit design with a passenger behind the driver with the seat folding away for more cargo space with a single person (only the driver).
Ultimately people need to drive. These restrictions dont remove polution, they just move it and increase it due to increased traffic. This is not a battle with pollution, its a tax on the poor. Also just the fact that the underground which is proposed as a cleaner travel alternative has 100x worse air quality than the streets. Cycle lanes increase traffic, congestion zones increase traffic, pedestrian zones increase traffic. Traffic increases pollution. This isnt solving any problems.
I live in the UK (not in london) and this is kind of an issue with the rest of the country. The roads just aren’t built for modern traffic and they were designed on past systems.
I live in London. I grew up on the edge in the 80s, late 90s and 2000s London was my playground, I now work in Farringdon and enjoy walking the city. I never learnt to drive because of this.
This video was annoying. Ultimately you ended up on the pro-transit side (which is the factually correct side), but your "understanding of problems drivers face" is pitying people who do not need pity and shying away from advocating for expanding public transit and increasing its accessibility for the disabled. The "it hurts the laborer" excuse is an absurd narrative because the cost of using a vehicle then becomes a business expense as it should always be for those businesses. Roads are not free to maintain and not every person on them is paying the taxes that would fund them. So then, why exactly are they getting to use those roads without being charged by the owners/maintainers of them?
Since when is exploring both sides bad? Good for him to show a balanced perspective instead of pretending like his opinion is the only "factually correct" one. I'm in support of fewer cars and more transit, but the way you present our opinion is no different from those car fanatics who don't even want to consider using alternatives.
Having lived in London for 1.5 years in pre-pandemic era, the experience was that if everywhere you need to go is in and around the City (roughly zone 1) then public transit and walking would be more than enough and you would never need a car. I frequently walk all the way from LSE back to SE1 where I lived, or crossing the Tower Bridge so I could catch the tube at Tower Hill rather than taking the Northern line and change trains at Bank. But the thing is that city living is so very expensive and crowded and much of the mere mortals that are not international students do not live in Zone 1 but need to commute into the city for a lot of things, work, meet friends, use cultural amenities and such. And cycling in central London is so scary I’d never do again after trying for a couple of times, there’s scant infrastructure and the narrow streets afford little space for cyclists, and the drivers are very mean. And I say this after also living in the US for a few years and cycling through most of those years in a midsized New England city. At any rate, the sin of London is simply being too big so it’s getting unfixable in an urban planning sense. It’s so much Better to have a network of midsize cities and smaller towns connected with frequent and fast trains
@@frafraplanner9277 Tokyo is much better in terms of coverage, but the rush hour crowd is no joke, right up there with Beijing and Guangzhou making London and New York look like mini metro crashes
It is not just the fumes that I am hyper aware of when I have my sn with me at a busy road. there is the noise, I cannot hear him and have to crane down. More than that though is just the danger- we live in a quiet area, he walks ahead and gets to explore, even let him ride his balance bike ahead to the park, when there is a road you feel like you can't let go of his hand, just in case! It makes it so stressful to be out with a young child in some places- when it should be a joy- it damages parent/child relations by making talking difficult and forcing you to restrict their independence more, which leads to them acting out or being miserable and you being stressed and anxious! This is why kids these days don't play outside, wore than any percieved stranger danger! We would be saving our childrens best years by giving them places to play and be independent!
Why would you want to drive in the first place? I have never understood it. I'm embarrassed to see people in cars. It's like watching toddlers in their _Little Tykes Cosy Coupe._ Not just in London, either. There are so many brilliant options to get about in the UK Do you know how cool trains and trams are? Imagine if you were part of the committee that got to design their liveries every year! That's some council engagement! Now if only we could finally imprison the Tories for the crimes, especially Rishi Sunak...
I'm sorry mate, have you ever left London? Are you seriously bringing up trains? UK trains? Arguably the worst and most prohibitively expensive train network in Europe (including Eastern). That one?
The solution is rather simple actually. Just make the tube & bus system more appealing and affordable. The reason why many people still prefer the car over public transport is because of convenience and comfortability. And that is saying ALOT if you take into consideration ULEZ expansion and LTNs. People value their comfortability and convince so much that they'd rather pay! When the Elizabeth line first opened up everyone was going on about how nice the ride was and the fact there was air conditioning etc, if TFL made all lines near Elizabeth line standard and actually paid their staff a fair amount as to stop all the strike action and made tickets more affordable, I think people would actually get out of their cars and thus make the streets less crowded! TFL have been increasing their fare prices year by year, they're getting rid of the Zones 1-6 travel card in 2024 and the service keeps on getting worse due to black out dates and strike action. They must be making a fortune off of ULEZ and the congestion charge and they need to invest that money into making the tube and bus cheaper and better!!
In a HUGE city where EVERYTHING is within 10 miles of EVERYTHING....a Car may not make sense, but if you want to GO ANYWHERE....you pay for EVERY TRANSACTION!!!! Tube- 5 Pounds, RENT a bike - 5 pounds, electric skateboard...Good luck CARRYING that EVERYWHERE
A data point that would have been useful to have is that pollution has decreased, and quite dramatically in some areas. Despite some of the opponents of the policies saying it causes more pollution (only based on assumption) the reality does vindicate the city government. The effect on workers that have no other option but to drive is still a valid criticism. I live in Paris which is having similar and even more drastic anti-car policies. It gets messy and is at times frustrating even as a non-driver but I do still agree with the intentions. Cars are just physically far more difficult to accommodate due to their volume per person. Even the big US cities with massive highways and surface parking lots everywhere cannot defeat congestion. The suggestion at the end is the way to go. If you really do need a car, rent one.
The section on health and ULEZ is incorrect. The air pollution levels in London are above the legal pollution thresholds with the worst air pollution being at tube stations. This can be ascertained using a hand held meter or at the fixed air pollution monitors next to roads. That's probably why its referred to as ultra low. Asthma cases have being getting markedly worse but at a time when air pollution levels have been improving so contrary to common sense its negatively correlated. The study suggesting 9000 deaths is a correlation between death rates and home address but relative wealth could also directly lead to the same conclusion. There aren't 9000 deaths with air pollution given as the primary cause of death and after the introduction of ULEZ you won't be able to identify anyone who has been saved by it. Its quite probable that no statistical effect will be found. A study by Imperial College suggested the effect of the introduction of the first ULEZ had been minimal. Moral think for yourself, understand the reasoning and don't pass off political views as scientific which is the fashion these days.
Limiting cars in a city like London is a necessity. I mean, there are way smaller cities out there with populations measured in tens of thousands of people, with more or less equally bad traffic. Personally I don't like congestion charges. I do understand them in large and/or geographicly speaking difficult cities, but I don't like when they are implemented in places where there are other easy options available. Sure, it'll decrease the number of cars by 20 to 30% (as is the case in London), but the remaining 70% pay the price either because it makes financially sense for them or because they have no other option. I suppose most drivers are part of the latter group, though this might not be the case in London. Contractors etc. are not really affected by congestion pricing, as they can pass the cost to their customers. Then there are people who decide to drive because they consider the time savings or the comfort of sitting in their car is worth it. Those are the people who should pay the price. But then there is a small number of people who have to pay for their own expenses but have no other option but to drive (due to disability or some other reason). You need to have some way of exempting those people from the charge (system that is easy enough to use but difficult enough to abuse), or maybe provide them government sponsored/subsidized taxi journeys or something. ULEZ is a more reasonable option, as if you drive a lot in the city center, and complain that the charges are too high - well, time to buy a low emission vehicle. It's really difficult to argue against a price you pay for forcing other people to inhale your exhaust, and there is an easy solution to the problem - a low emission vehicle (at least in Europe, you can find EVs ranging from cars to vans to delivery trucks and busses). The downside is that the charge has little to no effect on congestion, though it does improve the air quality. Low traffic neighbourhoods on the other hand are great. You can easily let pedestrians, cyclists, bin lorries and emergency vehicles through, and overall make those streets and neighbourhoods so much more pleasent to live in and travel through. Sure some people don't like these, but at least around here most residential areas are built this way, and they are great. When you retrofit these to a place like London, it just takes time for maps to update and your mental model of the city to change. Sure, it's going to be a pain in the ass, if you've used to plan your routes using these streets, and there is going to be worse congestion after these are implemented, but over time you get used to them, and congestion will ease a bit as some people choose another form of transportation. Then there are the parking spaces. Availability of parking is a huge factor for anyone considering owning a car in the city, or driving into the city. The price of parking is another huge factor. Decreasing the number of parking spaces is often controversial, but it is effective, easy and much less controversial than congestion charging. Especially if you have off-street parking available. Parking spaces can also be used to solve other problems. It can be used to widen the pavement, or to create a bike path, or create a bus lane, or a travel lane, green space, loading bay, snow storage, bike parking, micro mobility rental etc. Repurposing parking spaces for something more useful is often quite popular with residents - just remember to leave enough space for delivery drivers, contractors etc. And to finish, it's always fun to hear car drivers complaining about congestion when they themselves are part of the problem. Even in the video, I think it's pretty easy to see that while quite a few people do acknowledge the fact these charges and policies have a negative effect on their job, but at the same time they make the city safer, quieter and nicer place to live in.
It sounds like the ideal solution for you is a car club, or other car rental. You don't take up valuable space while your car is sat parked most of the time, and you don't have the costs and hassle of keeping and maintaining it, but you can get a car when you need it to travel out of London for a weekend etc.
London have some of the worse traffic in the world. I was once stupid enough to get an Uber in London and that took me 45 mins to travel the same distance it would have taken me 20 mins in Asia. Honestly, it such a pain to get around places there. The public transportations are overloaded and lack functionalities. You can't even get mobile receptions in the Tube for crying out loud!
Would've loved you to come in with stats that pushed back against your interviewees incorrectly suggestion that the infrastructure changes increase pollution and are bad for business
From the title I initially thought that the video is about the so-called Fake London, you know, the one in Canada, which is known to be particularly car-dependent. I wouldn’t think that the real London suffers so much from cars. Especially since the congestion pricing started, common sense dictates that the car usage would subside.
Hasn't worked. Bitish drivers are idiots. They like to complain but still pay. Since the 2003 introduction of the congestion change more drivers each year hit the roads which has negated any positive impacted the congestion charge was ment to have. This why its become a road toll and not a deterrence.
Nobody mentioning the sheer cost rises for non Londoners commuting into the city via train reaching absolutely absurd heights for many, especially younger people trying to start their careers. Especially with frequent cancellations of trains into the city, if you work in an industry where work from home is not possible, it becomes a much harder decision. I think if public transport wasn’t so damn expensive and unreliable, many people would switch naturally anyway. Instead of reducing public transport costs and increasing frequency of services from outside of the city inward, we are instead charging people, including nightshift workers and tradespeople in the city who have to drive vans to serve Londoners who have real issues that need solving in order to live, sometimes £12.50 to £25 per time to just show up to their jobs - without factoring in the cost of the vehicle. Then for those that can’t afford London rents, and don’t need to carry tools and equipment for work, some nearby London rural areas are north of £35 per day to get in without a railcard. It’s obscene.
Born and bred Londoner. Loved my car. Now totally hate cars and traffic. Car drivers blame everything else but the fact is it is THEM that cause traffic. I live in a LTN, yes my husband is a builder and needs a van, but totally does not mind the extension in time to drive anywhere as Hackney is now so plesant and car free. I cycle, he walks if not working. Stop car sales, ban fossil fuels, improve transport.... there will be a period of pain for these people, like coming off addiction, but in the future they will forget it when you have trees, grass, seating, children playing, neighbours talking , all in the road!
low traffic zones should have exemptions for company vans, imagine how much electricians/plumbers/contractors would appreciate and benefit from being able to easily get to their clients and have enough space to park the van close by without disturbing traffic, bikes still get around faster and safer. I love the idea but policies like that need to have nuanced exemptions. Having lived in London and scandinavia, one of the biggest difference when it comes to implementing public policies and strucutral innovations is that scandinavia isn't afraid of nuanced and sometimes complicated exemptions. If you don't need it or care, you're not going to push the paperwork, but if you're a small business, you spend one day a year sorting out your license or pass or whatever, that's part of what it means to run a successful business even if it's not the fun part. UK tends to oversimplify or condenscend it's policies in order to not have to invest in government systems to sustain the beaurocracy. In CPH their online systems and licenses are incredibly straightforward and efficient even though it's technically more red tap than I've ever had to deal with as a citizen, the benefits far exceed the initial time investment.
I’m young and from Scotland and would love to come down south and drive around the m25 in a circle listening to orbital (cds or tapes for the authentic feel ) don’t know how I’d find a car with a tape player but my uncles van still has one
Its the ULEZ effect. There is absolute uproar when it's firstly implemented, then it dies down, and people start releasing that it was probably for the best. How many news articles do you see about ULEZ today compared to last year?
I can't believe this tool actually thinks Nelson was a bad guy. I'm not even a Brit and know the guy saved the UK from invasion. Best of luck to the Londoners though, torn on where it will end up.
Heeey! I remember Tom, the cab driver! he was in one of Tom Scott's videos, wasn't he? probably in a secondary channel. Can't remember which video exactly though...
the widening of the roads was terrible. We have done that here in America so much. While we do design for cars, many American cities were not built for the car as we often claim in America. They were bulldozed for it. The highways wrecked many neighborhoods across the US. That we have so much simply shows that our land use is terrible and sprawling
Glad to be moving to a much less busy place in scotland next year. It's not just London, nearly anywhere in the england is too massively overpopulated and full off cameras.
The UK government is heavily reliant upon the money it makes from vehicle ownership, rip off parking, rip off fuel, rip off insurance, rip off taxes, rip of repairs and maintenance and so on. Let's think it thru , shall we? You may be concerned about air pollution, used tyre problems, recycling old cars and so on but by introducing green solutions and building railways in the UK would mean that the tax revenue will drop. This means finding new ways of taxing the poor . So stf air pollution, motor vehicles are the best way of taxing. What other solutions do these poor people have? Use the joke railways?
Car free cities are fine until you need to go somewhere outside of the city. The rest of the UK laughs with and at London. Okay, you can get most places without a car, but anywhere in the UK outside of London, if you don't have a car your life is much, much harder. Everywhere is much further away, and when you get there you will be sweaty, hot, uncomfortable and late.
![[🔴LIVE] งานประกาศรางวัล MAYA TV AWARDS 2024 : มายามหาชน](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nwmWYXXVwBY/mqdefault.jpg)
You briefly mentioned Amsterdam, but I also want to further point out the fact that the incredibly high bicycle usage in the Netherlands is not cultural. In the 80s one of the council areas had put in schemes to redesign all the street vehicle usage and promote bicycle usage and there was a huge uproar and backlash, but it became so successful, that all the councils in the 3 major cities copied it, causing further resistance but now people seem to have forgotten what it was like in car centric cities and embraced it. Their weather is almost the same as the south of the UK too. So you will be looking at a rough 2 decades and then people will have forgotten the old car-centric ways in the city.
It's cultural now! That's how culture happens.
@@michaelhiggins9188 You have to admit it's a bit surprising its only been the way it is for such a short amount of time though. If you have ever been there or spoken to anyone below the age of 40, you'd swear it's always been bike centric.
@@Eoin-B Yea, and it is a great example of how, it is not too late for the us or the other car addicted countries to make the switch. It is a rough couple of years, but it is so worth it in the end.
Hell yes! Infrastructure and cultural change was an insightfully deliberate policy choice on the part of dutch lawmakers, which is what has made their cities so successful today.
Just look at Paris! Definitely not cycle culture at the mo, but they’re on their way there
It is always funny to hear car owners blaming infrastructures when they are stuck in traffic. And not the cars themselves. :)
Yea, and then they complain about public transit not paying for the infrastructure. When cars don't either.
the one guy saying LTNs are forcing more cars on to the main roads where there's not enough space, was so close to getting it
A narrow sidewalk will gridlock if there's too many people. Widen the sidewalk! Oh hang on, that sounds like induced demand. Build a Metro to city limits! Wait, that's how suburbs can begin. Too many people, but not me, everyone else is wrong and needs to go. My F150 Riese & Muller Saloman mobility tech collab makes me the exception.
@@delftfietser some types of induced demand are good actually
Either way, people don't gridlock cars do
Ever been in a crowded store? Too many people for the space.
for some reason anglos are weirdly anti bike. Canada, UK, Australia, and the big daddy of car dependence, the USA. It is so weird. It's not just the Netherlands who loves their bikes. Milan, Germany, Barcelona, Bogota, are all doing great using bikes to transfer away from car dependency. It is super bizarre
I wouldn't go as far as comparing the UK, home of the railway to those three. Yes, there are some very stubborn, backwards, ethnically homogenous suburbs where everyone hates the thought of walking **Ahem Bromley Ahem** but taking the train is a normal part of life and most people commuted to work via public transport before the pandemic.
@@mildlydispleased3221it's not so much the mobility habits writ large that I'm connecting, rather the public attitude specifically towards cycling as a leasure activity vs a form of legitimate transportation
You might be on to something. It's related to immense focus on private property rights and laws in Anglophone society (John Locke's philosophy on property ownership). This means it's really hard to implement mass transit + property models like in Hong Kong, Japan, or Korea.
As a colombiana living in Spain and who has never driven a car, I felt that 😁
@@tonysoviet3692 That doesn't make sense though, the UK birthed the railway and the USA once had the best freight AND passenger system in the world. All this backlash to public transport or even the mere idea of sensibly designed cities is a very recent, and in my opinion very artificial attitude people have.
Something not mentionned is Carshare. IF your city has a good carshare system, you can get around with kids, for cheap, for long distances, without owning a car, for cheaper then renting a car.
In montreal, where I'm from, you can use a carshare for like 300$ per year and then pay a fixed 25$ fee per day, which is wayyy cheaper then owning a car if you use it like 3-4 times per month
He mentions car-sharing at the end of the video.
Having moved to Montreal I am now car-share pilled
You can have kids take public transit by themselves, so long as they are respectful, public transit is very safe for kids.
London has good rail accessibility for out of town access
i think he said renting, which is slightly different in my opinion. @@gabrielgarcia7554
Motorists are some of the most ignorant arrogant straight out nasty entitled inhabitants of this island. Especially urban ones. I live in one of the biggest cities in the country and the amount of people I know who have a car but could easily do without one is just depressing. Don’t even get me started on the claims that less cars will kill city centres.
They are nothing compared to the people in the comments section. You don't need a car to be an ass. Everyone has that capability. (edited)
You’ve just described the vast majority of the adult population as “ignorant, arrogant, straight out nasty, entitled…” which includes most people on this page, most people you know, most of your family, most of your friends. You really sure about that?
So what are people that can’t access public transport? Are disabled people nasty and arrogant? Or people from rural areas where they have no other choice? I agree that we need to move away from car centric cities but you’re the one that sounds ignorant
@@alexcrawford6162Not everyone who drives sees themselves as a "motorist". More often than not when someone calls themself a "motorist" they are heavily invested in being a car driver, like it's an integral part of their identity. And these people do tend to be entitled and think only about themselves, pedestrians and cyclists be damned.
It's hard keeping a cool head when driving. So I try keeping a slow 40 kmh, but there's always incessant honking, then there's pedestrians you need to look out for. It can cause a few mistakes but you definitely need to be on your toes while driving
It's a combination of laziness, stubbornness and resistance to change. There's no easy way to persuade people not to use cars.
Basically you need to make driving hurt so much that they will consider the alternatives, while simutlaneously providing those alternatives
@@alehaim Agree 100%. But how? Just last week the PM caved in to the petrolhead demographic and scrapped lots of progressive policies just to get a few votes.
@@alehaim which is why I’m happy NYC is going to introduce congestion prices. Unfortunately I don’t trust them with building up public transport. If they actually do though then NYC will become a much more pleasant place
@@Ray03595 Hiring some more cleaning staff and restoring the subways would be a good start. Never understood how the biggest city in the richest country has such a depressing metro.
@@Ray03595Don't trains span the entire city? I feel like they're pretty convenient from the times I've been there. Getting across the river is also easy through bus and train
'Punishing londoners for driving a car' is an interesting way of phrasing it in the 'how london stops you driving' section. Personally I look at it more as just charging them proportionate to their impact.
Well negative incentives work hand in hand with positive ones to affect behavior. If driving was less of a nuisance, then less people would feel the need to switch to public transit, especially if they already have a sunken-cost car. The phrasing may seem a bit spin-y, but it is not disingenuous.
@@serebii666 Oh yeah, course. Just the phrasing I find interesting!
Yes, people always forget the negative externalities of a personal vehicle, and it's only when in a place that truly prices them according to their real societal cost (road infrastructure, negative health aspects of all sorts) like NYC or London do they complain about the price. People are so used to the innate subsidies built into vehicle ownership like free parking that they complain when they are taken away.
Motorists will constantly bitch about these things, yet they have no solutions to fix any of the problems. If the congestion charge didn't come in to place in 2003, then London would be at a standstill today. London's traffic is still terrible, just imagine how bad it could have been if all these measures were not taken.
More people are cycling than ever before, which is really good.
@@garethhenshaw No, we just shouldn't artificially subsidize people who own a car with large amounts of public space and resources. It's much more expensive to support driving in dense cities, so it *should* be more expensive to drive there to support that.
The alternative is continuing to subsidize drivers at the expense of the poorest among us, as those are the folks who rely on public transit the most and are affected the most by air pollution.
Public transport and biking lanes give people that cannot drive options due to medical conditions or age more options to stay more active connectivity, and foot traffic into businesses.
Most Londoners have cars as a status symbol and I believe it's increasingly becoming generational. Younger gens are less likely to care about a private car. I remember the amount of social pressure I got from my parents and grandparents who treated my refusal to buying a car like a declaration of war. They still can't understand. Bus, trams, trains and bikes is the way!
same here..
they could just NOT grasp the concept of simply NOT wanting to own a car..
Yeah but new migrants don't care (and there are many of them). 1st thing they do when they make some decent money is buy a car, like most other people do around the world.
Well look who drives the Audis and the Beamers. Not exactly old people... And the boy racers in their ridiculous Subarus... In large parts of the demographics it is still considered an important symbol of masculinity and status to have a car.
Train services need to be improved significantly and made cheaper. Last year when I was commuting to Farringdon I logged my rail commutes and 80% of them were delayed at least 10 minutes which is enough to screw up evening plans. The seemingly infinitely long indutstrial action is hitting rail reliability this year. A lack of decent connections, poor and/or slow service in places often makes rail less practical or at best a slog. As for cost, for me to do a 500 mile round trip to visit my family, it costs around £75 by car or £117 by train because I can never get cheap advance tickets any more. Buses are good in places but in an urban area, I'd rather use my bike as it is quicker and more flexible.
Whilst driving has the annoyance of traffic congestion, it is still more comfortable/pleasant for the majority than the alternatives.
if you have a small d/low self esteem you probably feel the need to own a car@@stefansoder6903
Really interesting to know that Hackney is 70% LTNs. I moved here last year and always tell people about how nice and quiet it is in my neighbourhood and now I know why!
I live in south east London. I drive to sixth form college. If I took public transport, it would take me 30-50 minutes. Driving it takes me 10. I am a big cyclist, and would happily cycle if it were safe to do so. I’d also take public transport if it were quick and convenient. This is why many still drive.
That's the issue for many people I believe. I don't think people enjoy having to drive everywhere the go, but many English City's infrastructure simply does not allow for any other alternative...
Big on the safety. I agree with making people less dependent on cars and car sharing, however, this is the city where people break lime bikes and steal the one you own. Also, especially as a young woman travelling as it gets darker in the cold winter, that's low-key another reason added to the list. Not to mention commuters into london, and the strikes alongside increasing rail prices.
@@kim9126 For sure. On the route that exists now to my college I have seen people get kicked off of their bikes by groups of youths.
@apexjailor9349 yeah, something really needs to be done about crime and stimulating more positive youth culture
@@kim9126 I think it's a bit of a vicious cycle. If I had to live in the squalor that many youths do I can't imagine I'd be a very fulfilled person.
As someone who's been gentrified out of central London and wanted to maintain a certain comfort in my home, I can assure you that there are ,many areas where a car is needed to live comfortably. I can think of a few houses in Edmonton I've visited where the nearest supermarket was miles away on the North Circular. South London fares far worse, especially the south east. The outer zones are massive suburban sprawls where getting somewhere by public transportation will turn into a massive expanse and loss of time. Cycling from Zone 4 to Zone 1 isn't something everyone can do.
This is the sad part of gentrification people don't see.
There is also a difference between cycling friendly and motoring hostile cities. Amsterdam has smart traffic lights that, while giving away priority to pedestrians and cyclists, also do make sure you're never stopped at a red light if there's no traffic coming. Hence why Dutch drivers are happier with their infrastructure. There are two choices when trying to induce a change of behaviour. The carrot or the stick. And London is particularly stick happy...
I agree with you. People think that all of London is served by public transport and everyone has the same travelling privileges. In some areas you will need a car to live comfortably. Some people want no cars at all which makes the whole point of urban sprawl pointless. They don't get that some people are more car reliant so all of these Ltns and cameras are like an attack. But people think that they are selfish and only care about themselves.
Another thing as well is that cars are not even a problem in London for pedestrians in general it isn't like America where you feel like you are going to be hit any minute.
It's not just London. It's literally every city. London gets it worse than anywhere else, but the automobile has been our great failure worldwide.
Mankinds biggest mistake.
@@K1989Lcars gives us freedom to to whatever place we need to be at our own preferred time it's called freedom of movement. Anything else is nothing but bullsh*,t.
Not really, like city's that were designed more recently like Milton Keynes are fine to drive around and you don't get stuck in much traffic
What about Tokyo?
@@lewis6565that's a lie, I live in Redditch which is the other town built and designed the same time as mk and I can tell you for free there's far too many petrol boxes on the road and the roundabouts don't help at all.
Great to hear from the cab driver that options for cars have been reduced. This is the only way to reclaim some of the wasted resources and address some of the damage cars do. Driving should be super expensive, not only in money, but also in inconvenience and time.
As long as the alternatives are good. Would be pretty stupid to harm car users if the public transport is super crowded and if there isn't enough bike infrastructure yet.
@@Ruzzky_Bly4t The buses don't get as crowded as the tube.
As long as it makes driving also a better experience, I'm all for it.
@@racool911 yup
They're going to make it prohibitively expensive to own a car
Which only affects the poor
If you have a little pocket change, the experience will be enhanced🥂
Like Singapore where it costs $9500 PER YEAR to register a car😭🤣
So poor people all take the bus, cycle and walk🤣
Many of the discussions about car infrastructure focus on those people most impacted by reduced car infrastructure, as they deliver strong arguments against restricting car traffic (people who need cars for their work for example) yet I'd be more interested how many people on the roads are taking trips that could actually be replaced by public transport, bikes or walking. They are the ones that need to be incentivized most, either by making the car less attractive or alternatives more attractive (or in the best case, both).
A big part of this discussion that some politicians tend to ignore is to not only to make the car unattractive, but to make public transport and cycling infrastructure more attractive. This can be challenging when so much space is still granted to the car, making cycle routes and buses less attractive in the process because you have to cross busy roads or the buses get stuck in traffic. Even if there is perfect cycling infrastructure along a route, I'd still get frustrated every time I have to cross a big, busy road.
London's approach of financial incentives to get people to stop using the car is impacting low income families and people a lot more than those who can just afford the charges, forcing those with less money off the roads and those who can afford it onto them. The charges need to be income-based to equally impact everyone, with special regulations around businesses that need vehicles to operate.
Holy moly, cars make people entitled and psychotic. And everyone's insistence on cars demonstrates a hyper-individualist mindset that disregards the larger picture and how everyone could be made better off with far fewer of these space-wasting machines.
I notice how none of the car owners consider sacrificing their own car usage for a better car experience for those who actually need cars.
Yup, car obsession just feeds into hyper-individuality and egotism here in the US. Truly a living hell dealing with people around here. Good on London for punishing motorists. Meanwhile the US just keeps expanding more and more highways because lobbyists stuff money into our politicians pockets. Our gov is not concerned with improving quality of life for its citizens. Only enriching themselves and funding wars
@veodebouev obvious troll is obvious
@veodebouevthere's as much phones in Africa as anywhere else in the world. Have you never heard that China produces phones, and that they are far cheaper than anything made in western countries?
Fumes aren't the only problem. Brake dust and tire particulate matter as well are huge pollutants
And noise pollution
I hope this trend will come to my city as soon as possible. Cars are destroying our cities and have to be thrown out with few necessary exceptions.
It's weird b/c you really don't need a car to get around London
yeah, if you're able bodied.
Yes, but people are stupid
@@lauraqueentint If unnecessary traffic is removed, then it would be even easier for the disabled to get around in their exempt vehicles.
@@JohnFromAccounting of course that's the dream, but what this person is referring to is that you dont need a car to get around london when that's just not feasible for disabled people with london's current public transport
@@lauraqueentint The argument isn't that disabled people shouldn't use cars. The point is that those who are able-bodied (99+ percent) use cars even though most don't need to.
Anyone else noticed that younger people were overall positive even when they were inconvenienced at times, while older people were usually more negative about the changes?
Young people are poor
So they just can't afford it
I'm 29 so I'm old generation, it's funny to see students walking abt the city🤣😭🥂
Should note that most of the older large "carcentric" US cities "designed that way" were not exactly actually designed that way as they were already around before cars were even a thing. They were effectively *destroyed* to make room for the car (conveniently separating and isolating marginalized population as well as primarily destroying *their* homes to make room for those high ways in the process was *definitely totally* just an accidental side effect)
With a few exceptions if you drive a car in London or NYC, you are a dunce. If the city isnt built for the car, dont drive a car.
Idk, considering the depressing state of subways in NYC, I wouldn't want to use that system myself. And it's the biggest city in the richest country.
@@Ruzzky_Bly4t the nyc subway is fine, could use a bit of cleaning but still runs a good schedule
@GusM- I guess I got spoiled by the Moscow metro. Can't expect as much from the richest country on Earth. Although "fine" might be the right word. It's just not "good", that's the problem.
If it wasn’t built for cars there wouldn’t be roads
Into central London getting into London is fine but from suburbs to suburbs it is really time consuming
Unfortunately london transport isn’t the best - it can be very unreliable and expensive and bus services get cut all the time and if you start work at 4am your only option may be to drive
Great video, thanks!
Apart from what others have said in the comments, I was also surprised by the claim about London having less space than eg us cities, though
It really is true what they say - they were not primarily "built" for the car but bulldozed for them...
luckily London and most of Europe in general didn't go quite as far
(Also, why no mention of induced traffic/traffic evaporation?
...judging from the answers you got, not enough people seem to know about the main reasons for congestion in the 1st place)
8:03 The Westway was actually planned as part of the infamous London Ringways project (where it would be designated Ringway 1).
There were four Ringways planned.
Ringway 1 - Inner orbital route in London's congested areas (Not all built)
Ringway 2 - Outer orbital route which half of it is occupied by the North Circular Road
Ringway 3 - Orbital route outside Greater London which makes up one half of the M25 Motorway
Ringway 4 - Another orbital route for those who want to avoid London altogether which makes up the other half of the M25 Motorway.
The "Unfinished London" series documents the Ringways project in greater detail
I only know a couple of people who have a car in inner London. Once you get to outer London it's just as car centric as anywhere else in the UK. Places are just so far away.
When I first came to London I brought my car with me but found it stayed parked most of the time. I used it mainly night time for going out. I think since then night bus and night tubes have got better (though still far from perfect). I do notice, outside London bus services tend to wind down after 6PM but here they are still fairly frequent till 11 or so. After that you might have to wait 15 minutes or so for the night service, some routes even 30 mins.
Why did you mostly interview car drivers? It feels like they are personally attacked. There is so much more that goes into these decisions made by urban planners. Proportional use of space, other external costs like accidents, induced demand, ...
The only unfair thing about the congestion fee is its high.
if you on minimum wage, it’s basically no-go zone for you. If you’re rich banker, it’s nothing for you.
The congestion fee should be strictly correlated to your - eg literally your hourly wage (equivalent to 1/2000 of your annual income)
You have missed the point. The congestion charge isn't designed as a pay to use service, its designed to keep cars out of London.
You have also missed the point. Those charges affect people that are on low income more than the wealthy, is poverty taxation. The rich will still use the car regardless, even for the most mundane thing, the poorest won't even use it for essential journeys. Percentual charge works, just look at Switzerland using it for speeding fines. You charge £1000 to a guy on 80k p/a for speeding and he brushes it off (you even see it here, the Lamborghinis speeding past speeding cameras, no fucks given). If you charge the same to someone on 21k p/a that's it, they're ruined for months. It doesn't matter that it's not a pay-to-use service, it's about proportional taxation according to people's income. Carpet-blank taxation always affects the little people dramatically, never the wealthy. What wealthy person gives a fuck about £12.50 a day? He'll keep using his Audi A7 without a care in the world. @@RubbishGimpy
if youre on minimum wage, use the tube or bus and get a monthly pass... Thats the whole point!
Ah, so you accept and endorse poverty taxation? Essentially what you are saying is that if you are on minimum wage you are not allowed the same mobility and agency allowed to wealthier individuals or groups. I'm really glad you're not writing policy. And don't give me the "it's just how it is" bollocks because that's just a cynical approach.@@mats7492
@@mats7492 yup privacy is a luxury rhe poors can ill afford
Having moved to London from the Netherlands, the cycling infrastructure is so far behind. Some motorists purposely leave no space between you and them and make you feel unsafe. Back at home I wouldnt hesitate to cycle 5km to work. Where I live in London this is unthinkable.
Old reply but 100% this, I was very lucky in that at one point my commute could be done 90% via canal paths and a small section of segregated cycle lane. The last 10% was having to share the road or in a bus lane. That last 10% felt so unsafe I just went back to getting the train. My borough 'invested' into some cycle highway projects along some main roads. Great! But pretty much completely useless because as soon as you needed to anywhere else have fun sharing the road with every impatient london driver who treats you as a target and not a person. Basically the lanes were useless to me because they didn't go anywhere I'd ever need to go.
Same goes for public transport, it's great for getting me to the centre for work. I need to go anywhere else, it's going to be multiple slow bus rides. People don't realise that outer london is incredibly underserved for cycle infra and public transport.
I'd love to live in inner London but it's completely unaffordable, rather than outer londons cripplingly unaffordable.
If you need to travel outside of London or just want to go on a road trip across UK or Europe just rent a car 🤷🏾♂️
'You will own nothing and be happy'. Whether you believe the people who say that or not, you have to admit, you are proving them correct. It's a grim future for young people you picture. Car renting will just become a cash cow to milk young people, just like renting housing. It's not progress.
Like those are cheap! You have distance limits and you have to be wary of potential scams. It also depends how long you need the car for. It can seriously add up every single day you need it for. Plus, if you are a young driver with a clean driving record you cannot even get one, so road trip is over. Have a train trip instead. Actually, the only alternative really is your parents drive you with your mates or take a train. Some are quicker but quite expensive. I'm saying a private car is actually necessary for getting around for different peoples situations. I do not get why people are generalising everyone who chooses to drive is someone who wants everyone to die sooner. If people want to drive its their choice it is already expensive anyway.
I think with a lot of these dramatic policies there's a serious gap in nuance, and particularly in understanding how the cities that have reversed car usage have done it so well. Amsterdam in particular has focused WAY less on punitive measures and more on physical changing the urban landscape to encourage and discourage certain types of journeys and behaviours associated with cars - all through thoughtful design and not enforced rules that just make more normies really angry from what could be a totally preventable cause.
Given the skyrocketing violent crime rates, it is absolutely understandable why no one wants to walk or take public transport anymore.
It can hardly be called "skyrocketing", considering it was at 216,000 offences in 2018, and is now at 242,000. It's an increase for sure, but nothing that would make it such a significant factor.
Its not "Skyrocketing"
5 MILLION use public transport every day..
its safe!
Your chances of dying in a car crash are vastly higher than becoming a victim of a crime on public transport
Source for crime rates?
@@Ruzzky_Bly4t Compare it to 50 years ago instead of 5 years ago. And no, I'm not talking about overall crime that includes harmless things like retail theft, I'm talking specifically about violent crime.
@@mats7492 That doesn't justify anything. It's absolutely not safe anymore.
Invest in Light rail trams (Not a 'Subway") and bikes aren't that late for London city i guess, Mid-Dense neighborhoods and has lot of people there fits the requirements, converts some road into a pedestrian pathes with designated bikes or trams (could either both for moderate sized road/avenue) could help ease congestion, encourage more people to take mass transits or bikes and reduce pollutions.
There are already sorta light rail trams (Tram Link) in South London which are mostly separated from the road in a separated track from the street that is shared with passenger trains except for some stretches of track in busy town centre.
Light Rail in the UK normally refers to the light rail act 1896 which limits rail vechiles to 25mph and 12.5 ton axle weight.
@@thetravellingwokthey would need to be expanded outside of Croydon and Wimbledon though.
@@Tigerman303 I know that but I interpreted the commenter as saying that there aren't any light rail trams currently so I responded. I agree though that it would be quite hard to implement a light rail system in central London excluding the Docklands Light Railway
@@Tigerman303 There was a potential scheme to build a monorail in Oxford Circus but it got scrapped and monorail aren't a good solution to London's current urban planning situation
Having lived in London for 25 years, you can get away with not having a car. However there are places outside of London that I often go to where it is impossible to quickly get around without a one
The restrictions are frustrating for drivers but they improve the quality of life of the local residents, cyclists and pedestrians so much! As we see in America, even AI can not design a grid that accommodates everyone driving a car. It just turns into a big parking lot.
As someone who has now had a car in London for just over a year I personally think that in zone 1-3 you would be mad to buy a car but if you live in zone 4-6 it becomes more and more persuasive.
For a start it’s often cheaper the same cost as getting public transport to drive somewhere if your journey is from suburb to suburb and hours faster. It takes me 40 minutes to drive to Brent Cross and two hours by bus if everything goes perfectly. It is an 8 mile journey. Secondly once you have a car you realise that there were many shops and services in your area that were built with the idea that they would be driven to.
The second point isn’t a deal breaker but the first is.
I lived in London all my life and I was honestly surprised when I found out that roads outside of London are normally a 40 mph zone (in London majority of roads are 20 zones)
Looks like London is going to become public transit and bike friendly like Paris and Brussels
This video is pretty decently put together. However I think London is reaching a fairly decent equilibrium between car centrism and public transport.
The public transport system is a world best, there’s no doubt about it, but on a per-journey basis it can get fairly costly (not as much as a car if you’re strictly on urban use).
There’s also a big difference in the driving experience within the A406 (2019-2021 ULEZ) vs outside of it. I would argue that driving within the A406, especially as a resident is a complete waste of money. This is what many would consider “inner London”.
In “outer London” or A406 to the M25, there’s a stronger case to be made for cars not to be given up so easily: you’re 15-30 minutes from the countryside, avoid extortionate national rail costs, can get between suburbs on a lower per-journey cost and save hours doing it.
I know there are many places in the outer parts where people could drive 10-15 minutes or take 45-90 minutes via bus or train to reach their destination.
A good hypothetical example is say you live in Hounslow and you want to get to Arnos Grove to visit a friend or family. You can take the Piccadilly Line end to end (including walking to and from the station) is all in all a 75-105 minute journey. Driving it can easily take 30-45 minutes door to door.
The point around fines is also slightly over exposed in this video. It’s fairly easy to avoid them if you do a bit of background research before your journey. Plenty of places to park (for free even) and LTNs are more of a local driving issue (council by council). I would argue if your journey is more than 10 miles you may as well drive (depending on the exact course naturally).
I’m not defending cars at all, I will be clear. I think the less of them there are on the roads, the better - however it’s a balancing act between cars and transport I would say. Transport has a huge way to go even in big old London, not to beat cars, but to serve the people in the way it’s intended to.
The transition will be hard, but it will be well worth it in the long run.
South-East London's hills make Underground impossible, bikes a mission, and Overground comes way too infrequent; total nightmare!!!
It’s a shame hey. Through many demonstrations, Vienna people finally took back all the busy centres from cars, now you have a situation where streets like Mariahilfe Strasse has more than 70 000 foot traffic a day, making the businesses make revenue they never dreamed of, simply because they narrows the road, grew trees, made it shared walking, cycling and residence-and-delivery-only-driving space where it used to be a busy car road with little foot traffic.
They are now slowly closing many more roads to cars, but never fast enough sadly because the lobbyists are lobbying.
The way I see it, I think there are 4 ways you can resolve living in London with your daughter's needs. Of course, none of them will be perfect:
1. Use public transit exclusively, even when going out of London. If you can get her to tolerate it early on, it will help lots in the future.
2. Use the tube in London but go to the suburbs and rent a car when going out. Good bit more expensive but the comfort might be worth it.
3. Move to the suburbs, buy a car and commute in by bus. Most comfortable, but your car will be sat there collecting snow most of the time.
4. Get a new job outside of London and move out. Hard to do and will probably slash your salary in half but you get to drive your car comfortably.
Number 1 not possible in some areas public transport doesn't cover everywhere and some places have to rely on cars to get around. Number 2. The most realistic, but renting a car is not cheap especially in Europe. Alternative would be to instead of renting a car is taking a train and then using a taxi to leave the station. Number 3 is a faff housing market is not looking good. Number 4 is no way. He chose to move to London he wouldn't want to leave. Also a lot of people have to live in London with certain occupations.
@@danieltesfaye8517 Yup. I won't deny they're all hard. This is a difficult problem to solve. Personally, I wouldn't even consider options 3 and 4 but I mentioned them as plausible
In Germany, especially in my hometown Munich we have similar problems. However - here we’re super slow in implementing any kind of new infrastructure and while other cities in Europe go ahead we’re just discussing and think what we might do - at the end way to less happens.
As someone who works in the branch of city / traffic planning I found the mentioned goal of London for 2025 very ambitious. Then I remembered: This is not Germany. We always stick to visions in 2030 or later and already knowing we want reach that goals due to huge bureaucratic barriers and slow and inefficient construction sites.
the collab we never thought we needed but are happy we got 10:05
You can always do a car share? This way you just get a car on demand and cargobike for getting the kid around London.
one problem of the current times is people buying bigger cars. if everyone in London drove smaller cars it would solve a lot of the issues. You're right, London is designed for smaller vehicles, so why do people drive in London with Chelsea tractors and massive Saloons.
I also feel a reliance on mini cabs of the current generation has massively increased the issues, how many times have you had a to wait for someone doing a three point turn or just straight up ignoring give ways. Finally the M25 has just migrated the traffic problem, as someone who uses the A3 and A217 regularly the amount of excess traffic because of people avoiding the M25 is unreal, Rush hour has become a 2 hour affair.
Car dependence is hell
I wish the US was moving towards less car dependence, however it is fundamentally here especially where I live, everything is so far away
Most american cities were not build for the car, they were bullodozed for it, in the most racialy discriminating way possible. London's problem is underinvestment in public transportation and regional connexions. Also, neoliberalism
Just compare the Paris region to the London Region, it is painful to look at.
I live in a small city 350 km from Paris but with a high speed rail station at 15 minutes walk from my home, I can get to the capital in just '1:30 and go basically anywhere without even feeling I miss out by not owning a car. And why would I be ?😂 Paris is a nightmare to drive through!
As a delivery driver in central london i can tell u driving in central doesnt make any sense. With the minefield of cameras, peletons of bikes, mazes of diversions, road closures, bus lanes, one way streets, no entry roads its difficult to keep your sanity. Now imagine all this loveliness in a hgv...
The way the Netherlands fixed this issue is by making good rules for new roads being built. Roads need to be maintained every x amount of years, if you just make sure the thing you build back works well for cyclist, pedestrians, public transport and a bit of cars, you will slowly solve the issue withou crazy extra investment needed, right?
The Elizabeth line is not part of the Tube instead it is part of national rail.
One of my main reasons for never bothering to get my license to drive.
London has two things:
Bad Traffic & Hefty fines
Real long living Londoners know that those back road blocks were put there to help clueless police from losing criminals who drive and know back roads like the back of their hand... It had Nothing to do with pollution.
Now, all there is is traffic all throughout the day on the high roads, constant road works which only make traffic that much sweeter, and buses still with no AC during the summer or heating during winter but we All pay out the arse to keep these poorly things running.
I'm buying a skateboard or Rollerblades
Can we stop calling public transit systems good, just because they are better than other transit systems, a good system is one where there are more rail lines than roads.
And where is that?
@@Ruzzky_Bly4t I never said it exists, but you can have a standard for something even if that something doesn't yet exist at the highest level or rating. I wouldn't be surprised if some areas of the netherlands had more square footage dedicated to rail lines than roadways.
@MegaLokopo You're mixing up "perfect" and "good". "Good" and "bad" are relative terms that depend on the context. That's like saying that a clean, modern, and quiet train that goes 200 mph isn't good, because unlike a potential maglev, it's not traveling at 500 mph and it still has some minimal vibration from the rails and some noise. No, it's good, just not perfect.
@@Ruzzky_Bly4t The way it is used in daily language good and perfect can be synonyms to most people, even if they don't realize it. That is why you have people arguing over how good a system is and how good a system would have to be for them to consider investing in it.
My point is simply if we stop calling current systems good, then people will be more likely to support them in the future because we are making it clear that there is a ton of room for improvement, if we call current systems good when in reality they are all awful, people won't focus on what could be and will only focus on what is. And getting them to vote for more transit will be much harder.
@MegaLokopo I see your point. If you say that public transport is "good enough as it is", it will prevent it from evolving. But it's a double-edged sword. If you stop calling good systems good, people would see investment into public transportation as futile. Why bother if decades of hard work haven't resulted in anything good happening, even in places with the right policies and a lot of money? Your all or nothing approach would present public transport in a bad light, and car users would likely use the opportunity to highlight how good the roads are or something. It seems much more sensible to me to point out good examples of public transportation and show people that with enough effort, it can be a convenient and reliable way to move around, instead of relying on a car. Of course, the flaws and ways to improve it should always be mentioned as well. Saying that "all public transport systems in the world are awful" will only gain support from the ultra wealthy and avid car users, who think that it can never be as good as their vehicle.
I live in Brighton and cycle to work, some days traffic here is so bad that I can just weave past everything as though it weren't even there. We have one roundabout that is so bad I can't actually cross it until the build up of cars causes it to stop.
Random taxi driver is a TH-camr.
Pretty obvious from the way the cameras are positioned in the car, and how freely he speaks for the audience.
It's funny how they all ignore the option of microcars. Think of a scooter or minibike or bicycle, but with a cabin like a car, 4 wheels, and lights and turn signals (with reflective markings, to make smaller LEDs light up larger lights, for increased night-time visibility). The pedal-powered version would not have an engine, the minibike version would have both and engine and pedals for if the battery or engine's fuel tank is empty, and the scooter version would not have pedals.
And all of them would need at least a tiny battery with a small (palm-sized or smaller) solar panel to recharge it (and during hot sunny days, it could circulate the air, to avoid the cars' melting and fire-starting problems), and it would be much cheaper to have a hybrid if noise pollution was a big factor in the taxes needed to be paid (so you could have a small battery powered by an electric motor, and a regenerative-breaking alternator and a very-efficient-and-quiet petrol engine to keep the battery charged quietly). Being much smaller, you can easily fit at least 3 of those in the space of a small car, and many more in the space of larger cars, and having a hybrid version with a fuel tank would allow people to use them for cross-country trips, if needed.
And if enough such cars are made, there could be versions with a pop-up or sliding back, to make it longer for when you need to carry more, or a trailer with a single freely-rotating (in the yaw direction) wheel which mounts to the back of the microcar . Also, the default configurations for those microcars would be single-person (driver-only) with very little cargo space for like one bag of groceries, and a airplane-cockpit design with a passenger behind the driver with the seat folding away for more cargo space with a single person (only the driver).
Ultimately people need to drive. These restrictions dont remove polution, they just move it and increase it due to increased traffic.
This is not a battle with pollution, its a tax on the poor.
Also just the fact that the underground which is proposed as a cleaner travel alternative has 100x worse air quality than the streets.
Cycle lanes increase traffic, congestion zones increase traffic, pedestrian zones increase traffic. Traffic increases pollution.
This isnt solving any problems.
Except the more of these measures you take, the fewer people will drive in the first place.
@@Coffeepanda294 hence it balances out and nothing really changes except the councils coffers
Ok why I'm late for this awesome videos!!!!
I live in the UK (not in london) and this is kind of an issue with the rest of the country. The roads just aren’t built for modern traffic and they were designed on past systems.
I live in London. I grew up on the edge in the 80s, late 90s and 2000s London was my playground, I now work in Farringdon and enjoy walking the city. I never learnt to drive because of this.
All the wingey car drivers need to wake and grow up
The editing on this was so class. 10/10
Thanks Evan, glad you enjoyed it
This video was annoying. Ultimately you ended up on the pro-transit side (which is the factually correct side), but your "understanding of problems drivers face" is pitying people who do not need pity and shying away from advocating for expanding public transit and increasing its accessibility for the disabled. The "it hurts the laborer" excuse is an absurd narrative because the cost of using a vehicle then becomes a business expense as it should always be for those businesses. Roads are not free to maintain and not every person on them is paying the taxes that would fund them. So then, why exactly are they getting to use those roads without being charged by the owners/maintainers of them?
Since when is exploring both sides bad? Good for him to show a balanced perspective instead of pretending like his opinion is the only "factually correct" one. I'm in support of fewer cars and more transit, but the way you present our opinion is no different from those car fanatics who don't even want to consider using alternatives.
Having lived in London for 1.5 years in pre-pandemic era, the experience was that if everywhere you need to go is in and around the City (roughly zone 1) then public transit and walking would be more than enough and you would never need a car. I frequently walk all the way from LSE back to SE1 where I lived, or crossing the Tower Bridge so I could catch the tube at Tower Hill rather than taking the Northern line and change trains at Bank. But the thing is that city living is so very expensive and crowded and much of the mere mortals that are not international students do not live in Zone 1 but need to commute into the city for a lot of things, work, meet friends, use cultural amenities and such. And cycling in central London is so scary I’d never do again after trying for a couple of times, there’s scant infrastructure and the narrow streets afford little space for cyclists, and the drivers are very mean. And I say this after also living in the US for a few years and cycling through most of those years in a midsized New England city. At any rate, the sin of London is simply being too big so it’s getting unfixable in an urban planning sense. It’s so much Better to have a network of midsize cities and smaller towns connected with frequent and fast trains
Needs more Elizabeth Line-style lines, like what Tokyo has
@@frafraplanner9277 Tokyo is much better in terms of coverage, but the rush hour crowd is no joke, right up there with Beijing and Guangzhou making London and New York look like mini metro crashes
What a strange video. Largely just angry entitled people ranting about how they're being oppressed because of their own poor choices.
It is not just the fumes that I am hyper aware of when I have my sn with me at a busy road. there is the noise, I cannot hear him and have to crane down. More than that though is just the danger- we live in a quiet area, he walks ahead and gets to explore, even let him ride his balance bike ahead to the park, when there is a road you feel like you can't let go of his hand, just in case! It makes it so stressful to be out with a young child in some places- when it should be a joy- it damages parent/child relations by making talking difficult and forcing you to restrict their independence more, which leads to them acting out or being miserable and you being stressed and anxious! This is why kids these days don't play outside, wore than any percieved stranger danger! We would be saving our childrens best years by giving them places to play and be independent!
Why would you want to drive in the first place? I have never understood it. I'm embarrassed to see people in cars. It's like watching toddlers in their _Little Tykes Cosy Coupe._ Not just in London, either. There are so many brilliant options to get about in the UK
Do you know how cool trains and trams are? Imagine if you were part of the committee that got to design their liveries every year! That's some council engagement! Now if only we could finally imprison the Tories for the crimes, especially Rishi Sunak...
I'm sorry mate, have you ever left London? Are you seriously bringing up trains? UK trains? Arguably the worst and most prohibitively expensive train network in Europe (including Eastern). That one?
The solution is rather simple actually. Just make the tube & bus system more appealing and affordable. The reason why many people still prefer the car over public transport is because of convenience and comfortability. And that is saying ALOT if you take into consideration ULEZ expansion and LTNs. People value their comfortability and convince so much that they'd rather pay! When the Elizabeth line first opened up everyone was going on about how nice the ride was and the fact there was air conditioning etc, if TFL made all lines near Elizabeth line standard and actually paid their staff a fair amount as to stop all the strike action and made tickets more affordable, I think people would actually get out of their cars and thus make the streets less crowded!
TFL have been increasing their fare prices year by year, they're getting rid of the Zones 1-6 travel card in 2024 and the service keeps on getting worse due to black out dates and strike action. They must be making a fortune off of ULEZ and the congestion charge and they need to invest that money into making the tube and bus cheaper and better!!
how does this channel not have millions of subs
In a HUGE city where EVERYTHING is within 10 miles of EVERYTHING....a Car may not make sense, but if you want to GO ANYWHERE....you pay for EVERY TRANSACTION!!!! Tube- 5 Pounds, RENT a bike - 5 pounds, electric skateboard...Good luck CARRYING that EVERYWHERE
FYI. Horatio Nelson was a good guy. He gave his life defending Britain during the Napoleonic wars in the Battle of Trafalgar.
A data point that would have been useful to have is that pollution has decreased, and quite dramatically in some areas. Despite some of the opponents of the policies saying it causes more pollution (only based on assumption) the reality does vindicate the city government. The effect on workers that have no other option but to drive is still a valid criticism.
I live in Paris which is having similar and even more drastic anti-car policies. It gets messy and is at times frustrating even as a non-driver but I do still agree with the intentions. Cars are just physically far more difficult to accommodate due to their volume per person. Even the big US cities with massive highways and surface parking lots everywhere cannot defeat congestion. The suggestion at the end is the way to go. If you really do need a car, rent one.
19:35 solid representation of average London interactions
The section on health and ULEZ is incorrect. The air pollution levels in London are above the legal pollution thresholds with the worst air pollution being at tube stations. This can be ascertained using a hand held meter or at the fixed air pollution monitors next to roads. That's probably why its referred to as ultra low. Asthma cases have being getting markedly worse but at a time when air pollution levels have been improving so contrary to common sense its negatively correlated. The study suggesting 9000 deaths is a correlation between death rates and home address but relative wealth could also directly lead to the same conclusion. There aren't 9000 deaths with air pollution given as the primary cause of death and after the introduction of ULEZ you won't be able to identify anyone who has been saved by it. Its quite probable that no statistical effect will be found. A study by Imperial College suggested the effect of the introduction of the first ULEZ had been minimal. Moral think for yourself, understand the reasoning and don't pass off political views as scientific which is the fashion these days.
Limiting cars in a city like London is a necessity. I mean, there are way smaller cities out there with populations measured in tens of thousands of people, with more or less equally bad traffic.
Personally I don't like congestion charges. I do understand them in large and/or geographicly speaking difficult cities, but I don't like when they are implemented in places where there are other easy options available. Sure, it'll decrease the number of cars by 20 to 30% (as is the case in London), but the remaining 70% pay the price either because it makes financially sense for them or because they have no other option. I suppose most drivers are part of the latter group, though this might not be the case in London. Contractors etc. are not really affected by congestion pricing, as they can pass the cost to their customers. Then there are people who decide to drive because they consider the time savings or the comfort of sitting in their car is worth it. Those are the people who should pay the price. But then there is a small number of people who have to pay for their own expenses but have no other option but to drive (due to disability or some other reason). You need to have some way of exempting those people from the charge (system that is easy enough to use but difficult enough to abuse), or maybe provide them government sponsored/subsidized taxi journeys or something.
ULEZ is a more reasonable option, as if you drive a lot in the city center, and complain that the charges are too high - well, time to buy a low emission vehicle. It's really difficult to argue against a price you pay for forcing other people to inhale your exhaust, and there is an easy solution to the problem - a low emission vehicle (at least in Europe, you can find EVs ranging from cars to vans to delivery trucks and busses). The downside is that the charge has little to no effect on congestion, though it does improve the air quality.
Low traffic neighbourhoods on the other hand are great. You can easily let pedestrians, cyclists, bin lorries and emergency vehicles through, and overall make those streets and neighbourhoods so much more pleasent to live in and travel through. Sure some people don't like these, but at least around here most residential areas are built this way, and they are great. When you retrofit these to a place like London, it just takes time for maps to update and your mental model of the city to change. Sure, it's going to be a pain in the ass, if you've used to plan your routes using these streets, and there is going to be worse congestion after these are implemented, but over time you get used to them, and congestion will ease a bit as some people choose another form of transportation.
Then there are the parking spaces. Availability of parking is a huge factor for anyone considering owning a car in the city, or driving into the city. The price of parking is another huge factor. Decreasing the number of parking spaces is often controversial, but it is effective, easy and much less controversial than congestion charging. Especially if you have off-street parking available. Parking spaces can also be used to solve other problems. It can be used to widen the pavement, or to create a bike path, or create a bus lane, or a travel lane, green space, loading bay, snow storage, bike parking, micro mobility rental etc. Repurposing parking spaces for something more useful is often quite popular with residents - just remember to leave enough space for delivery drivers, contractors etc.
And to finish, it's always fun to hear car drivers complaining about congestion when they themselves are part of the problem. Even in the video, I think it's pretty easy to see that while quite a few people do acknowledge the fact these charges and policies have a negative effect on their job, but at the same time they make the city safer, quieter and nicer place to live in.
It sounds like the ideal solution for you is a car club, or other car rental. You don't take up valuable space while your car is sat parked most of the time, and you don't have the costs and hassle of keeping and maintaining it, but you can get a car when you need it to travel out of London for a weekend etc.
London have some of the worse traffic in the world. I was once stupid enough to get an Uber in London and that took me 45 mins to travel the same distance it would have taken me 20 mins in Asia. Honestly, it such a pain to get around places there.
The public transportations are overloaded and lack functionalities. You can't even get mobile receptions in the Tube for crying out loud!
Would've loved you to come in with stats that pushed back against your interviewees incorrectly suggestion that the infrastructure changes increase pollution and are bad for business
From the title I initially thought that the video is about the so-called Fake London, you know, the one in Canada, which is known to be particularly car-dependent. I wouldn’t think that the real London suffers so much from cars. Especially since the congestion pricing started, common sense dictates that the car usage would subside.
Common sense is rarely that common, it seems.
Hasn't worked. Bitish drivers are idiots. They like to complain but still pay. Since the 2003 introduction of the congestion change more drivers each year hit the roads which has negated any positive impacted the congestion charge was ment to have. This why its become a road toll and not a deterrence.
Every time this teenager said ‘my daughter’, my head spun!
Jokes aside, great video. It was fun and entertaining and informative. Subscribed.
Trams, London, darling, TRAMS! Trust me, they'll save your soul. Coming from a humble Varsovian.
Nobody mentioning the sheer cost rises for non Londoners commuting into the city via train reaching absolutely absurd heights for many, especially younger people trying to start their careers. Especially with frequent cancellations of trains into the city, if you work in an industry where work from home is not possible, it becomes a much harder decision. I think if public transport wasn’t so damn expensive and unreliable, many people would switch naturally anyway. Instead of reducing public transport costs and increasing frequency of services from outside of the city inward, we are instead charging people, including nightshift workers and tradespeople in the city who have to drive vans to serve Londoners who have real issues that need solving in order to live, sometimes £12.50 to £25 per time to just show up to their jobs - without factoring in the cost of the vehicle. Then for those that can’t afford London rents, and don’t need to carry tools and equipment for work, some nearby London rural areas are north of £35 per day to get in without a railcard. It’s obscene.
Mate can I know where you bought your skateboard, and not only that what model etc is it? I want to buy the same one?
It's a Boosted Board, Stealth. But they went bust in 2020 😢
What an amazing documentary! I love your style so much - it really connects
the heart for the creator shows how compliments to the creator can mean the world to them!
Born and bred Londoner. Loved my car. Now totally hate cars and traffic. Car drivers blame everything else but the fact is it is THEM that cause traffic. I live in a LTN, yes my husband is a builder and needs a van, but totally does not mind the extension in time to drive anywhere as Hackney is now so plesant and car free. I cycle, he walks if not working. Stop car sales, ban fossil fuels, improve transport.... there will be a period of pain for these people, like coming off addiction, but in the future they will forget it when you have trees, grass, seating, children playing, neighbours talking , all in the road!
Exactly
Storytelling and video/audio presentation A+. ❤ 💪
low traffic zones should have exemptions for company vans, imagine how much electricians/plumbers/contractors would appreciate and benefit from being able to easily get to their clients and have enough space to park the van close by without disturbing traffic, bikes still get around faster and safer. I love the idea but policies like that need to have nuanced exemptions. Having lived in London and scandinavia, one of the biggest difference when it comes to implementing public policies and strucutral innovations is that scandinavia isn't afraid of nuanced and sometimes complicated exemptions. If you don't need it or care, you're not going to push the paperwork, but if you're a small business, you spend one day a year sorting out your license or pass or whatever, that's part of what it means to run a successful business even if it's not the fun part. UK tends to oversimplify or condenscend it's policies in order to not have to invest in government systems to sustain the beaurocracy. In CPH their online systems and licenses are incredibly straightforward and efficient even though it's technically more red tap than I've ever had to deal with as a citizen, the benefits far exceed the initial time investment.
I’m young and from Scotland and would love to come down south and drive around the m25 in a circle listening to orbital (cds or tapes for the authentic feel ) don’t know how I’d find a car with a tape player but my uncles van still has one
Its the ULEZ effect. There is absolute uproar when it's firstly implemented, then it dies down, and people start releasing that it was probably for the best. How many news articles do you see about ULEZ today compared to last year?
London is the true fine city.
I can't believe this tool actually thinks Nelson was a bad guy. I'm not even a Brit and know the guy saved the UK from invasion. Best of luck to the Londoners though, torn on where it will end up.
Heeey! I remember Tom, the cab driver! he was in one of Tom Scott's videos, wasn't he? probably in a secondary channel. Can't remember which video exactly though...
the widening of the roads was terrible. We have done that here in America so much. While we do design for cars, many American cities were not built for the car as we often claim in America. They were bulldozed for it. The highways wrecked many neighborhoods across the US. That we have so much simply shows that our land use is terrible and sprawling
Glad to be moving to a much less busy place in scotland next year. It's not just London, nearly anywhere in the england is too massively overpopulated and full off cameras.
The UK government is heavily reliant upon the money it makes from vehicle ownership, rip off parking, rip off fuel, rip off insurance, rip off taxes, rip of repairs and maintenance and so on. Let's think it thru , shall we? You may be concerned about air pollution, used tyre problems, recycling old cars and so on but by introducing green solutions and building railways in the UK would mean that the tax revenue will drop. This means finding new ways of taxing the poor . So stf air pollution, motor vehicles are the best way of taxing. What other solutions do these poor people have? Use the joke railways?
There is literally no reason to have a car in London.
Car free cities are fine until you need to go somewhere outside of the city. The rest of the UK laughs with and at London. Okay, you can get most places without a car, but anywhere in the UK outside of London, if you don't have a car your life is much, much harder. Everywhere is much further away, and when you get there you will be sweaty, hot, uncomfortable and late.
These green boxes are near my house! I live in London.