As someone who walks, bikes, and drives, I tend to categorize paths based on how I interact with motor vehicles. Because the fact is no one really likes cars. You like the one _you_ are riding in, but the rest are "traffic". (When was the last time you heard someone say, "That restaurant has a lovely patio. It's right next to a busy road!") And so, regardless of if I'm protected from being hit by cars, I will still go out of my way to use a path where I do not have to see or hear motor vehicle traffic.
As a cyclist and car enthusiast I actually love to watch traffic pass by whether it be while riding my one of my bikes or sitting at a restaurant. That is because I am always looking for unique, rare, or interesting cars. But I also understand I am in small portion of a Venn diagram.
Exactly. Even wide and well maintained paths still suck if they're right next to stroads or other traffic arteries. That's what wasn't mentioned in the last video, "How to Fix America's Worst Streets" either. Paths must be both convenient and attractive to use.
I struggled to frame it till I read Charles Marohn. People really see traffic like molasses and they’re swimming in it. You ARE traffic. You cant get rid of traffic by adding lanes or trains. But when you add paths or trains, people can choose not to be molasses.
As someone who lives in the UK, the idea that these path networks are novel and rare is fascinating. I have never been anywhere in the UK where paths like these don't exist absolutely everywhere
That's one of the benefits of our version of post-war car-centric development - such paths are basically free when compared to the roads that were getting laid at the same time, so they were heavily featured. It wasn't like trying to get a new railway to Milton Keynes or Thamesmead where there were concerns over whether people would bother using them if they all had cars... a swath was being cut for a smooth level road anyway, so might as well stick pedestrian paths in amongst it all. This network of pavements was of course pretty easy to partially-convert into cycle paths in the 90s, which is a huge leg-up even though they would be considered low-quality cycle paths compared to some of the specialty "cycle highways" that have been built in some places in the last 10 years.
In the USA, we had a pretty long trend of building infrastructure very, very heavily car-centric to the detriment of everything else. Even to the point where city design assumed you'd be driving to work and everywhere you go. The suburbs would be residential housing exclusively, with no shops or anything else. Zoning laws would prohibit such things. If you want to go to work or shop, be ready to drive an hour to downtown. Thankfully, I think attitudes are changing. At least where I live, I'm seeing more infrastructure for pedestrians and bikes, and I'm in biking distance of most destinations. Thanks to a new e-bike I can even get to work as long as the river isn't flooded. It will take many years for the damage to be undone, but I'm seeing some change happening.
Watching from Oulu, Finland. The entire city is connected with a dense web of paths, mostly shared-use, a few with separate bike and ped lanes. Hundreds of underpasses so you don't have to contend with cars, especially in the more suburban areas, where the path network gets even better than the city center. Reading comments about how the place where I live is obviously an unachievable utopia, that you'd have to be naive to believe in, is not my favorite thing in my life, but boy do I enjoy it still.
It seems this is generally the model that the nordics follow, and yeah it baffles me how this isn't the standard in all of north america. It's so easy and cheap to implement especially in such sprawling low-density places.
@@swedneck Yeah, we've always liked being outdoors and moving around, so much of the countries are built for it. Even between towns we often have paths next to the roads. Maybe not in the most rural areas, but there the traffic is so sparse that walking there isn't a problem.
Oh hey (or perhaps hei), my brother lives in Oulu. He always complains about the 4G being so much slower when he visits the UK :) (His second favourite subject is how the homes are better insulated there! His third is probably how there's basically no traffic when visiting my sister-in-law's family up in Lappland, haha. No wonder he barely comes to the UK anymore! It sounds like a real downgrade, even just for a week or two. Especially since he visits our folks in the countryside - I think Glasgow where I live would be less of a disruption.)
That's very close to a typical Japanese suburban Japanese street. Those are usually (but not always) wide enough to barely fit two cars through, but only at a snails pace.
Paths are better than no paths, but they still cannot rectify the baked in problem of sparcely spaced sprawl where everywhere tends to be a long way from everywhere else. Ideally cities & suburbs need to find ways to cluster inwards towards shops, services, & transit nodes, reducing the need for car travel, rather than constantly sprawling outwards & becoming ever more car dependent.
@@Said_w_the_G Honestly, anything where shopping takes an hour or more from leaving your home to returning to it even if you only need one item and know exactly where in the store it is (so basically minimal time spent on item selection and retrieval) shouldn't count as a shopping option.
A hugely important thing for encouraging use is grade-separated crossings on major roads. My mom lives near a nice, new path system that connects her apartment to the downtown core, but often declines to use it because she hates crossing the giant state-owned stroad that divides her neighborhood from downtown. The intersection she has to cross is 8 lanes- 3 traffic lanes in either direction + 2 turn lanes. A tunnel or bridge crossing would help her feel way more comfortable.
If your quarter is crossed by 8 lane stroad, I don’t think a bridge or underpass is really enough to compensate. Better not build those abominations in the first place !
Grade separation can be nice but is expensive. Especially if accessible (e.g. an overpass with wheelchair ramp and not just stairs.) Probably a lot cheaper to just make the intersections safer. Bulb-outs, median refuges, removing slip lanes or rounded corners that allow fast turns, roundabouts to slow traffic and prevent left turns... Of course, the state DoT might value slightly faster traffic over human lives and deny such improvements.
Calgary and Colorado Springs have multiuse pathways that are generally grade separated from roads, by following creeks or rivers, and passing under the same bridge that crosses the creek. It's great! It's often possible to go ten miles (16 km) with few at grade crossings. I think that it's a good model to follow.
My current neighborhood doesn’t have bike paths, but it does have alleyways between houses on every block. This has been really great for me since it means there are dozens of paths running parallel to the main roads that are usually completely free of cars. Great for walking, amazing for biking.
Paths are important for making suburbs for friendly for active transportation, but so are bike racks for non-residential destinations. They should be as plentiful as handicap parking spaces.
There was a path in my mom's suburb and a questionable neighbor illegally installed a fence blocking the path. Some people are just against this stuff for no reason
I get it in the sense that it probably comes from a feeling of "What if Bad Person wanders around?" sort of thing. Ignoring the heightened amount of hype around such things, the thing is, isolation and lack of community is good for theoretical bad people - the longer someone can do something nefarious unobserved and unobstructed, the easier it is for them to do that. Whereas if you have suburbs that are actual communities or at least, have communal spaces and life, it becomes a lot harder. Even beyond just knowing your neighbors, developing communal trust, and thus who should and shouldn't 'be' somewhere at a particular time, community spaces that people use often are spaces where "Bad Activity" doesn't happen because doing those things in front of other people usually isn't a great plan. So having paths and the like that are well lit, where people hang out and lounge outside their home, actually improves safety because of many eyes even before anything dedicated like a community watch.
@@PhotonBeastGuess that makes it into a self-fulfilling prophecy. People suspect that there will be criminals, so they trust their neighbors less, which makes criminality easier.
@@DiamondKingStudios It does to an extent, yes, which is one of the challenges in overcoming it. Because that part of it is about building communal trust which often has to happen by... investing in community and exposing people to healther community relationships. That's hard to do on an individual level much less a group wide one. You can't just add a community garden for instance; you have to get people to care about it and feel attached to it.
@@DiamondKingStudios That said, there are a few relatively low cost ways to get it kick started, depending on location. Having the garden in a central shared location where everyone can see and engage with it on a daily basis, for instance, even if it's just walking through it - that way it's not a special place to go to for ??? but a part of daily life. Making sure it's well lit. Have - gasp - simple activities appropriate to the demographic like a few exploratory playground pieces for kids or a basic BBQ or two that - gasp - you don't need to reserve and go through paperwork to use. Favor greenery and natural decoration over paved stonework.
Cut through paths were the major difference between the suburbs that I grew up in (built in the 1970s) versus some later ones nearby (built in the 1990s). Where I lived, it was all dead ends with paths and parks between them. It was often faster to walk between nearby houses than go all the way around in a car. Thankfully, the local city council realised the mistake of allowing developers in the 1990s to prevent pedestrian cut throughs and more modern developments require them.
That's pretty much also the norm for most (with a few rare exceptions) suburbs in Perth, WA. Suburbs with dead ends for cars, but paths between said dead ends.
My hometown (Colo springs) actually has a pretty extensive path network that I've discovered recently while biking around. The "problem" is that the trails are only used for recreation--they have beautiful scenery, but they don't seem to have a lot of practical use for people.
that's what I felt about most trails here in Colorado and I found the quiet neighborhood street with old connected grid without cul-de-sac provide better direct route than most trails
Fort Collins also has a great system of paths. It sort of breaks down between the University and Downtown, but does a decent job of connecting the city, but is always fighting the fact that sprawl means it's probably a long ride no matter where you're going.
Paths at the end of cul-de-sacs which have roads on the other side should be mandatory. Shortcuts are a game changer, and they cost barely any space or capital. Many Sydney suburbs are full of them, and the older ones are often no wider than a minimum sidewalk width, with neighbour fences hard up against either side. They're not very pleasant, but they're wayyy better than walking around the entire block. When you go somewhere that doesn't have shortcuts, it's effectively unwalkable. And of course, the ones in newer suburbs that have a little more room allocated for them are a lot nicer.
Being able to ride your bike to school builds that foundation that further encourages biking as an adult. The importance of trails like these for that purpose cant be understated.
Hypotheses: The suburban 1 Family houses are only affordable for middle or high income families. These can easily afford a car. And they probably keep doing it because it feels faster and more comfortable. Also, they are used to it already. Path networks in lower income neighbourhoods that are less likely to afford a car or gym would be used more.
You are correct, though I would also add that it *Usually faster* and *Always more comfortable*. AC on a hot day and Heaters on a cold one, prove the latter.
Before watching...yes they should be required infrastructure. Active transportation is more successful when it is more direct...having to wind your way out of a suburb like a car does adds time and effort to getting folks walking and biking. I live in a 15 minute suburb designed in the early 70s...we have very few sidewalks but every road has at least one path leading to the next road or winding through between backyards. I can bike in my community up to 1.5 km then hook up to a major bike route that takes me 25km into town with very few crossings (and they are signalized)
I've always appreciated the regional bike path system in Fort Collins, Colorado. Great for recreation and enjoying nature, but not so great at connecting neighborhoods with retail areas. You should check out some interesting paths in Prospect New Town neighborhood, in Longmont CO. Looking east and west from 40.135200, -105.106393, the front doors of houses open to walking paths while the cars and garages are on the street at the rear of the houses. These paths along with tree lined Confidence and Tenacity Drives lead to the local businesses and community green. The neighborhood feels nothing like typical Colorado suburban neighborhoods. Worth a visit if you're in the area.
Yeah so much of Colorado has these. Broomfield/Westminster for me. I love getting drunk and ripping around them at night on my electric skateboard. Some of my favorite memories, and I can pop over almost anywhere.
My town is missing some connector paths. We just call them catwalks around here. My own neighborhood has two parallel streets that go for like 700 meters with no connections between them. A couple pathways would be really nice so people don't have to walk all the way around. And you mentioned "rails to trails", my town is just finishing up getting old rails removed (sad), so I looked up what they'll be doing with that space, and it does say they'll be converting it to a trail system, which is awesome! Our town is in need of functional trails. We have some recreational ones, but this railroad went straight through town so this should be a great addition.
IMO, the problem with a lot of those Californian path networks is they're built into suburbs that still fail to be human scale. Sure paths exist, but if it takes you 30+ minutes to walk to the store, and with very little to look at along the way, they're not going to be more than exercise paths.
I commute by bicycle to work which is 22 miles away. I have to go country roads for about half of it and through 4 cities to get to my job. I don’t really like having to ride on highways with car traffic going 50 miles an hour with no cycling infrastructure but I don’t have another option. Recently I discovered a path that goes through several neighborhoods for 3 miles. It’s wide and follows a canal. It’s now my favorite part of my commute because it gets me out of the shoulder of the highways for 3 miles and when it ends I’m finally on the road where the bicycle lane consistently is for the rest of my commute. Last year this path was only half that distance before moving back on the highway but they recently connected it to a different subdivision that was separated by farmland and it is just wonderful for me a commuter who doesn’t even live in this town. I hope they continue to extend it because there is another subdivision between the end of the route and a high school and I think it would just really tie a nice bow on this great trail. That other subdivision has a partially completed paved trail and they would just need to pave the dirt path that is currently between it and the wonderful path I use every week day. Here’s hoping 🤞🏻 Mostly I just see residence use it to exercise and walk the dog but it could be a great path to get to schools too. Especially because another new school is currently being built at the undeveloped end too.
I lived in Davis and the path is a lot more extensive when you include the Green belt. You could walk the path from West Davis all the way to North Davis. I really miss it.
It's so funny, I noticed the importance and complexity of this development in Davis when I saw it 4 years ago but I didnt quite understand why. It was such a unique and amazingly complex place to me. It's funny how life brings things full-circle like that. Davis is such a great city, makes sense why it's all million dollar modest homes.
This. I grew up in Davis and the bike paths are top tier. I was hyped to see Village Homes mentioned, because it’s a very cool development, but the dedicated bike infrastructure goes way beyond that. Google “Davis CA bike map” and check out the city’s website to get an idea of the extent of dedicated bike paths there. I honestly didn’t realize how rare that was until I moved away. Haven’t experienced anything like it in the US since then and I have trouble even explaining it to folks from other places.
I just want to say that I love your channel and really appreciate how thoughtfully you approach these issues. Some of the other similar channels just can't compete with how smart, polite, and cool you are. You're the best!
really have to disagree with the scepticism towards round abouts. stop signs don't force anyone to stop either. roundabouts win in crossing distance, visibility, have more of a physical obstacle which slows down cars, and are STATISTICALLY much safer than alternatives
Why are there still conversations about this stuff? We don't need opinion or intuition about intersection design when we have data. Do we want less conflict, less injuries, less deaths OR don't we?
@@fallenshallriseIt's always going to be a conversation because the roundabout is significantly larger, especially if it is going to provide adequate sight distance for comfortable pedestrian use. Or work well at high volumes. There needs to be a decently long run between entering lanes, else drivers in the circle can force their will on everyone else, whether it's pedestrians or other cars.
The only major con to roundabout is the added space requirement. That said, to your general point, physical traffic calming is going to work a lot better in most situations than a strongly worded sign. 'cause if nothing else, someone is usually more attentive to their own safety and so generally don't want to drive into a barrier, get airtime, or bottom out their shocks.
“Stop signs don’t force anyone to stop either.” State laws here in GA require people to stop at stop signs, not merely yield. My driving test instructor would automatically fail me if I didn’t stop completely at a stop sign (the “rolling stop”).
As a Californian who lives near areas you've mentioned, paths are only part of the answer (which I know you know, but it's worth adding) -- walkable destinations like markets and other essential businesses are a huge need. And, because our hot season is rough, we need good consistent shade--drought-resistant and native choices for tree cover and green areas, permanent built shade, etc.
One thing that I think is usually overlooked in conversations about creating paths and bike lanes is weather. I live in the central valley in California and for most of summer I usually avoid going outside between 8am and 8pm because it's so hot - often over 100°. My understanding is that Sacramento is a little cooler, but not by much. So, in the best case scenario, things like walking and biking would become seasonal. Of course, I think most people would enjoy having paths and bike lanes, even if they don't use them every month of the year, but (though I might be wrong) it is probably not very likely that people will change their transportation methods seasonally when driving is the thing they're used to AND is easier and more convenient than walking the majority of the time.
Depends on destinations, too. A 10 minute walk to a convenience store will get some people walking even in hot weather. Also on how shaded the path is.
In Calgary the bike racks are not crowded in winter. In summer we need more bike racks in some places. Lots of seasonal people. Let's make sure they have pathways to use.
i remember using the path system in the del paso area to take the bike trails down to the american river parks it was great when its kept clean, my current neighborhood has some great paths internally right now but nothing that connects it to shopping just a park and dog park and a few school bus stops near them.
We have a path in my neighborhood. The police have to remove homeless encampments from this path frequently. The path was a draw when we moved to the neighborhood. However, we cannot let our children use the path because it is unpredictable and not always safe.
I had a house where a bike path and a creek basically in my backyard- it was great to have. (Chicago suburbs- Palatine IL). It also served as a great buffer for those rare occasions when the creek flooded because of heavy rain (which happened 3 times in 15 years i lived there).
google bike maps provides good ways to navigate most suburbs within a 50-100 mile radius of nyc. best thing is to connect suburbs with walking paths for bikes that can't fit cars so cars don't drive through neighborhoods which is what the residents want, just create openings in a few dead-end roads and have them connect. No need to reimagine everything.
I have to admit that SLO strikes me as being more or less perfect as far as Central Coast cities are concerned, i.e. gorgeous weather and significantly less tourism than Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara. Certainly hope I am correct in that assumption. 😅
I lived on a hillside suburb 1963-1972. My middle school was at the bottom and there was a stairway between 2 streets that I would use walking to school and back. Guess what, it was taken out sometime after 1966. So kids afterwards have had to use the main road instead of the quieter side streets.
My neighborhood growing up didn’t really have these smaller trails in it (though we were right next to a regional trail), but I’ve really grown to appreciate that it at least had pedestrian exits from all the cul-de-sacs. It made walking to school much more direct for a lot of people!
I just recently started using an ebike and it is a game changer if your city has trails that connect to most of your town. Almost as fast as a car, but way more fun
Haven’t even started watching but this is the exact video I’ve been wanting someone to make, I’ve been doing work in my suburb lately to try and expand our path/trail system
As much as I disparage the city of The Colony, TX, they're making a pretty good path system. It barely connects to shopping, but then again, there's barely any shopping to connect to.
You make a good point - it's not just how the roads are built, but also how the city itself is built, and a lot of that comes down to zoning. The USA has suffered a lot from what I like to call "Sim City zoning," where you zone huge areas of land with a single-use zone and try to avoid having zones close together. It might make for interesting game design, but cities aren't games.
The path system here in Reston, VA makes it easy for me to walk to 4 grocery stores, 2 drug stores, myriad restaurants, a pet store, several hotels, and more, and only rarely need to cross streets at street level.
This is why the Charlotte NC is so nice. We have a massive green way that connects a large portion of our communities, literally miles of trees and pathways.
This is the best change they could make to modern suburbia next to upzoning for reducing housing costs and increasing health and connection of it's occupants.
"Save" might be stretching it, but they certainly add value to a neighborhood! My favorite "variety show" of paths would have to be the string of New Urbanist communities along 30A in south Walton County, Florida, which include short boardwalk style paths providing shortcuts within a community (Rosemary Beach), concrete paths extending residential blocks (Alys Beach), paths connecting adjacent villages (Seaside and its neighbors), paths bridging water features to connect divided sections of a neighborhood (Watercolor), paths/dunewalks connecting to the beaches (ALL of the 30A communities), and the paved 19-mile Timpoochee Trail that parallels 30A and connects EVERY community for bicyclists with very little interaction with motor vehicles. There are also numerous hike-and-bike paths in the nearby state park, forest, and wildlife reserve. These paths are so popular that many resorts and other businesses make serious coin by renting out bicycles.
Paths are great, until they get plastered with no trespassing signs saying the path is only for the use of the people who live in the development it passes through. Welcome to suburban Orange County, CA, the holy land of NIMBYism.
Another nice addition in our county was Santa Clara Square in Santa Clara, CA. It has a nice shopping area, restaurants and adjacent, multi story apartment buildings with beautiful walking paths, parks with picnic tables, bbqs and fire pits. It feel like a college campus. You could actually live there and not need a car at all. You can bike or bus to work in Santa Clara or to the nearby Caltrain station that goes from San Jose up to San Francisco.
In San Jose we have a neighborhood from the 1970s, Los Paseos. It has paths connecting streets with cul de sacs to the park, school, pool, tennis court, and adjacent shopping center and market. The neighborhood is now considered very desirable and at Halloween is packed with trick or treaters. It is one of the reasons I bought a home there over 20 years ago. It makes walking children and dogs to the park and school very safe. Especially nice for parents with strollers and young children walking or on bikes.
If they go somewhere meaningful, yes. If they're just a recreation trail, then no. I live in a 30k pop suburb. We have a 2 mile path that goes from downtown (ok a library and city services are there) to a dead end at a township road that has nothing but a electrical substation. Nothing is along the path except houses and one factory.
Ive always loved these paths in the suburbs ive lived in thatve had these There was one right next to my house where we used to live that took me under the street and then thru a quiet neighbourhood; and went all the way to the big shoppin mall I saw at least a few ppl almost every time i used the path, be it for just walkin around or to get to the shoppin area. But only a small few did use them for shoppin primarily, and that was most of us who just cudnt drive for many reasons. Be it a cost thing, a one vehicle family thing, a lack of skill thing, a disability, etc And thats the most important part of what i see that these paths provide; accessible less unsafe travel across cities, for those who otherwise wudve to be walkin along unsafe roads not deaigned for pedestrians at all
In Netherlands , around 1980, there were a lot of neighbourhoods built according the 'cauliflower design' which had a lot of cul de sacs. Albeit usually with townhouses and semi-detached houses , with more density. They had bike paths all over and are ideal for the bike or walking to other sections ( or modest neighbourhoods retail centres ) ..
In the central Florida suburbs, we have some okay walking paths (less so where I live) but they really need to consider the need for shade. Planting large trees on the edges of these paths could improve the walk significantly. You could reduce the experienced temp by ~10 degrees F with just some continuous shade.
I thought we had it bad in the United Kingdom, but even we fare better than much of the US interior (coastal cities seem to be ok). For a first world nation, the USA seems to have some awful public infrastructure
There are a few paths in my city that make a HUGE difference for bikeability. One isn't even paved, it's a scrappy little footpath leading from a neighbourhood cul-de-sac out into a park. Doesn't seem like much, but using that path allows me to circumvent a large hill and a very busy road. Another one (paved) allows me to cut off a huge hill on the way to my parents' and also avoid a busy road! The third shaves off at least ten minutes and 2 major highway crossings on the route to my parents'. My town has a very long way to go to reach even mediocre walkability/bikeability, but these little paths are a huge help. I hope to encourage our city council to remember these when street designs and zoning codes are being considered. I think most of the councilmembers tend to think in terms of very obvious/immediate amenities (public bike racks) or huge, expensive projects (separated bike lanes). It can be tough to convince them to take action on either thing, because one doesn't seem important enough and the other seems too expensive. But adding a few more strategic connecting paths here and there could MAJORLY increase bikeability at a pretty low cost.
3:57 it has even an additional connection at Haystack PL. Linking this area to the one up north. Those Interconectors are very important to allow for Transportation between subdivisions. Enabling longer trips and trips to the close by neighboorhood.
My hometown of Simi Valley is loaded with these paths. It’s such a nice escape from the chaos of the big cities and especially the San Fernando Valley. I miss living there so much. I HATE it here. Unfortunately I’m stuck here unless by some miracle San Fernando is destroyed and we are forced to move elsewhere. It’s so noisy, dirty, and unsafe here. I miss the clean, natural, peaceful feel of Simi Valley. Over there, people use these paths all the time. I’ve seen kids riding bikes, scooters, and even roller skating on the as well. Simi Valley is very much a forest town, kinda like a mini version of Big Bear, only less elevated. We have nice weather and plenty of nature around us. So don’t give up on these suburbs paths. Just cuz one doesn’t work out where you live, doesn’t mean it won’t work elsewhere. Visit Simi Valley for yourself to see what I mean.
Concur with the many comments about this being idyllic. It seems great on paper but usually less so in practice. Not to say paths and path networks aren't worth doing, but they need to account for social norms, local weather and be tightly integrated into new and existing school systems. Once kids get used to walking and biking about, the rest will eventually take care of itself.
To be truly effective, we need paths that connect communities with urban cores and areas of shopping, dining and employment - and they need to be e-bike friendly. Many existing paths are urban trails for recreation - which is great, but still has us car-dependent for employment and shopping. Not everyone can afford a car and all the maintenance and insurance that one requires and public transportation in growing communities is lacking at best - specially in medium-sized cities like my current city of Colorado Springs. It is on the border of needing light rail but that is likely decades away.
I’m surprised you didn’t visit nearby Davis, CA. We have far more paths than any of these 3 areas. And they are very much used for schools, shopping, and work.
Can you check out the wheeler district in OKC? It’s a extremely dense neighborhood being built next to downtown OKC, it has narrow paths for pedestrians only, the garages are on the back of the house, it’s colorful, extremely walkable, and has pedestrian only plazas, it’s not finished but part of it is done, it will be amazing when complete, having tons of pedestrian only shopping areas and activities.
Ahh, yes, the Radburn layout, a favourite residential estate layout of British council estate architects in the 1970s, which from my experience happen to be claustrophobic and labyrinthine and a dumping ground for problem tenants and therefore a magnet for hoodlums. I think the designers got carried away with separating pedestrians from motor vehicles.
What makes paths unsafe isn't the mode of transport, it's lack of eyes on the street. That's usually down to not having storefronts, but other entrances, windows overlooking and enough width for crowds help.
I live in Radburn! The paths aren’t a dumping ground at all! It’s a great feature but was only partially developed when the Depression hit and was forgotten after WWII when construction started again
@@BobGlassett I think the original Radburn was built a bit less densely than the council estates in the UK inspired by it in the '60s and '70s. It's worth noting that, at least in my local area, privately owned housing estates from the same period were not influenced by the Radburn layout to the same degree as their social housing counterparts, with the private estates including a relatively generous number of cul-de-sacs. They do have some footpaths here and there, however. In my town in particular, a water man cuts across the suburbs in a straight line, which precluded construction over it, with the land being predominantly used for footpaths or roads instead.
I commute by bike in the UK, there are no separated bike lanes on my route, but there is a 1 and a half foot wide painted gutter on one road which includes a bike bypass to a road narrowing feature. Other than that its paths where pedestrians don't want you or roads where cars don't want you. Paths connecting roads are a given here, but width is not and so often they will prohibit cycling, even if the other route is on open roads and 5x as long.
Hot take on roundabouts: These are actually better for pedestrians/bicyclists than an intersection since it puts the crosswalk in front of most of the drivers instead of to their side. Most modern cars have abysmal rear and side visibility and this puts people where the largest chunk of glass is that the driver can see through. I drive a Fiat 500, which is very small but the A-pillar is so thick and angled in such a way that it has obscured bicyclists crossing intersections until I'm almost on top of them. Putting people directly in front of a driver makes it much easier to see them.
7:06 Nick Johnson loves this kind of suburb and includes this clip in his vids! But yes, we can do better and should have ever since Radburn NJ opened to the public.
Paths perfectly complement the livability and approachability of cities. Obnoxiously colossal downtown freeways should be decommissioned to make room for bike lanes and more walkable promenades.
Peachtree City, GA. 100+ Miles of multi-use paved paths, you can get nearly everywhere in the city. Golf Carts are utilized extensively, but they are also used by cyclists and pedestrians, especially around Lake Peachtree in the heart of town. It alleviates traffic as many main streets also allow golf carts and may businesses have dedicated golf cart parking. It's like a secondary transportation network and lessens the motor vehicle traffic that would be more congested without them, as there are an estimated 10k registered golf carts in the community, and based on experience, I'd say 95% of them are electric.
You should take a look at the bike paths in Missoula, MT and Bend, OR. Both cities have some good bike infrastructure. Though not perfect, it’s nice there is something.
My neighborhoods in the Orlando suburbs, called Wekiva, had these going throughout the entire HOA which was huge...and it was built in the 1970s...so it was all tree-lined and beautiful. That being said, it served no function other than recreation/going for a nice walk; it still didn't connect you to any sort of business etc. Now on the other hand, I now live in Central Texas, and there's a planned community called Veramendi that has businesses located within the community, so it's almost like a mini-town.
San Luis (Dalidio) Ranch is as close to a walkable/bikeable neighborhood SLO has, due to its proximity to nearby amenities. You'll also have to be wealthy to live there. I'm sure people who are most likely to drive oversized vehicles for short trips really appreciate that walkability factor.
I think every path should connect to a Destination Trail. Going to your friends house is nice, but the real way to cut down on car use is to give people the option to be able to get to their destinations without having to use a car. Grocery store, school, churches, bakeries, etc. Daily or near daily destinations should be accessible by walking, biking and public transport.
We have them evry where here in Australia and cyclists still ride on the roads they should be find for not using bike paths becuase our rates keep going up and they don’t get used for there purpose
My litmus test is: can I pick up a single sack of groceries without getting in my car. In my current neighborhood it's possible but only if I risk my life several times playing chicken with SUVs.
Pay attention to the network effect. A few disconnected paths typically get less use per km than a large connected network, from what I've seen. The usefulness increases non linearly with the number of places you can go, because the number of destination pairs increases nonlinearly. Calgary and Colorado Springs spent decades building large networks, mostly used for recreation (though i haven't been to Calgary for decades), but well used. If the city make it a thing to continually grow and connect the network, it gets ever more useful and used.
On a trip to Calgary, I recently joined a friend doing a bike around the city using the new connector path network. Wow lots of new long distance paths, both separated and wide. Good vibes for commuting to places that aren't downtown.
I don't think paths can “save” most American suburbs. Paths or not, US suburbs are typically built at low, car-oriented densities. Your average person isn’t going to walk 3-5 miles to the store and back even if there’s a very nice path to do it on.
Multi use paths are great and I love them too, the problem is that they are often not useful for living your life. They presume "recreation" and are frustrating if you are trying to go anywhere. What is (also) needed is streets that aren't hostile to bikes take you to where you are going, that hopefully don't just abandon you at the edge of a huge parking crater and wish you luck. Is that a too big and ask? see: watch?v=jhWX6lYjGG0 for three types of infrastructure compared.
Nice video as always. Still bit confused by the "stich concept". However, maybe the real challenge is to design this paths in between existing neighborhoods and see how the land reallocation process will go. Not an expert on American suburbs but people are pretty protective about it even if it is for a higher public goal. Actually I personally know a case where people didn't want to expropriate a piece of the frontal lot for a sidewalk. But you never know times are changing.
My adventures walking and biking on roundabouts seems to indicate that people in cars are better behaved in them and that they see me more clearly as well.
they're less complicated for the driver to deal with while also forcing them to slow down (but not stop). Super busy roundabouts (be they very small, very large, or very complicated, for differing reasons) are kind of a nightmare for pedestrians, but for medium sized roundabouts that see more middling traffic levels it actually would make sense for the result to be pretty good.
@@laurencefraser I can see that. I only have experience with non-super-busy roundabouts. Rotaries, on the other hand, are always bullsh*t for everyone.
what's still maddeningly confusing is the default law in the us anyways where at intersections without lights that "traffic on the right gets right of way". This conflicts entirely with how roundabouts work nearly everyone else. And at smaller roundabouts I've seen this lead to conflict once a week when i visited. I'm not sure driving habits in the us and road laws are read for roundabouts. Also, look at drivers' heads when they approach roundabouts. Nearly everywhere in europe (sorry uk), drivers immediately look left (then right only if there's a ped crossing). Conversely, in the us, can't tell you how many times, even at a roundabout without a pedestrian crossing, the driver will look right instead of looking left first. The quoted rule also fails at highway/motorway merging (where traffic on left has right of way). Perhaps someone will explain why this rule seems to exist in most cities and states in the us.
![PASULOL รามเกียรติ์ ตอนที่ 4 นนทกพบรัก [Ramakien Ep.4: Nonthok in love]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/tMUQgmZzf_A/mqdefault.jpg)
As someone who walks, bikes, and drives, I tend to categorize paths based on how I interact with motor vehicles. Because the fact is no one really likes cars. You like the one _you_ are riding in, but the rest are "traffic". (When was the last time you heard someone say, "That restaurant has a lovely patio. It's right next to a busy road!") And so, regardless of if I'm protected from being hit by cars, I will still go out of my way to use a path where I do not have to see or hear motor vehicle traffic.
As a cyclist and car enthusiast I actually love to watch traffic pass by whether it be while riding my one of my bikes or sitting at a restaurant. That is because I am always looking for unique, rare, or interesting cars. But I also understand I am in small portion of a Venn diagram.
Exactly. Even wide and well maintained paths still suck if they're right next to stroads or other traffic arteries. That's what wasn't mentioned in the last video, "How to Fix America's Worst Streets" either. Paths must be both convenient and attractive to use.
I struggled to frame it till I read Charles Marohn. People really see traffic like molasses and they’re swimming in it. You ARE traffic. You cant get rid of traffic by adding lanes or trains. But when you add paths or trains, people can choose not to be molasses.
As someone who lives in the UK, the idea that these path networks are novel and rare is fascinating. I have never been anywhere in the UK where paths like these don't exist absolutely everywhere
That's one of the benefits of our version of post-war car-centric development - such paths are basically free when compared to the roads that were getting laid at the same time, so they were heavily featured.
It wasn't like trying to get a new railway to Milton Keynes or Thamesmead where there were concerns over whether people would bother using them if they all had cars... a swath was being cut for a smooth level road anyway, so might as well stick pedestrian paths in amongst it all.
This network of pavements was of course pretty easy to partially-convert into cycle paths in the 90s, which is a huge leg-up even though they would be considered low-quality cycle paths compared to some of the specialty "cycle highways" that have been built in some places in the last 10 years.
In the USA, we had a pretty long trend of building infrastructure very, very heavily car-centric to the detriment of everything else. Even to the point where city design assumed you'd be driving to work and everywhere you go. The suburbs would be residential housing exclusively, with no shops or anything else. Zoning laws would prohibit such things. If you want to go to work or shop, be ready to drive an hour to downtown. Thankfully, I think attitudes are changing. At least where I live, I'm seeing more infrastructure for pedestrians and bikes, and I'm in biking distance of most destinations. Thanks to a new e-bike I can even get to work as long as the river isn't flooded. It will take many years for the damage to be undone, but I'm seeing some change happening.
America has no right to roam
Watching from Oulu, Finland. The entire city is connected with a dense web of paths, mostly shared-use, a few with separate bike and ped lanes. Hundreds of underpasses so you don't have to contend with cars, especially in the more suburban areas, where the path network gets even better than the city center. Reading comments about how the place where I live is obviously an unachievable utopia, that you'd have to be naive to believe in, is not my favorite thing in my life, but boy do I enjoy it still.
It seems this is generally the model that the nordics follow, and yeah it baffles me how this isn't the standard in all of north america. It's so easy and cheap to implement especially in such sprawling low-density places.
@@swedneck Yeah, we've always liked being outdoors and moving around, so much of the countries are built for it. Even between towns we often have paths next to the roads. Maybe not in the most rural areas, but there the traffic is so sparse that walking there isn't a problem.
Oh hey (or perhaps hei), my brother lives in Oulu. He always complains about the 4G being so much slower when he visits the UK :)
(His second favourite subject is how the homes are better insulated there! His third is probably how there's basically no traffic when visiting my sister-in-law's family up in Lappland, haha. No wonder he barely comes to the UK anymore! It sounds like a real downgrade, even just for a week or two. Especially since he visits our folks in the countryside - I think Glasgow where I live would be less of a disruption.)
Front doors opening to paths not roads is one of the best ways to improve quality of life within suburban neighborhoods
That's very close to a typical Japanese suburban Japanese street. Those are usually (but not always) wide enough to barely fit two cars through, but only at a snails pace.
Makes me think of bungalow courts
Paths are better than no paths, but they still cannot rectify the baked in problem of sparcely spaced sprawl where everywhere tends to be a long way from everywhere else.
Ideally cities & suburbs need to find ways to cluster inwards towards shops, services, & transit nodes, reducing the need for car travel, rather than constantly sprawling outwards & becoming ever more car dependent.
And big box stores don’t count as ‘shopping options’. They are the antithesis of connected town concepts. Oops SLR…
@@Said_w_the_G Honestly, anything where shopping takes an hour or more from leaving your home to returning to it even if you only need one item and know exactly where in the store it is (so basically minimal time spent on item selection and retrieval) shouldn't count as a shopping option.
A hugely important thing for encouraging use is grade-separated crossings on major roads. My mom lives near a nice, new path system that connects her apartment to the downtown core, but often declines to use it because she hates crossing the giant state-owned stroad that divides her neighborhood from downtown. The intersection she has to cross is 8 lanes- 3 traffic lanes in either direction + 2 turn lanes. A tunnel or bridge crossing would help her feel way more comfortable.
If your quarter is crossed by 8 lane stroad, I don’t think a bridge or underpass is really enough to compensate. Better not build those abominations in the first place !
Grade separation can be nice but is expensive. Especially if accessible (e.g. an overpass with wheelchair ramp and not just stairs.) Probably a lot cheaper to just make the intersections safer. Bulb-outs, median refuges, removing slip lanes or rounded corners that allow fast turns, roundabouts to slow traffic and prevent left turns... Of course, the state DoT might value slightly faster traffic over human lives and deny such improvements.
Calgary and Colorado Springs have multiuse pathways that are generally grade separated from roads, by following creeks or rivers, and passing under the same bridge that crosses the creek. It's great! It's often possible to go ten miles (16 km) with few at grade crossings. I think that it's a good model to follow.
My current neighborhood doesn’t have bike paths, but it does have alleyways between houses on every block. This has been really great for me since it means there are dozens of paths running parallel to the main roads that are usually completely free of cars. Great for walking, amazing for biking.
Paths are important for making suburbs for friendly for active transportation, but so are bike racks for non-residential destinations. They should be as plentiful as handicap parking spaces.
There should be way more spots to park bicycles than handicap parking spots
@@hWat-Ever Yeah. One curbside parking space can easily hold 7 bikes. 14 if they get very friendly.
I can't remember the last time I saw a bike rack where I live
There was a path in my mom's suburb and a questionable neighbor illegally installed a fence blocking the path. Some people are just against this stuff for no reason
I get it in the sense that it probably comes from a feeling of "What if Bad Person wanders around?" sort of thing. Ignoring the heightened amount of hype around such things, the thing is, isolation and lack of community is good for theoretical bad people - the longer someone can do something nefarious unobserved and unobstructed, the easier it is for them to do that. Whereas if you have suburbs that are actual communities or at least, have communal spaces and life, it becomes a lot harder. Even beyond just knowing your neighbors, developing communal trust, and thus who should and shouldn't 'be' somewhere at a particular time, community spaces that people use often are spaces where "Bad Activity" doesn't happen because doing those things in front of other people usually isn't a great plan. So having paths and the like that are well lit, where people hang out and lounge outside their home, actually improves safety because of many eyes even before anything dedicated like a community watch.
@@PhotonBeastGuess that makes it into a self-fulfilling prophecy.
People suspect that there will be criminals, so they trust their neighbors less, which makes criminality easier.
@@DiamondKingStudios It does to an extent, yes, which is one of the challenges in overcoming it. Because that part of it is about building communal trust which often has to happen by... investing in community and exposing people to healther community relationships. That's hard to do on an individual level much less a group wide one. You can't just add a community garden for instance; you have to get people to care about it and feel attached to it.
@@PhotonBeast Of course. A community garden without a community is merely a garden.
@@DiamondKingStudios That said, there are a few relatively low cost ways to get it kick started, depending on location. Having the garden in a central shared location where everyone can see and engage with it on a daily basis, for instance, even if it's just walking through it - that way it's not a special place to go to for ??? but a part of daily life. Making sure it's well lit. Have - gasp - simple activities appropriate to the demographic like a few exploratory playground pieces for kids or a basic BBQ or two that - gasp - you don't need to reserve and go through paperwork to use. Favor greenery and natural decoration over paved stonework.
Cut through paths were the major difference between the suburbs that I grew up in (built in the 1970s) versus some later ones nearby (built in the 1990s).
Where I lived, it was all dead ends with paths and parks between them. It was often faster to walk between nearby houses than go all the way around in a car.
Thankfully, the local city council realised the mistake of allowing developers in the 1990s to prevent pedestrian cut throughs and more modern developments require them.
your city almost sounds cool .lol i wish there were more places like that .. i keep sadly seeing the opposite ..
That's pretty much also the norm for most (with a few rare exceptions) suburbs in Perth, WA. Suburbs with dead ends for cars, but paths between said dead ends.
As someone who cycles for fun, these sorts of paths are totally invaluable for planning 30ish mile routes exploring the city and wish there were more!
My hometown (Colo springs) actually has a pretty extensive path network that I've discovered recently while biking around. The "problem" is that the trails are only used for recreation--they have beautiful scenery, but they don't seem to have a lot of practical use for people.
that's what I felt about most trails here in Colorado and I found the quiet neighborhood street with old connected grid without cul-de-sac provide better direct route than most trails
Fort Collins also has a great system of paths. It sort of breaks down between the University and Downtown, but does a decent job of connecting the city, but is always fighting the fact that sprawl means it's probably a long ride no matter where you're going.
The new San Luis community could benefit from more shade on that trail ... it is sooo sunny especially in a state like California
First thing I noticed I would be baking
Paths at the end of cul-de-sacs which have roads on the other side should be mandatory. Shortcuts are a game changer, and they cost barely any space or capital.
Many Sydney suburbs are full of them, and the older ones are often no wider than a minimum sidewalk width, with neighbour fences hard up against either side. They're not very pleasant, but they're wayyy better than walking around the entire block. When you go somewhere that doesn't have shortcuts, it's effectively unwalkable. And of course, the ones in newer suburbs that have a little more room allocated for them are a lot nicer.
Being able to ride your bike to school builds that foundation that further encourages biking as an adult. The importance of trails like these for that purpose cant be understated.
Hypotheses: The suburban 1 Family houses are only affordable for middle or high income families. These can easily afford a car. And they probably keep doing it because it feels faster and more comfortable. Also, they are used to it already. Path networks in lower income neighbourhoods that are less likely to afford a car or gym would be used more.
You are correct, though I would also add that it *Usually faster* and *Always more comfortable*. AC on a hot day and Heaters on a cold one, prove the latter.
In the Netherlands, I have never seen a neighbourhood that lacks paths. The idea is insane to me.
They should make it so children can ride to their local school on bike safely
True, that should be the minimum standard worldwide. Safer world outside for children generally leads to a better one for everyone.
That’s sounds like a good plan.. pre-1965. Too dangerous for that now
@@gerardojasso9259dangerous because of the infrastructure that currently exists. if we build better infrastructure, it will become safer.
Safety is an illusion.
We are doing this in my City of Bowling Green, Ohio. Got a grant from the state for like 3.4 mill to build a path from one end of town to the school.
Before watching...yes they should be required infrastructure. Active transportation is more successful when it is more direct...having to wind your way out of a suburb like a car does adds time and effort to getting folks walking and biking. I live in a 15 minute suburb designed in the early 70s...we have very few sidewalks but every road has at least one path leading to the next road or winding through between backyards. I can bike in my community up to 1.5 km then hook up to a major bike route that takes me 25km into town with very few crossings (and they are signalized)
I've always appreciated the regional bike path system in Fort Collins, Colorado. Great for recreation and enjoying nature, but not so great at connecting neighborhoods with retail areas.
You should check out some interesting paths in Prospect New Town neighborhood, in Longmont CO. Looking east and west from 40.135200, -105.106393, the front doors of houses open to walking paths while the cars and garages are on the street at the rear of the houses. These paths along with tree lined Confidence and Tenacity Drives lead to the local businesses and community green. The neighborhood feels nothing like typical Colorado suburban neighborhoods. Worth a visit if you're in the area.
Yeah so much of Colorado has these. Broomfield/Westminster for me. I love getting drunk and ripping around them at night on my electric skateboard. Some of my favorite memories, and I can pop over almost anywhere.
My town is missing some connector paths. We just call them catwalks around here. My own neighborhood has two parallel streets that go for like 700 meters with no connections between them. A couple pathways would be really nice so people don't have to walk all the way around.
And you mentioned "rails to trails", my town is just finishing up getting old rails removed (sad), so I looked up what they'll be doing with that space, and it does say they'll be converting it to a trail system, which is awesome! Our town is in need of functional trails. We have some recreational ones, but this railroad went straight through town so this should be a great addition.
IMO, the problem with a lot of those Californian path networks is they're built into suburbs that still fail to be human scale. Sure paths exist, but if it takes you 30+ minutes to walk to the store, and with very little to look at along the way, they're not going to be more than exercise paths.
Navigation direction sites often don’t consider paths when giving walking/biking directions, so if you explore only by car you may never see them.
I commute by bicycle to work which is 22 miles away. I have to go country roads for about half of it and through 4 cities to get to my job. I don’t really like having to ride on highways with car traffic going 50 miles an hour with no cycling infrastructure but I don’t have another option.
Recently I discovered a path that goes through several neighborhoods for 3 miles. It’s wide and follows a canal. It’s now my favorite part of my commute because it gets me out of the shoulder of the highways for 3 miles and when it ends I’m finally on the road where the bicycle lane consistently is for the rest of my commute. Last year this path was only half that distance before moving back on the highway but they recently connected it to a different subdivision that was separated by farmland and it is just wonderful for me a commuter who doesn’t even live in this town. I hope they continue to extend it because there is another subdivision between the end of the route and a high school and I think it would just really tie a nice bow on this great trail. That other subdivision has a partially completed paved trail and they would just need to pave the dirt path that is currently between it and the wonderful path I use every week day. Here’s hoping 🤞🏻
Mostly I just see residence use it to exercise and walk the dog but it could be a great path to get to schools too. Especially because another new school is currently being built at the undeveloped end too.
I live in a suburb who has this kind of paths. I can walk and bike anywhere, and I can live car free without being in a downtown.
Yes! How I long for car-centric people to understand this.
I lived in Davis and the path is a lot more extensive when you include the Green belt. You could walk the path from West Davis all the way to North Davis. I really miss it.
It's so funny, I noticed the importance and complexity of this development in Davis when I saw it 4 years ago but I didnt quite understand why. It was such a unique and amazingly complex place to me. It's funny how life brings things full-circle like that. Davis is such a great city, makes sense why it's all million dollar modest homes.
This. I grew up in Davis and the bike paths are top tier. I was hyped to see Village Homes mentioned, because it’s a very cool development, but the dedicated bike infrastructure goes way beyond that. Google “Davis CA bike map” and check out the city’s website to get an idea of the extent of dedicated bike paths there.
I honestly didn’t realize how rare that was until I moved away. Haven’t experienced anything like it in the US since then and I have trouble even explaining it to folks from other places.
I just want to say that I love your channel and really appreciate how thoughtfully you approach these issues. Some of the other similar channels just can't compete with how smart, polite, and cool you are. You're the best!
really have to disagree with the scepticism towards round abouts. stop signs don't force anyone to stop either.
roundabouts win in crossing distance, visibility, have more of a physical obstacle which slows down cars, and are STATISTICALLY much safer than alternatives
Why are there still conversations about this stuff? We don't need opinion or intuition about intersection design when we have data. Do we want less conflict, less injuries, less deaths OR don't we?
@@fallenshallriseIt's always going to be a conversation because the roundabout is significantly larger, especially if it is going to provide adequate sight distance for comfortable pedestrian use. Or work well at high volumes. There needs to be a decently long run between entering lanes, else drivers in the circle can force their will on everyone else, whether it's pedestrians or other cars.
The only major con to roundabout is the added space requirement. That said, to your general point, physical traffic calming is going to work a lot better in most situations than a strongly worded sign. 'cause if nothing else, someone is usually more attentive to their own safety and so generally don't want to drive into a barrier, get airtime, or bottom out their shocks.
@@PhotonBeast but if you use enough traffic calming you shouldn't need anything as people will be paying attention
“Stop signs don’t force anyone to stop either.”
State laws here in GA require people to stop at stop signs, not merely yield. My driving test instructor would automatically fail me if I didn’t stop completely at a stop sign (the “rolling stop”).
As a Californian who lives near areas you've mentioned, paths are only part of the answer (which I know you know, but it's worth adding) -- walkable destinations like markets and other essential businesses are a huge need. And, because our hot season is rough, we need good consistent shade--drought-resistant and native choices for tree cover and green areas, permanent built shade, etc.
One thing that I think is usually overlooked in conversations about creating paths and bike lanes is weather. I live in the central valley in California and for most of summer I usually avoid going outside between 8am and 8pm because it's so hot - often over 100°. My understanding is that Sacramento is a little cooler, but not by much. So, in the best case scenario, things like walking and biking would become seasonal. Of course, I think most people would enjoy having paths and bike lanes, even if they don't use them every month of the year, but (though I might be wrong) it is probably not very likely that people will change their transportation methods seasonally when driving is the thing they're used to AND is easier and more convenient than walking the majority of the time.
Depends on destinations, too. A 10 minute walk to a convenience store will get some people walking even in hot weather.
Also on how shaded the path is.
Shout out to us surviving the Central Valley heat!
In Calgary the bike racks are not crowded in winter. In summer we need more bike racks in some places. Lots of seasonal people. Let's make sure they have pathways to use.
i remember using the path system in the del paso area to take the bike trails down to the american river parks it was great when its kept clean, my current neighborhood has some great paths internally right now but nothing that connects it to shopping just a park and dog park and a few school bus stops near them.
We have a path in my neighborhood. The police have to remove homeless encampments from this path frequently. The path was a draw when we moved to the neighborhood. However, we cannot let our children use the path because it is unpredictable and not always safe.
I appreciate that you talk about how to improve suburbs, as they probably won't go away.
I had a house where a bike path and a creek basically in my backyard- it was great to have. (Chicago suburbs- Palatine IL). It also served as a great buffer for those rare occasions when the creek flooded because of heavy rain (which happened 3 times in 15 years i lived there).
Yep we need some paths around here.
google bike maps provides good ways to navigate most suburbs within a 50-100 mile radius of nyc. best thing is to connect suburbs with walking paths for bikes that can't fit cars so cars don't drive through neighborhoods which is what the residents want, just create openings in a few dead-end roads and have them connect. No need to reimagine everything.
I genuinely never thought of paths like this. Thank you
Thank you for the Mitch Hedberg reference!^^
I have to admit that SLO strikes me as being more or less perfect as far as Central Coast cities are concerned, i.e. gorgeous weather and significantly less tourism than Santa Cruz or Santa Barbara.
Certainly hope I am correct in that assumption. 😅
I lived on a hillside suburb 1963-1972. My middle school was at the bottom and there was a stairway between 2 streets that I would use walking to school and back. Guess what, it was taken out sometime after 1966. So kids afterwards have had to use the main road instead of the quieter side streets.
My neighborhood growing up didn’t really have these smaller trails in it (though we were right next to a regional trail), but I’ve really grown to appreciate that it at least had pedestrian exits from all the cul-de-sacs. It made walking to school much more direct for a lot of people!
I just recently started using an ebike and it is a game changer if your city has trails that connect to most of your town. Almost as fast as a car, but way more fun
I was hoping you were going to profile the paths of Folsom, CA. I liked the video. Thanks
Haven’t even started watching but this is the exact video I’ve been wanting someone to make, I’ve been doing work in my suburb lately to try and expand our path/trail system
Nice to see you again in my feed. Been to long
As much as I disparage the city of The Colony, TX, they're making a pretty good path system. It barely connects to shopping, but then again, there's barely any shopping to connect to.
You make a good point - it's not just how the roads are built, but also how the city itself is built, and a lot of that comes down to zoning. The USA has suffered a lot from what I like to call "Sim City zoning," where you zone huge areas of land with a single-use zone and try to avoid having zones close together. It might make for interesting game design, but cities aren't games.
The path system here in Reston, VA makes it easy for me to walk to 4 grocery stores, 2 drug stores, myriad restaurants, a pet store, several hotels, and more, and only rarely need to cross streets at street level.
For what reason would you need to walk from your house to a hotel? Does the hotel rent rooms by the hour??
This is why the Charlotte NC is so nice. We have a massive green way that connects a large portion of our communities, literally miles of trees and pathways.
The paths in the Amalfi region of Italy are amazing! Just got back.
This is the best change they could make to modern suburbia next to upzoning for reducing housing costs and increasing health and connection of it's occupants.
They also need to allow more businesses nearby so there's someplace to _go_.
Suburbs could be transformed by mandating 12’ wide multi-use paths along every road that has a speed limit higher than 25 mph.
you should look at east dallas!!! lots of train to trail and trails around flood drains
"Save" might be stretching it, but they certainly add value to a neighborhood! My favorite "variety show" of paths would have to be the string of New Urbanist communities along 30A in south Walton County, Florida, which include short boardwalk style paths providing shortcuts within a community (Rosemary Beach), concrete paths extending residential blocks (Alys Beach), paths connecting adjacent villages (Seaside and its neighbors), paths bridging water features to connect divided sections of a neighborhood (Watercolor), paths/dunewalks connecting to the beaches (ALL of the 30A communities), and the paved 19-mile Timpoochee Trail that parallels 30A and connects EVERY community for bicyclists with very little interaction with motor vehicles. There are also numerous hike-and-bike paths in the nearby state park, forest, and wildlife reserve. These paths are so popular that many resorts and other businesses make serious coin by renting out bicycles.
Paths are great, until they get plastered with no trespassing signs saying the path is only for the use of the people who live in the development it passes through. Welcome to suburban Orange County, CA, the holy land of NIMBYism.
Our whole suburban county is well connected and it's fantastic
Another nice addition in our county was Santa Clara Square in Santa Clara, CA. It has a nice shopping area, restaurants and adjacent, multi story apartment buildings with beautiful walking paths, parks with picnic tables, bbqs and fire pits. It feel like a college campus. You could actually live there and not need a car at all. You can bike or bus to work in Santa Clara or to the nearby Caltrain station that goes from San Jose up to San Francisco.
In San Jose we have a neighborhood from the 1970s, Los Paseos. It has paths connecting streets with cul de sacs to the park, school, pool, tennis court, and adjacent shopping center and market. The neighborhood is now considered very desirable and at Halloween is packed with trick or treaters. It is one of the reasons I bought a home there over 20 years ago. It makes walking children and dogs to the park and school very safe. Especially nice for parents with strollers and young children walking or on bikes.
Paths are nice. Denver and the surrounding cities have them
If they go somewhere meaningful, yes. If they're just a recreation trail, then no. I live in a 30k pop suburb. We have a 2 mile path that goes from downtown (ok a library and city services are there) to a dead end at a township road that has nothing but a electrical substation. Nothing is along the path except houses and one factory.
If you are ever in Vancouver again, come to Port Coquitlam to check out the paths and Poco Trail, its a suburb of Vancouver.
People will use the most convenient transportation mode. If it's too easy to drive a car, only those really wanting to walk or cycle will do it so.
Ive always loved these paths in the suburbs ive lived in thatve had these
There was one right next to my house where we used to live that took me under the street and then thru a quiet neighbourhood; and went all the way to the big shoppin mall
I saw at least a few ppl almost every time i used the path, be it for just walkin around or to get to the shoppin area. But only a small few did use them for shoppin primarily, and that was most of us who just cudnt drive for many reasons. Be it a cost thing, a one vehicle family thing, a lack of skill thing, a disability, etc
And thats the most important part of what i see that these paths provide; accessible less unsafe travel across cities, for those who otherwise wudve to be walkin along unsafe roads not deaigned for pedestrians at all
In Netherlands , around 1980, there were a lot of neighbourhoods built according the 'cauliflower design' which had a lot of cul de sacs. Albeit usually with townhouses and semi-detached houses , with more density. They had bike paths all over and are ideal for the bike or walking to other sections ( or modest neighbourhoods retail centres ) ..
In the central Florida suburbs, we have some okay walking paths (less so where I live) but they really need to consider the need for shade. Planting large trees on the edges of these paths could improve the walk significantly. You could reduce the experienced temp by ~10 degrees F with just some continuous shade.
Here in the netherlands almost all houses have paths connecting to the back jard.
In Canada we call those short cut-through paths "catwalks".
I thought we had it bad in the United Kingdom, but even we fare better than much of the US interior (coastal cities seem to be ok).
For a first world nation, the USA seems to have some awful public infrastructure
Some would dispute whether we're really a first world nation.
We have great infrastructure for cars. Everything else, much less so.
There are a few paths in my city that make a HUGE difference for bikeability. One isn't even paved, it's a scrappy little footpath leading from a neighbourhood cul-de-sac out into a park. Doesn't seem like much, but using that path allows me to circumvent a large hill and a very busy road.
Another one (paved) allows me to cut off a huge hill on the way to my parents' and also avoid a busy road!
The third shaves off at least ten minutes and 2 major highway crossings on the route to my parents'.
My town has a very long way to go to reach even mediocre walkability/bikeability, but these little paths are a huge help. I hope to encourage our city council to remember these when street designs and zoning codes are being considered. I think most of the councilmembers tend to think in terms of very obvious/immediate amenities (public bike racks) or huge, expensive projects (separated bike lanes). It can be tough to convince them to take action on either thing, because one doesn't seem important enough and the other seems too expensive. But adding a few more strategic connecting paths here and there could MAJORLY increase bikeability at a pretty low cost.
3:57 it has even an additional connection at Haystack PL. Linking this area to the one up north.
Those Interconectors are very important to allow for Transportation between subdivisions. Enabling longer trips and trips to the close by neighboorhood.
My hometown of Simi Valley is loaded with these paths. It’s such a nice escape from the chaos of the big cities and especially the San Fernando Valley. I miss living there so much. I HATE it here. Unfortunately I’m stuck here unless by some miracle San Fernando is destroyed and we are forced to move elsewhere. It’s so noisy, dirty, and unsafe here. I miss the clean, natural, peaceful feel of Simi Valley. Over there, people use these paths all the time. I’ve seen kids riding bikes, scooters, and even roller skating on the as well. Simi Valley is very much a forest town, kinda like a mini version of Big Bear, only less elevated. We have nice weather and plenty of nature around us. So don’t give up on these suburbs paths. Just cuz one doesn’t work out where you live, doesn’t mean it won’t work elsewhere. Visit Simi Valley for yourself to see what I mean.
4:40 I agree that path looks narrow for bikes.
Concur with the many comments about this being idyllic. It seems great on paper but usually less so in practice. Not to say paths and path networks aren't worth doing, but they need to account for social norms, local weather and be tightly integrated into new and existing school systems. Once kids get used to walking and biking about, the rest will eventually take care of itself.
Can they save em? Yes some. Especially if they're wide enough for small golf carts/small electric bikes etc.
Some are just way too sprawling.
To be truly effective, we need paths that connect communities with urban cores and areas of shopping, dining and employment - and they need to be e-bike friendly. Many existing paths are urban trails for recreation - which is great, but still has us car-dependent for employment and shopping. Not everyone can afford a car and all the maintenance and insurance that one requires and public transportation in growing communities is lacking at best - specially in medium-sized cities like my current city of Colorado Springs. It is on the border of needing light rail but that is likely decades away.
Look up the cedar valley bike trail in Iowa… they were paved over old railroad tracks and connects multiple counties throughout Iowa
I’d love to see you do a video on Columbia, MD. 84 miles of pathways. I’m happy to call it my home town.
I’m surprised you didn’t visit nearby Davis, CA. We have far more paths than any of these 3 areas. And they are very much used for schools, shopping, and work.
Can you check out the wheeler district in OKC?
It’s a extremely dense neighborhood being built next to downtown OKC, it has narrow paths for pedestrians only, the garages are on the back of the house, it’s colorful, extremely walkable, and has pedestrian only plazas, it’s not finished but part of it is done, it will be amazing when complete, having tons of pedestrian only shopping areas and activities.
Ahh, yes, the Radburn layout, a favourite residential estate layout of British council estate architects in the 1970s, which from my experience happen to be claustrophobic and labyrinthine and a dumping ground for problem tenants and therefore a magnet for hoodlums. I think the designers got carried away with separating pedestrians from motor vehicles.
What makes paths unsafe isn't the mode of transport, it's lack of eyes on the street. That's usually down to not having storefronts, but other entrances, windows overlooking and enough width for crowds help.
I live in Radburn! The paths aren’t a dumping ground at all! It’s a great feature but was only partially developed when the Depression hit and was forgotten after WWII when construction started again
@@BobGlassett I think the original Radburn was built a bit less densely than the council estates in the UK inspired by it in the '60s and '70s. It's worth noting that, at least in my local area, privately owned housing estates from the same period were not influenced by the Radburn layout to the same degree as their social housing counterparts, with the private estates including a relatively generous number of cul-de-sacs. They do have some footpaths here and there, however. In my town in particular, a water man cuts across the suburbs in a straight line, which precluded construction over it, with the land being predominantly used for footpaths or roads instead.
I commute by bike in the UK, there are no separated bike lanes on my route, but there is a 1 and a half foot wide painted gutter on one road which includes a bike bypass to a road narrowing feature. Other than that its paths where pedestrians don't want you or roads where cars don't want you. Paths connecting roads are a given here, but width is not and so often they will prohibit cycling, even if the other route is on open roads and 5x as long.
Hot take on roundabouts: These are actually better for pedestrians/bicyclists than an intersection since it puts the crosswalk in front of most of the drivers instead of to their side.
Most modern cars have abysmal rear and side visibility and this puts people where the largest chunk of glass is that the driver can see through. I drive a Fiat 500, which is very small but the A-pillar is so thick and angled in such a way that it has obscured bicyclists crossing intersections until I'm almost on top of them. Putting people directly in front of a driver makes it much easier to see them.
The Bridgeway neighborhood is a bit too far from things for the paths to encourage walking. Density in the area is too low.
7:06 Nick Johnson loves this kind of suburb and includes this clip in his vids! But yes, we can do better and should have ever since Radburn NJ opened to the public.
Paths perfectly complement the livability and approachability of cities. Obnoxiously colossal downtown freeways should be decommissioned to make room for bike lanes and more walkable promenades.
Saw this last month on Nebula; just came here to give it my thumbs up. 👍
Saw the next video on Nebula just now. :)
Peachtree City, GA. 100+ Miles of multi-use paved paths, you can get nearly everywhere in the city. Golf Carts are utilized extensively, but they are also used by cyclists and pedestrians, especially around Lake Peachtree in the heart of town. It alleviates traffic as many main streets also allow golf carts and may businesses have dedicated golf cart parking. It's like a secondary transportation network and lessens the motor vehicle traffic that would be more congested without them, as there are an estimated 10k registered golf carts in the community, and based on experience, I'd say 95% of them are electric.
You should take a look at the bike paths in Missoula, MT and Bend, OR. Both cities have some good bike infrastructure. Though not perfect, it’s nice there is something.
My neighborhoods in the Orlando suburbs, called Wekiva, had these going throughout the entire HOA which was huge...and it was built in the 1970s...so it was all tree-lined and beautiful. That being said, it served no function other than recreation/going for a nice walk; it still didn't connect you to any sort of business etc. Now on the other hand, I now live in Central Texas, and there's a planned community called Veramendi that has businesses located within the community, so it's almost like a mini-town.
San Luis (Dalidio) Ranch is as close to a walkable/bikeable neighborhood SLO has, due to its proximity to nearby amenities. You'll also have to be wealthy to live there. I'm sure people who are most likely to drive oversized vehicles for short trips really appreciate that walkability factor.
I think every path should connect to a Destination Trail. Going to your friends house is nice, but the real way to cut down on car use is to give people the option to be able to get to their destinations without having to use a car. Grocery store, school, churches, bakeries, etc. Daily or near daily destinations should be accessible by walking, biking and public transport.
4:37 I like how they use different types of grass instead of non-native turf for the landscaping
We have them evry where here in Australia and cyclists still ride on the roads they should be find for not using bike paths becuase our rates keep going up and they don’t get used for there purpose
My litmus test is: can I pick up a single sack of groceries without getting in my car. In my current neighborhood it's possible but only if I risk my life several times playing chicken with SUVs.
Pay attention to the network effect. A few disconnected paths typically get less use per km than a large connected network, from what I've seen. The usefulness increases non linearly with the number of places you can go, because the number of destination pairs increases nonlinearly. Calgary and Colorado Springs spent decades building large networks, mostly used for recreation (though i haven't been to Calgary for decades), but well used. If the city make it a thing to continually grow and connect the network, it gets ever more useful and used.
On a trip to Calgary, I recently joined a friend doing a bike around the city using the new connector path network. Wow lots of new long distance paths, both separated and wide. Good vibes for commuting to places that aren't downtown.
I don't think paths can “save” most American suburbs. Paths or not, US suburbs are typically built at low, car-oriented densities. Your average person isn’t going to walk 3-5 miles to the store and back even if there’s a very nice path to do it on.
Multi use paths are great and I love them too, the problem is that they are often not useful for living your life. They presume "recreation" and are frustrating if you are trying to go anywhere. What is (also) needed is streets that aren't hostile to bikes take you to where you are going, that hopefully don't just abandon you at the edge of a huge parking crater and wish you luck. Is that a too big and ask? see: watch?v=jhWX6lYjGG0 for three types of infrastructure compared.
Nice video as always. Still bit confused by the "stich concept". However, maybe the real challenge is to design this paths in between existing neighborhoods and see how the land reallocation process will go. Not an expert on American suburbs but people are pretty protective about it even if it is for a higher public goal. Actually I personally know a case where people didn't want to expropriate a piece of the frontal lot for a sidewalk. But you never know times are changing.
I second checking out Columbia Maryland. They have almost 100 miles of paths connecting the entire town.
North county San Diego just put in a bike path from Escondido to the coast running along the sprinter line
My adventures walking and biking on roundabouts seems to indicate that people in cars are better behaved in them and that they see me more clearly as well.
they're less complicated for the driver to deal with while also forcing them to slow down (but not stop). Super busy roundabouts (be they very small, very large, or very complicated, for differing reasons) are kind of a nightmare for pedestrians, but for medium sized roundabouts that see more middling traffic levels it actually would make sense for the result to be pretty good.
@@laurencefraser I can see that. I only have experience with non-super-busy roundabouts. Rotaries, on the other hand, are always bullsh*t for everyone.
There's also variation, like protected roundabout designs, or adding beg button yield lights for a more official "stop for pedestrians now".
what's still maddeningly confusing is the default law in the us anyways where at intersections without lights that "traffic on the right gets right of way". This conflicts entirely with how roundabouts work nearly everyone else. And at smaller roundabouts I've seen this lead to conflict once a week when i visited. I'm not sure driving habits in the us and road laws are read for roundabouts. Also, look at drivers' heads when they approach roundabouts. Nearly everywhere in europe (sorry uk), drivers immediately look left (then right only if there's a ped crossing). Conversely, in the us, can't tell you how many times, even at a roundabout without a pedestrian crossing, the driver will look right instead of looking left first. The quoted rule also fails at highway/motorway merging (where traffic on left has right of way). Perhaps someone will explain why this rule seems to exist in most cities and states in the us.