"Spacious garages and workplace parking lots encouraged a car-centric lifestyle." No. Single-family-residential-only zoning and a serious lack of efficient and convenient public transportation _mandated_ a car-centric lifestyle.
Yep. The tinfoil hat brigade see some pro-car conspiracy. The reality is it was land speculation and development. Developers bought cheap land and built the houses that they could make the most profit on. That led to car-based infrastructure to support it.
Yes. It's not like I look at my work parking lot and garage and say to myself, "If only i could put more cars in here." I have the amount of vehicles it takes to get what I need to get done done. I did get a house within walking distance of entertainment, and the property owner kicked the tenants out because lack of revenue during the pandemic. So many empty commercial properties around me now, so I drive more. It's not what I wanted.
The "serious lack of ... public transit" comes from disinvestent in public transit in favor of car infrastructure. People really like to forget about this, but planners in the 50s and 60s seriously thought and talked about how they could get everyone into a car. This is because this is what people wanted due to cultural pressures of various kinds. Consequently, our built environment was adapted to what people wanted. If you think about it, we did this to ourselves. We wanted it, the government obliged. It turned out to be a very stupid and unrealistic idea. You can't have everyone drive everywhere. It's just physically impossible to have that much parking and highway lanes, unless you have multi-level highways and parking deserts at every destination. It is now up to us to convince enough people to demand that the government change tack.
@@wclark3196 The developers could not have done that if the government hadn't build highways into the boonies. Go buy a plot of farmland in the middle of nowhere and build a bunch of houses there without any road infrastructure, see how many you sell.
I find it hard to believe that none of the comments above mention the fact that big oil had a huge impact and influence on American lifestyles in the 20th century
In many big cities today, especially in the USA, it's impossible to trade in your car for public transport because there is NO useful public transport between most of the residential areas and the business / commercial areas, thus if you have to have the expense of a car you tend to use it in preference to anything else.
Exactly. I live in a city where public transport "goes everywhere," so a lot of people either choose not to drive or say you don't need to. But it's not convenient to have catch a train and then take a 20 minute bus ride after waiting 20 mins for it.
yeah and that is the basic problem, US is built on (at least rebuilt) on a car centric view, this lead to the creation of a suburban based lifestyle, where a car is essential, since the car is needed, of course people use more cars and this mean less investment on public transport and this mean even less people wants to use it. I don’t think the US will ever change on this and it makes me sad as an italian who lives in a city where a car is still probably needed but u are able to use it very few times
Its impossible to take public transit from the suburbs because people in the suburbs show up in droves to oppose public transportation at council meetings because they think it will fill their neighborhoods with poor people. Otherwise, everywhere would have public transportation lol.
@@ertavampy4622 I've seen public meeting against the construction of light rail networks in a suburb, but not seen any objection to the establishment of buses lines in a suburb. So I suspect the issue is more along the lines of the buying back of land and work required for the public transport systems than anything else. However, regardless of the reason, it's why the public transport should be planned for in the initial development application and in place from day one.
@@ernestbywater411 its like that here in south Florida, buses everywhere in poor areas, but they don't go much of anywhere useful because all of the businesses people work at aren't in poor areas. Can't tell you how often I had to walk an extra mile or two because there are no cross over bus stops.
The main issue with the entire concept of carpooling is that you have to know someone who basically has the same schedule as you, but also lives at a reasonable distances away from you and your destination. So, this probably only applies to people working full time or at an office where their hours are set in stone. If those conditions aren't met, then it'd make more sense to just take a bus if you're going to spend time driving east of the Mississippi to your friends house first
Which is basically impossible in a sprawl environment. The homes and jobs are so spread out that having matching commutes with someone else get increasingly rare.
I would give up my car in a heartbeat. When I was stationed in Germany, all we did was ride public transportation. It was so easy to get around town and my kids actually looked forward to riding the buses and trains. Taking public transportation really does force people to get out and see their community from a different perspective.
@@mwbgaming28 In most of Europe it actually will. Intra city public transport has a very large amount of stops, if you know their route of schedule they can drop you very close to your destination, about as close as available parking, sometimes more, reliably and on time. It's a hell of a lot less of a hassle than cars for regular commute. Not saying cars have no use, I use one, for long distance irregular travel, public transport doesn't account that well for those cases. But for work? Unless you work in the middle of frigging nowhere like in a summer camp or something, buses or trams can probably take you there.
One big factor I feel that has driven the decrease in carpooling is just the reduced job schedule reliability, It's a lot harder to find a coworker you get along with who is also commuting in the same direction/along the same path as you who has the same schedule, and that becomes nigh impossible if your job doesn't have set schedules and the shifts you work change from week to week.
That's true. In my case a lot of people at my work live in the same general area/direction I live. I started at a local warehouse for a courier company (competitor of FedEx) without a car. On the night shift I was working there were about 20-25employee and about 10 lived in the eastern part of the city and use the only highway going East-West bound right in the middle of the city. I would carpool everyday with a coworker and if they were on vacation I'd take a lift from someone else, all they had to do is take the service road for 1exit/entrance and they were back on the highway. I went to the city's HUB, more employee and still many living either close to me, a tad more east or north/south of where I live. At worst they'd have to take a nigh bus to get to the service road and wait for one of the other employee to pick them up, saving a good hour or so of transit.
Honestly the weekly schedule changes some retail corporations have are criminal and should be illegal. People aren't robots, they need to be able plan recreation and vacations. Which is probably why they do this...so you can't.
Family obligations are another reason for commuting solo. As a working mother I don’t want to strand a coworker because I had to leave work early for an emergency or an after school event or appointment. However carpooling with kids to school was much easier due to common schedules and location.
@@dearyvettetn4489 I guess it depend on where you are. Most people don't have to leave work early too often, in many workplace the schedules are quite rigid. Having to leave solo in public transit 1 per month isn't much of an issue.
@@gahbah274 : I used to work in retail, and I agree 100%. I don't know why they do that -- it just doesn't make any sense. It's terrible for the employees, and I can't see any benefit on the business side.
the main problem is US cities density. you can't expect to have a functioning public transport with people living so far appart in the suburb. but if you can't have high density you must accept orrible traffic and road infrastructure everywhere. that's the reality of things, traffic or density, no middle ground.
@@herlescraft Americans lov bringing this up as an excuse for Terrible public transport Russia ,China and Japan are all doing this in sparsely populated areas
@@antlerman7644 like how, tell me where i could find a city with the same density as austin in europe that has good public transport... oh wait, there are not with such a low density
@@gidd ok, let's test what you said, look at satellites pictures of any japanese city and of austin and compare the two... spot the difference? US cities are made to force you to use the car at the expense of any other form of transport.
I appreciate Not Just Bikes's view on the subject. The mode used will be the most efficient. The US is unlikely to change until it changes its views on transportation (the only way for people to get around is cars, only poor people ride the bus, etc)
And it will only change its views on transportation once it undoes all the damage from single family zoning and that awful suburban city planning. Otherwise, cars will always be the best option.
True. But it would help if there were actually good public transport systems in the US. The Bay Area's is piecemeal, infrequent and expensive. New York's is slow, very noisy and dirty. No other city has a remotely comprehensive system, and most ticketing systems are decades out of date. Even other suburbanised countries, like Australia, Canada and New Zealand, do significantly better.
Brisbane Australia has been using bus lanes to reduce traffic. They are seperate roads which are parallel with the motor way so it is way faster to catch a bus during peak hour than to drive. It's a lot cheaper than building a new train line and the routes can be a lot more flexible. I guess technically this is an example of HOV lanes actually helping?
I’ve lived in NYC for most of my life and have never felt like I needed a car. In fact, having a car was a pain because parking was so difficult to find pretty much anywhere. I could enjoy walking to nearby stores or taking fairly reliable mass transit to anywhere further (yes NYC mass transit is actually quite good compared to most of the US). One I moved to Jersey I immediately felt the need for a car. I could walk to the closest mall area, but that area is designed for cars, not walkers. Also, it’s a 30 minute walk compared to a 5 min drive. It’s the kind of place where bulk purchases are more common, so going for a single item is…wasteful. Additionally, the transit system is just a bus that goes through several towns, so you can catch a bus every hour- not exactly conducive to ‘oh let me go down to the corner store and buy a snack’. All this comes together to say that a car is a must in order to enjoy similar freedom as I found while living in NYC. This adds up ridiculously in terms of emissions and climate impact. Until we as a people come together to create good alternatives to a car centric society, we won’t make any progress on the climate front.
I was raised 30 min south of Canada in NY, the closest interstate was over an hour away in Watertown (not counting crossing the border) so I'm used to the personal car being mandatory. Recently the county started a bus service but its most commonly used for inter town/city commutes, especially common for college students to ride to go home. That said i also fully recognize that Manhattan could ban the personal car and probably close several streets to vehicles other than deliveries/city transit and it would massively improve quality of life. I would love to be able to drive to a train station in some small town, ride into a city and transfer to a fast train to my real destination and get off into a high quality local transit system. Or to take it home and not drive 6-7 hours and just get picked up in town by family. But instead much of the US is stuck on you need a car when it shouldn't be the only method.
We already created a good alternative to car centric lifestyle. A great one even. It's called public transit. Most of Europe knows this. It's USA that's ignoring the lessons of the past. Kind of hilarious when you realize USA was practically built by its railway system yet since it was abandoned in favor of cars now people are saying USA rail could never work. Spoiler alert americans. If it can work in frigging SIBERIA, it can work in the midwest.
I agree with most of what you said. But let's be clear, cars are not the largest or even close to the largest contributor to climate change. Only about 14% of climate change gases are due to transportation and of that, only about 40% is due to cars/trucks. If we totally eliminated all cars and trucks we'd barely reduce the gas emissions by 14%. I'm not a denier, but there has to be more attention paid to other sources than just cars.
@@thespanishinquisition4078 It is difficult to maintain anywhere near cost effective public transport in most parts of the US because the population density is so low. A couple examples is like France has a population density of 119 per square km, Germany 232, while the US is just 36 per square KM
@@spocksvulcanbrain they also greatly reduce quality of life with all the noise and other problems. Like car fatalities being the leading cause of death for people below 60 years of age
I like how they made lanes for busses, then when bus use fell, instead of switching from the redundant requirment of occupants per vehicle, to just, you know, bus, they lowered the required amount of occupants per vehicle. very obvious side effect: the lanes aren't gonna function as intended.
I've pondered this thought, usage of bus lanes as HOV and/or toll express lanes. The goal isn't just higher occupancy, it's to have lanes that some traffic can use but not enough to jam it up. The primary goal of the lane, the reason for its existence, is for buses to use without being slowed by traffic in a regular lane. But buses are likely to come by once every few minutes at best, leaving the lane otherwise unused. It makes sense to allow some cars to use it, at the very least relieving some traffic from the general purpose lanes, but not everyone for free as then it would be just as jammed as the other lanes. So they want to have some selective way of selectively allowing some but not all traffic to use it - either a toll or an occupancy requirement, in a lot of cases motorcycles are allowed to use it free (justified by them being more efficient than cars). Set this to a level (either toll or number of people) that will allow it to be reasonably well utilized but not jammed.
@@quillmaurer6563 Your argument would make complete sense if it weren't for the principle of induced demand. The only way to sustainably relieve traffic is to get people out of their cars and onto other modes of transport; relieving traffic by redirecting part of it to a former bus lane will make it more attractive for people to drive, thus worsening the traffic issue you were trying to solve. Allowing motorcycles is an interesting idea though; they don't have a significant edge over cars when it comes to emissions, but they are considerably more space-efficient, in the same way that bicycles are, so convincing people to get out of their car and onto a motorbike could be a valid way of relieving traffic sustainably. That said, you might as well go the whole way and just add protected bike lanes instead, because bicycles are even more space-efficient, are free of emissions, and act as a form of low-intensity exercise (quite handy when you've got an obesity epidemic).
@@rjfaber1991 You make good points, I've seen the "induced demand" argument, but I think it's sometimes taken too far to the point of suggesting that roads should never be widened as it won't ever help. For a given population, I'm sure more road capacity will help, but not proportional to the added capacity. The reality is that some - most probably - people in the US will drive no matter what. And public transit options aren't really viable for many Americans, so they don't really have a viable alternative. They don't choose to drive because wider roads make it easier, they do so because they don't really have a suitable alternative. Likewise with bicycling, for many people their commute is simply too long for bicycling to be feasible. Enticing - or forcing - more people to use public transit or bicycle isn't really realistic in many cases, and I think some people are reluctant to acknowledge this. Especially for suburban-dwelling people in the US. Much as I love bicycling and public transit, I find I don't often have suitable opportunities to use either. This "Induced Demand" idea thinks that demand for roads is highly elastic, and I suspect it's a bit more fixed. Most people need to drive, don't have viable alternatives, and will do so even if its a hassle. And there is finite demand in a given city, a finite number of commuters, a finite population (though in many cities, such as Denver where I live, all of this is growing very rapidly). As for motorcycles, that's the route I've gone, I think it's a better alternative that many people could feasibly use as a second vehicle for commuting in good weather. Far more space efficient, easy to park (this is one of the big perks for going downtown), and much more fuel economical - mine gets 75 mpg. They're so cheap (to buy, run, and insure) that they could be feasible as a second vehicle for most people. I think that a lot of issues - traffic, fuel, parking - could be helped significantly if more people rode motorcycles. As for the emissions thing, at least mine is surely pretty bad - it's a 2002 model but, unlike cars of its era, it is carbureted and has no emissions control systems (catalytic converter). Despite its better fuel economy, it probably puts out more pollutants (other than CO2) than even an SUV of it's timeframe, and vastly more than a modern one even if it's burning 1/5 the gas. Personally I think of CO2 as the bigger concern in the long run, think it's short-sighted to think of a big SUV that puts out tons of CO2 that is more problematic on a larger and longer-term scale as "cleaner" than a motorcycle that puts out other pollutants that are more concerning to a local and near-term scale. CO2 is more out-of-sight out-of-mind, less immediate - until Florida is under water and Colorado is on fire. Also in my case, my regular daily car is a vintage car with no emissions controls either, so the motorcycle is still my cleaner option. Modern motorcycles are better in this regard to my knowledge, but probably still not the same standards as cars. What I'm really hoping for is a reasonable-cost decent-performance (equivalent of say a 250 or 400) electric motorcycle - all the enthusiasts see that as pointless but as a commuter I think it would be the holy grail of economical commuting.
@@quillmaurer6563 I'll return the compliment and say that you make some very good points too, because you do. How elastic the demand is definitely depends on a number of factors, and the US' propensity for urban sprawl is a major reason people have difficulty getting out of their cars even if they would want to. To use that as a reason for continuing to invest in car infrastructure is essentially saying "We can't solve this problem we've created (car dependency) because another problem we've created (urban sprawl) makes it infeasible", where the better solution is to sort out both problems, so I wouldn't go too far with it, but it definitely is an issue that is holding back alternatives to car use in the US, you're spot-on. There is a lot that can be done to alleviate the way urban sprawl promotes car dependency, the most obvious being to loosen zoning restrictions so people can shop for groceries and other essentials in a shop two streets away that they can walk of bike to, instead of having to drive through half the city to get to a massive store with a parking lot the size of Monaco. That said, a lot of damage has already been done, and the US will never be as elastic in its transport solutions as countries with more compact cities, like here in the Netherlands. Doesn't mean that it's impossible to get people out of their cars and onto bikes or public transport, or that it should no longer be a priority to do so, but it will be a bit harder to do, and the results are going to be a bit less impressive. An interesting thing about cycling longer distances, by the way; here in the Netherlands we've recently started constructing 'fietssnelwegen', which literally translates to 'bicycle highways', and they really are a solution to cycling longer distances. They use the same principles as planners from the '50s and '60s pioneered for regular highways (wide lanes, a smooth road surface, gentle curves, grade-separated crossings etc.) but apply them to bike paths. There's currently only one of those in my city, though they're constructing a second at the moment, but I can say they are an absolute game changer when it comes to cycling longer distances. They really make you realise that the thing that's jarring about cycling long-distance is not the distance itself, but the number of times you have to stop for a traffic light or slow down for a particularly sharp curve.
@@rjfaber1991 You're from the Netherlands? I visited Amsterdam last summer and it felt utopian in many ways compared with the US. Actually a first-world country! There are a lot of differences, some of which could be remedied and others would be more difficult. Some of it is due to how US cities are designed, and some is American cultural attitudes, the latter probably a driving factor of the former. Some of this might be possible to change over time, other will be more difficult, but certainly can't be changed even as quickly as expanding freeways. Better public transit could help, I think it sort of has a catch-22. Public transit sort of sucks, so most people don't use it, so they don't see any motivation to invest in it. They don't even believe it could be better. But it could be if it were more prioritized (just think of how far the money spent on expanding freeways could go on it), and if it were run better. One thing I think of is that the commuter train I can take from near my house goes much slower than European commuter trains (such as German S-bahns and other countries' equivalent). Partially because they didn't invest in grade-separation, partially because Americans have much more concern for protecting the least intelligent of our population. If the trains we have ran faster I'd be more interested in using them, but as is it would take more than twice as long to get downtown on the train than riding my motorcycle, and cost 5x as much, so I don't usually bother. The bicycle highway thing sounds nice, and there are some good bicycle routes near me. It's pretty twisty, but mostly grade separated. Though it's mostly designed and used as a recreational path rather than transport, which is how bicycles are regarded here in general. Where I live (Colorado) it's pretty hilly, which would make this more challenging than in the much flatter Netherlands. The bigger problem is that even with bicycle highways, bicycling will take a lot longer, especially for journeys over 15km, and (don't have any data on hand) I think the average commute in the US is longer than. This is another difference between life in the US than in Netherlands, life here is a "rat race." 40 hours per week of working is regarded as a minimum, everything is focused on productivity, everyone is always scrambling to make every second of every day count. In Amsterdam, I was amazed to see people just chilling out, unapologetically doing nothing. Simply enjoying life, not being "productive." This is a difference in culture, and the standard work week is less. That allows more time for less-fast but healthier (and more enjoyable) commuting, while the extra half hour or more each day it takes to bicycle rather than drive would be unacceptable to maxed-out Americans. That was what impressed me most, and I really wish we could have that way of life here, for so many reasons. Life is stressful and difficult here, honestly it sucks!
@@ctlspl but you built those place far away from everything exacly because you could travel long distances. in the past you built to the extent your transportation allowed you to that's why European cities are highly densly populated. we have seen how cars are not sustainable and even if they were they make cities orrible to live in as car infrastructure does not allow it's existance without taking away from any other for of transport. wanna have a parking lot for your car? better move that shop 100m away, what about that other one, 100 more meters, wanna walk to the third shop? what a shame what would have been a 50m walk is now a 300m one... enjoy. oh and we can't hava that park you wanted, we had to pay for the extra water and sewage pipes required to link those three shops... hope your trip by car was worthed becayse you will spend the rest of the hour stuck in traffic :P
@@byfrax2371 Trains are linear modes of transportation, which cannot cover spead out areas. The problem is that US Zoning preferes Single Family Houses, which leads to far less people per square mile than in european cities. That makes public transport inefficient because it has to link far less people over greater distances. That’s why the car is the only viable mode of transportation for American cities.
Public transportation sucks. It's slow, crowded and you have to deal with other people. I had to ride the bus for a week while my car was in the shop and it was terrible. It turned my 10 minute commute into almost 30 minutes each way. Unless you're super poor or live in a dense city then every American already has a car.
@@AC-im4hi Oh god, you're one of those people... Maybe because it's UNDERFUNDED? Why else do you think public transport in Europe is amazing but it's garbage in the US?
@@VeeTHis Becuase no one in the US would dare ride a bus. There's no place I go regularly that takes me more than 15 minutes to get to. I can drive to the store and get a piece of plywood and put in my car. Are you really saying you'd rather walk down the street to the bus stop carrying a bunch of wood? What if it's raining? Do you want to walk in the rain to a bus stop when your car is dry? What if you want to get to a remote mountain? Are you really going to take public transit and then sit at a bus stop hoping to find an uber to take you the last 10 miles? Cars are better and it's not even remotely close.
@@AC-im4hi How often does the average person go to a "remote mountain"? Funding public transport doesn't mean getting rid of cars, you could just rent a car for the day if you wanted
@@VeeTHis : I have to agree with A C on this. Public transit really only works in very densely populated areas. Otherwise, it just isn't practical. Edit: In fact, even in densely populated areas it isn't practical if you have a lot of groceries or other items to transport.
Busses are slow and inefficient in the US because the areas where people get on are spread out and not densely populated. Busses work well when many people want to get from point a to point b. To properly fill a Bus it would have to cruise through too many streets to pick people up, while the others wait to get to the destination.
@@cheddar @Cheddar that's good! BUS lanes are what make taking the bus worth it, because they get stuck in traffic way less often that way. (in here, only cabs and busses can use BUS lanes. There are no carpool lanes anywhere and I honestly don't think they're needed) I'm really sad that you guys didn't have a good planning for public transportation over there, it's the *real* solution to prevent urban traffic congestion. Honestly, maybe use the School Busses as a base, for starters? Idk you seem to have that figured out. In here, kids take the normal bus or subway when needed.
Driving in Atlanta earlier this year, I observed for the first time "HOV" lanes that were e-toll only. In other words, you could not drive in the HOV lane with multiple occupants in your car if you didn't have the electronic pay device.
It only part HOV/Express. When you are right in downtown and the 10 miles near it, they are HOV lanes, however after a certain distance from downtown they turn into Express lanes which require a transponder. I use both regularly, but yes when in the express you can be a single occupant which doesn't necessarily meet the HOV conditions.
@@snowboard246 My point is that, at least from what I could see, you cannot drive in the HOV lane even if you have multiple occupants unless you have to payment device.
@@TheZipeedooThey do it similar in North Carolina you have to have a transponder and you can go on the app and notify them you'll be using the HOV lane toll free with the required 3+ occupants or on the fancy transponder there's an HOV switch or you can pay the toll if you don't have the required 3 occupants in the vehicle
Hey I’m one of them. I use brain. Brain says one more lane. Not being used much. Less congestion on other lanes. Means we all get to travel to our destinations faster. I like brain. Brain smart.
@@masongronen4988 follow the law Mason. You are not allowed in that lane and one day will receive a $500 fine or if there is an accident in that lane, you will be at fault.
@@masongronen4988 Don't act like you're doing it because you're so smart. You're doing it for selfish reasons because you don't want to wait in traffic and don't care about those that are carpooling and have a legal right to use that lane.
What I love about drivers are, you will sit through traffic hell for a long time until you have the novel idea of "you know... If I wake up and leave 30 minutes earlier to beat peak hour traffic, I can get to work in peace." Then suddenly all at once everyone does it and the traffic hell is back again
5 minutes in the morning can make the difference between flying into work with no traffic like a breeze, or being stuck in traffic for a half hour and making you late.
There's actually a term for this -- Braess's Paradox. Alternatively, if you are driving during "rush hour" then you are not stuck "in" rush hour, you ARE rush hour, i.e. _intentionally contributing_ yourself to it.
Personally, I'm super thankful I can work from home these days. Given the steep rise in gas prices reintroducing mass car pooling might be a good way for commuters to save some money, and reducing demand might help keep the price down. More infrastructure and coordination support would be helpful.
Phoenix finally finished their light rail project a few years back. What people don’t understand is that 6 months out of the year, we are in triple digit heat, all hours of the day AND night. Those of us who have office jobs and are required to wear more formal, business attire can’t use the light rail. If we did, we would show up to the office drenched in sweat and having to deal with our superiors who would accuse us of looking disheveled and/or unprofessional. The other 6 months out of the year, the light rail is very useful. I wish they would have considered trying to engineer enclosed, air conditioned stations and better cooling units in the cars. I guarantee you, that would double the number of people willing to use public transit.
The poor public transport in the USA is the root cause, people simply don’t have the option. It is car or nothing. No trains, busses, trams or even bicycles.
Used to ride a subway to work every day - it was great. (Chicago). Now I drive (Detroit). Sucks. I looked at the bus once since at the time I worked next to a SMART hub and there was a bus line about a block away from home - 35 minutes by car, 1.5 hours by bus (winding routes, waits for a transfer, etc.). I drove. I think part of the problem is the chicken and egg thing - mass transit sucks so ridership is small. Ridership is small so there is no reason to expand the mass transit...
I think the bigger issue is the zoning. If I had to take public transit for work and it took 1h it wouldn't be that bad if I didn't also have to walk/cycle/take public transit for 15+min every time I need to buy something. Think of the Netherlands as example. They used to have more car dependent city 50 or so years ago but they gradually made the switch to better public transit & cycling options. Imagine if in your last mile of going back home you could get out of the subway, walk or take a bus getting closer to your home and grab some grocery for half a week because small business are allowed close to living units.
buses are always slower than cars. the numerous stops needed to make buses efficient are also what slows it down. mass transit can't compete on speed, but it can compete on cost
I live in Los Angeles. I have the option to either drive or take the bus to university about 15 miles away. By car, it takes about 30 minutes on the freeway. By bus, 2 hours. It would be much faster if there was a light rail on the route, but the busses I'd have to take use only surface streets.
I’ve never carpooled in my life and don’t ever plan on doing it, but I have been to Europe and Asia and taken competent public transit and I wish I could do that every day.
@@bs4real the United states is not going to stop using cars for a very, very, long time. why would we throw away these resources? modern cars are very clean compared to those in the past. if you want to clean up the air get folks to stop buying all this junk for China as those huge container ships are not exactly green.
I was driving east to west across Toronto during rush hour. The HOV lane was great for the occasional, widely-spaced vehicles that used it, but traffic as a whole would have been more efficient if all vehicles could use all the lanes.
For me, HOV lanes are something of a blessing. My girlfriend in LA County used to work 25 miles from home, and it took over an hour to make the trip in her car. Once I started taking her on my motorcycle, using the HOV lanes and filtering through traffic, that got cut to less than 30 minutes. The obvious reason motorcycles (especially riding like that) aren't the answer for everyone is the risk factor. Even going slowly between lanes can be dangerous, primarily when drivers very suddenly cut from one lane to the next. That's the big reason I appreciate HOV lanes so much; they mostly have solid lines separating them from the next lane, with limited merging sections, so it's far less likely for someone to cut over unexpectedly. LA is actually one of the better places to ride through heavy traffic, since regular commuters are accustomed to motorcyclists filtering (or lane-splitting, if the riders in question have a death wish), and drivers often shift over to give us a little more room to get by.
I would gladly trade in my car for reliable and efficient public transit in addition to Dutch-style infrastructure for cycling and walking. I hate needing a car so much that my current car is my final car.
@@Alexander-jr8nw Are you Romanian or visited Romania? I visited in 2018 and yes, Romanian public transport is not good. Neither is public transport in most of former Yugoslavia. But that’s because it was left over from a different era. In America, it sometimes seems to be bad for the sake of being bad, or because the auto lobby is so strong that it sabotages our public transit. I felt like Bucharest and Brasov (outside of their respective old centers) are insanely car-dependent. Both cities have a lot of wide streets and narrow sidewalks, and no cycling infrastructure. Google Maps doesn’t even show cycling as being an option anywhere in Romania.
@@Alexander-jr8nw What makes it unfortunate about having been born in Romania? It’s an EU nation that gives you access to a lot of good things! What town or city do you live in within Romania? București, Brașov, Oradea, Constanța? Sau altceva?
I actually get to work faster by just avoiding the highway entirely or if I have to by using the toll road. I actually see more wrecks on highways and see a lot less off it.
Is the accident rate on the highway higher than the greater number of cars that travel on it? For example, if the highway has twice as many accidents while moving 3* as many cars, then the highway is safer
Accidents on high ways shut the thing down, but on side streets cars aren’t moving as fast and cars can usually be pushed or driven out of the way since the damage to the car is usually less.
An obstacle to transit other than driving solo for a number of people is employers who are hostile to any kind of flexibility. A decade ago I worked for a well-known US public university in a town that had a very good transit system from which fares had been eliminated. When I started the job I lived in an adjacent town and used a park and ride lot that I had to drive past anyhow and took bus the rest of the way in. The route had to stop directly in front of the building where I worked and buses were on 10 minute intervals during commute times. Even so my management was direct that they considered that an unworkable limitation of my schedule versus parking on campus. They had similar attitudes toward coworkers who tried carpooling
@@Mr_Bubbaz. I presume they expected OP to be "on call", which is such an insane, BS demand on anyone who isn't a cop, fire fighter or EMT. Should not even be something allowed.
This is another perspective that I forgot about that has an impact. In addition to the shear size of the USA, many people do not realize how much we work inthe USA. It is not uncommon for someone to only have 7 personal days off in a year. We have time clocks that flag you as late even if it is only 1 minute. Three strikes and you are fired. It is also not uncommon for a business to have a shift work schedule so people going to work at 00:00 is not unheard of. For a public transport system to work in the US it would need to be running 24/7, cover a vast area of land, and be able to take you anywhere quickly on demand. Unless we all move to massive city apartment buildings and get more leniency on arrival time, personal vehicles are here to stay.
There is no way they could know. Nor could make such a demand unless they were subsidizing your travel. And if you had to get there quick you could have called a taxi...
The big mistake is reducing the number of occupants down to 2, minimum should be three, regardless of family status. Letting "clean emissions vehicles" through with just one person is a slap in the face for HOV.
Why? The ultimate goal is to reduce emissions, so what's the difference if you have 1 regular car with three people versus 3 low-emissions cars producing 1/3 the emissions each?
@@tuxedobob2 The ULTIMATE goal is to reduce the number of vehicles on an already congested roadway. That's why it's in the name! HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE!!! unless you want to name it the Low emissions vehicle lane? The good side effect is lower emissions if there are less vehicles on the road..... the carbon that it takes to generate electricity is another discussion by itself.
When they reduce the requirement is because the lanes are underused. Maybe they should instead toll them and remove any occupancy restriction. The EV privilege should also be lifted since it's essentially a gift for rich people who can afford those cars.
Trolleys and and more light rail from suburbs to where people work or go for food and entertainment is a great option but also allowing more people to work remotely from their homes also greatly reduces traffic. In Phoenix area the HOV lane is a flex lane and is only for HOV during rush hour times. All other times its a passing lane
Another thing that would greatly reduce traffic is not building huge single family residential areas with nothing else in them. With mixed development people wouldn't have to go to a remote location for food or entertainment to begin with. Stop building suburbs and start building villages. America's traffic problem isn't a single thing, they've managed to do almost everything wrong for 60 years and fixing it requires working, little by little, on all fronts. There's no one single thing that'll fix anything, the most important thing I believe is to stop going for bandaid solutions that wont be a building block for future actual change. An awful lot of money is being spent on things that not only does not help, but winds up rendered obsolete if car dependency got reduced.
being from the east coast, i recently went to utah and learned about "flex" lanes, its was something so new to me 😅 a bit weird only because its something different
I am now living in Vienna (Europe, Austria, no kangaroos) and I will sell my car. The car is actually slower than public transport during day time. During the night I have a bus line which stops 5 minutes walk from my flat. And the money I save on insurance, repair, gas can be used for rental cars and taxi/cab (Uber).
For Germany I'd say if you are qualified you can find a good job. On average the wages are lower than in the US and energy is way more expensive, but almost all other goods are similarly priced or even cheaper, Healthcare and healthy food for example. And if you live in a city you don't need a car which saves a lot of money whith current fuel costs of 1.75€ per liter (7.50$ per gallon).
@@sm3675 I'm from Austria. Like most western countries: Depends on what you work as & what place you compare it to. If you compare the pure monetary value with f.e. bigger US cities you earn less, but the overall living costs are lower and the social safety net & public services easily make up for it. (f.e. we pay next to nothing for Healthcare... even though we still complain that we pay too much)
We're more spread out than Europe. If it takes me an extra 20 minutes a day using public transit compared to a car and I work 6 days a week 48 weeks out of a year that's 5760 minutes or 96 hours/year that I will never get back. Parking costs nothing since I park in the garage at my home and at my employer's parking lot.
@@dannydaw59car pool lanes or bus lanes are mostly found in urban areas. The time loss you describe is relative to the amount of cars on the road (traffic jams, bottlenecks, parking spaces) and the quality of public transport. Good public transport can be just as fast or even faster as private cars, it can reduce the need to be spread out and it can reduce travel times for those who still need their cars.... And by the way, the effect of lost time applies to europeans aswell, its not like our governements acknowledge us using public transport and giving us 3 more days off of work.
It would not if we had better transit and many AMERICAN cities in the US and Canada have proven that already. Yes if we’re talking Atlanta, Houston, no way taking a dinky smelly bus will ever be convenient, but the sky train in Toronto, or Boston’s metro system prove what can be done.
@@dannydaw59 because it's a positive feedback loop. You build shite transit, no one uses it, so it gets shafted, so it gets worse, so even less people use it, and so on. America used to have great transit before the age of the car, you've just decided to throw it all away in favour of a less efficient mode of transport. Also, no need to go on about how "we're not like Europe". Not only am I not from Europe, but I'm from a country with an even lower population density than the US, and we still have better transit, so I know that being spread out is no excuse.
@@dannydaw59 and yeah you realise that’s not natural, cities have been bulldozed to make space for roads and make buildings further apart so you have to take a car to get to those places quicker
I’ve lived in America my entire life and I’ve this is the first time I’ve ever heard of a Carpool Lane and I live right off I-95 (or rather I-395 but I’m only 16 minutes from I-95) right in the Northeast Corridor.
Fortunately my commute these days is just a flight of stairs! I think the issue is that the US is very car centric and there is not desire to change this.
It seems like there’s a demand from the people, even if you scroll thru the comments on this video. The issue is rules around zoning, parking minimums, and NIMBY’ism haven’t kept up with this change. And simply don’t allow for communities to be built in a way that would allow for other efficient, effective, and cost effective modes of transportation.
You also CAN'T change this. Where it might make sense to do it, there isn't enough space left. Where there is enough space, people live and work too far apart to bother. This is definitely a situation where it needed to be fixed while the cities were growing.
@@user-K8T could you explain to me why it is unchangeable? To me, it seems that a proper public transit network takes up less space for the same capacity than the car infrastructure that is currently in place.
@@julian-xy7gh Because you can't and won't get rid of the car infrastructure. You still need cars to get to a lot of places in the US since there is a LOT of rural area. So, you'd need all the land and space and money that it takes to set up decent train transit within and between cities. Which means land acquisition which is massively expensive and often forces families and groups out of areas where they've lived for generations. Something that hits the disadvantaged the hardest. And that doesn't even touch on the physical limitations like mountainous terrain and rivers. Plus, the US does have a fairly widespread train system. I haven't lived anywhere where I couldn't take a train from the general area where I live to the town where my parents live (except when I lived in a nearby town, of course). And their town isn't particularly big. I almost always choose to drive when I could because it takes between 5 and 7 hours longer to take a train rather than drive. We CAN beef up the existing train infrastructure. But we aren't and don't plan on it, so creating something entirely new is practically laughable.
You can't fix something that isn't a problem. Cars are more efficient on the 90% of low density land where public transportation would be too costly and inefficient. Things like buses and trains cannot get you to your destination in low density areas. And even if there is a bus stop near you or a train near you AND near your destination, taking that bus or train into the city or to another location could take anywhere from 30 minutes to 3 hours of total time between waiting, transferring, etc. People are making rational choices based on maximizing their utility. You are failing to understand the decision making involved.
I have an idea about how to improve carpool lanes. Have many buses attached to each other, and make the lane into tracks, so lane is better fixed and more efficient. Then make it so that you don't have to stop in traffic lights if you're on that lane, maybe bridges or tunnels or something, then stop them at various points where people are likely to get on and off...
They're called busways-- a separate roadway, often grade-separated, exclusively for buses. Minimal traffic lights, where required at grade crossings. Walls or railings separate them from the surrounding environment. Los Angeles has one or two. The G (Orange) Line runs in the San Fernando Valley. It is going to get some upgrades, such as new grade-separated crossings, in the next few years. The J Line runs east from downtown L.A. on a dedicated busway. It also has a portion running south in the toll/transit lanes from downtown L.A., with some buses going as far as San Pedro. Sad to say, the buses must go on surface streets in downtown. They also have higher fares than all the other buses and rail in the Metro system. The buses are not joined as trains, though articulated buses (longer buses that bend in the middle) can run on them.
cry more trainposter trains are great for the densest routes, bad for everything else, which is why they generally have to be fed by feeder routes from a second mode of transport, eg. ...buses. even in the most transit friendly cities, only few people have the privilege of living near a train station.
@@sublivion5024 "a short walk" LOL How short? Just because you can walk somewhere doesn't mean you want or will. I grew up 500m (750m walk) from the nearest rail station and 1.5km (2km walk) from a second rail station, and most of my trips still involved a bus ride in part because the 2nd station was the hub and the bus stop was right on the doorstep of my apartment complex, making life a lot easier for everyone. If the city ended bus service and forced people to walk, trips would have been a lot more miserable. There is a big difference between "usable" and "desirable". My home "town" is pretty rare in having a fully grade separated bike road connecting the whole region, so biking may also be an option if the hub has good bike parking, but the point is walking sux and is not a solution.
@@sublivion5024 Or, to put in simpler terms: London rail daily ridership: 2-4 million London bus daily ridership: 6 million Why would they take the bus when they can simply walk, hm?
In the Bay Area, carpool lanes are practically just as congested as the regular lanes. We have so many EVs around here, that the only way to avoid traffic is to drive at off hours, or to avoid the freeways altogether.
as someone who lives in a big city (Philadelphia) I'm so glad I haven't needed my car ONCE since I'm moved here a year ago. in the long run, it's far far cheaper and more environmentally friendly to bike, use public transit, and yes even Uber.
And at the hours you need to be there. I would love to take the bus if it didn't mean riding for three hours to cross a distance I could drive in 45 mins and hoping that the bus actually runs more than hourly at 5am on a weekend.
Already traded in my car for (relatively) easily accessible public transit and shorter walking distances to get to where I need to go. A great part of the problem with HOV lanes is that they didn't stick with the original concept, of buses and public transport vans only. HOV-2 is ridiculously low occupancy.
Back when my parents drove to work together, it was a 3 passenger HOV. So they'd pick up someone waiting for a bus, and drive them there for free, so they could use the HOV. Then they lowered the qualifications to 2 passengers, and that was that.
As someone who lives in a small town, and avoids car pool lanes at all cost. I always wondered why car pool lanes are furthest to the left but exits are furthest to the right. Meaning you have to merge right through 3-4 lanes of traffic to exit the Express way? 🤔
Yup! In my experience it's super unsafe because everywhere else is congested. Especially in LA where I see the most carpool lanes. Express lanes in Chicago don't function in the same way.
Having never heard of this concept before, it seems like such a silly idea tbh^^ It feels like one of those cases where someone with influence just had this idea and really pushed it through, despite being second rate at best, and the money and effort could be used far better with some other ideas that got sacrificed for it.
@@demoniack81 This isn't mutually exclusive. You can't convert an HOV lane into a train or tram line. You can convert them into bus-only lanes (or at least bus + semi only lanes).
I live in metro Detroit, to make it here you have to own a car since nothing is truly in walkable distance, and the only form of public transit is sketchy unreliable bus service.
HOV is a paradox. The more it's used the more congested it gets. The more congested the regular lanes get, the more people cheat. Implement a strict "keep right, pass left" regime and eliminate speed limits. If you're serious about carpooling, replace those HOV lanes with high-speed rail.
"Implement a strict 'keep right, pass left' regime and eliminate speed limits." - You're making an assumption that people know how to drive, and will drive in a manner aimed at benefiting everyone rather than just themselves. This sounds like Germany, their Autobahns sound a lot like what you're thinking, and they work well. But drivers are held to much higher standards there than in the US, and they have a culture that believes more in the collective good. I don't think this would work in the US.
@@quillmaurer6563 I'm actually in Canada but whatever. I think it can happen in America, the Germans have an interesting degree of natural selection in their drivers. Drive too slow and you're going to get flashing high-beams and even honks to get your attention. In my Province, the Motor-Vehicle Act outlines that drivers can be ticketed for impeding traffic, especially on a freeway. I think a few "driving too slow, fail to keep right" tickets might be what we need.
My problem is that they seem to take up two lane's worth of concrete. So they had better be 'averaging' twice the speed of the regular lanes just to make up for their size. From what I can tell this is usually not the case.
"What do you think?" I think you never actually answered your headline about how they "make traffic worse". You headed in that direction, but rather than actually showing examples, you just went to the textbook full of calculus equations and really just totally lost your audience there. I was expecting actual images and examples of the cases where the HOV lane didn't help (like, say, I-66 outbound in Virginia leaving the 495 beltway and heading through Fairfax - very much a case where the HOV lane can actually be worse than the main lanes). It didn't work to just show some formula highlighted like i'm supposed to just take it as if that's a real thing. There's a lot in here that's good, but when the headline grabber is the one segment that is the most obscured in the presentation, not a good final product.
The answer is simple. Cars without extra passenger can not use that HOV lane so there is more crowd and the traffic is slower. That's because in many cases those HOV line are not new lanes but rather adopted previously existing ones. In places where you had 4 lanes now you have only 3 because one was given to those who carry passenger, but there is not too many of them. Therefore 1% of driver suddenly got a faster lane but 99% lost 25% of lanes.
@@SpokoSpoko that's not a correct assumption, that the lane isn't a "new" lane. In every situation of new lanes in Virginia and Maryland (I-66 outside the beltay, Dulles Toll Road, I-95 into DC, the I-495 Virginia beltway HOT lanes, I-95 on the northern side of Baltimore, and US 50 coming in from Annapolis), the lanes were newly constructed as HOV upon conception. This is also true for the lanes of I-85 leading in to Atlanta outside the 285 beltway, and the new lanes just added to I-77 southbound into Charlotte. So in my experience, having driven all of these routes before and after the lanes were created over the last 30 years, your presumption is incorrect.
recently I drove down i-95 south of Virginia the complete length of the HOV/toll lane. it probably saved me 30 minutes but then I looked at my EZ pass statement and the 15 mile drive cost $30. not sure if it was worth it
Covid upended this alot with more people working from home. But if you really want to reduce traffic, mixed use planning, so people don't have to drive as far, and well connected street networks reduce traffic more than Transit does, and is alot cheaper to implement
Goverments should support remote working even if no pandemic at all. Tax rates should be lowered. So companies will support that idea. So no gasoline spends. No enviromental damage is happens too.
That’s amazing!!!! In Europe we can only rely on Buses, Trains, bicycles, rickshaws, and in some areas, horses are still popular in inner city travel (luxury carriages and cheap carriages)
I kinda miss using transit, but gettin my own car has given me way more freedom. It's given me 2 extra hours of my day, and I'm standing around in the rain a lot less. Im also at a lot less risk of catching covid, or getting attacked/robbed, by being on a buss. But for carpooling, I don't have any co workers who work the same/similar shift as myself, or live near me.
The fact that 2 people counts as "high occupancy" blows my mind in a sad way. HOV lanes to make intercity buses better seem fine, maybe even good. It's kind of infuriating that they're not used as express lanes for buses any more.
I've pondered this thought, usage of bus lanes as HOV and/or toll express lanes. The goal isn't just higher occupancy, it's to have lanes that some traffic can use but not enough to jam it up. The primary goal of the lane, the reason for its existence, is for buses to use without being slowed by traffic in a regular lane. But buses are likely to come by once every few minutes at best, leaving the lane otherwise unused. It makes sense to allow some cars to use it, at the very least relieving some traffic from the general purpose lanes, but not everyone for free as then it would be just as jammed as the other lanes. So they want to have some selective way of selectively allowing some but not all traffic to use it - either a toll or an occupancy requirement, in a lot of cases motorcycles are allowed to use it free (justified by them being more efficient than cars). Set this to a level (either toll or number of people) that will allow it to be reasonably well utilized but not jammed.
@@BatCaveOz mate this guy lives in *the UK* and you think he doesn't know what bus lanes are? what he meant was that only in america do you see former high capacity bus lanes being transformed into low capacity, polluting car lanes, increasing congestion due to induced demand.
I'm also UK, and we have an HOV lane on a major route. The road in question was built to reduce congestion on a nearby road, which worked. However, they then introduced the HOV lane (between 07:00 and 10:00) which caused congestion, and drivers reverted to their original route. Result: 2 congested main routes + 1 barely used HOV lane.
In the Virginia part of the DC region, there is (or at least was) a practice known as slugging, where a driver would pick up a stranger going to the same part of the District (or elsewhere inside the Beltway) and give them a one-way ride through the HOV lanes.
Some might call that cheating, but it actually is entirely the goal of HOV lanes - to encourage people to drive together rather than everyone in their own car. I call that a total win. I'd think this could be made even better with modern apps (which the city or transportation department could provide) where drivers and passengers can be matched up, a rideshare thing (this was what Lyft and Uber, calling themselves "rideshare," claimed to be, but in reality they are gig-worker taxi services). I think I've heard of programs like that, to help match up carpoolers, but haven't heard much success. I think they're typically designed around recurring situations, help match up people who live and work near each other to find each other and carpool regularly, but something designed for one time situations would make sense too.
I was about to comment this. The Slug Lines are fascinating as they came about completely informally without government support. Sadly the pandemic has taken its toll on the number of people commuting so the Slugs are dying.
Sounds like where you live could stand to build more. If there's enough demand to fill them to capacity then there's enough demand to give them more space.
@@tompeled6193 Induced demand exists no matter what. It's all about what type of demand you want to induce. In this case, would you rather have everyone in their own car, with more cars out there pumping crap into the air, or would you rather people carpooled?
@@TheLazySleeperLives Theoretically more HOV lanes would help with that given that they'd help reduce bus travel time. And personally I'm a fan of larger measure than HOV lanes, but I'm trying to keep my arguments topical.
basically carpool is a flawed solution that makes an already big problem slightly less bad by like 1 to 2 % with no majour reconsiliation of what the issue actually is. a bit like EVs they are better than regular cars but the solution is no car at all so it's hard to say no at all because they do something... it's just that there are better alternatives out there way under used that get ignored in favour of them...
@@DavidKen878 sure if one person decides to live in the middle of nowhere they may need to use a car, but going out of your way to artificially make the middle of nowhere every suburb does seem like incentivising car usage for no reason at all. Not everyone wish to live in an apartment and. It everyone wish to live in a field. But in the US you have no alternatives to those two. And considering most people lives in Europe in multifamily housing that isn't an Appartment I'd say most of us issue are fabricated to be this way.
The EU has over twice the population of the US in half the size. We'd have to pay more proportionally for less of a common benefit in order to get a similar public transit system. Frankly that's not going to work for most people and places in the US. Keep these systems run by the areas who use them.
@@jeremiahblake3949 True, but what we COULD do is go back to building our suburbs more like the old small towns, garage in the back, corner stores pakcing in the back for them, real neighbroods where you can walk ort bike around town and save the care for going out of town or talking large amounts of goods Streetcraft has great video about this called "We might be able to fix the suburbs"
Buses can still be used by buses, so they’re still useful for transit. Buses around Toronto frequently use them to skip past traffic. Also, just because other drivers don’t like them doesn’t mean they’re not good. Lots of those same drivers probably hate bike lanes, but that doesn’t make those bad. Park-and-rides, however, are pretty terrible. They take up huge amounts of space, provide minimal actual benefit due to low capacity, and affirm the auto-orientated nature of a neighbourhood for years to come.
I think I have to disagree with you about park & ride lots. You're never going to get buses to stop at everyone's home -- or even at everyone's neighborhood. There is no practical alternative to what to do about what's called the 'last mile". So it is necessary to at least allow and encourage people to use their cars to get from their homes to a central location where they can meet up to carpool or catch a bus. Also, I can't help noticing the internal inconsistency in your statement that park & ride lots "take up huge amounts of space and provide minimal actual benefit due to low capacity." That's like Yogi Berra saying "Nobody goes there anymore -- it's too crowded."
@@Milesco You can’t stop at everyone’s home or block, sure, but everyone’s neighbourhood? That’s pretty easy? Even small Canadian cities with mediocre transit services generally can get a bus to every neighbourhood every half an hour or so. As long as you’re not elderly or disabled, the two to three block walk to a bus stop isn’t some great struggle. There’s no inconsistency in that statement? Cars are massive, so even a parking lot for just 500 cars is large, while only being able to fill up, like, 10 buses, two LRT vehicles, or less than one subway car. Now *bike* park and rides, those make sense, because you can easily 8-10 of those in the space of one car, with significantly less infrastructure needed to surround those parking spaces.
I agree that idea of park & ride does will never bring intended effect in american suburbia. As you said, it takes a lot of space, and still implies that you have to have a car, as those stations are not pedestrian friendly. While the problem was to transit traffic going through neighbourhood, they designed them in a branching pattern without any shortcuts for pedestrians, cyclists, and potentially buses, making them travel same, or more than a car. That's right, buses are not gonna work in suburbs NOT because they are not dense enough, but because they have to go in circles to get everywhere. You know what park & ride stations would would work great? Bicycle ones. You get on a 5min ride to a train station and from there it's straight line towards the city centre without bulky bike (with branches using buses or trams to fill the network).
As soon as enough people use the HOV lane that it's actually "doing it's job" of reducing single drivers, then it becomes busy enough that it loses it's advantage of being a faster lane. Clearly the answer is that we all just need to drive faster.
You're 100% right. There was a theory concerning why traffic happens that I ran across years ago. The analogy they used was comparing traffic volume to water pressure. The more cars are on the road, the faster the speed needed to be in order to maintain the same flow rate. it was a bit of an eye opener. It would also be helpful if people did not pace the car next to them.
We need to have a broader conversation about the individual vehicle ownership model itself. If we were to replace the entire fleet with electric vehicles tomorrow, we'd still be wasting away our lives sitting in traffic. In the near term, a massive expansion of bus routes (and improving the experience) is an obvious choice. But in the mid- to longer term, we need to get with the program and start building out rail.
Honestly, I think the conversation shouldn't revolve around cars, but single family zoning. With more densely populated urban areas, the rest will follow suit.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 Then don't live in a city. It's literally that simple. Plenty of people are willing to live in apartments and have better lives free of shit traffic all around them. If you want rural life, then live in rural areas. Suburbs just make things worse for everyone.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 Well don't live in an apartment lol. It's that simple. Move to the countryside or something. No reason to do something you hate, man. There are plenty of remote jobs nowadays. Get one of those and move somewhere you can be close to nature. Personally I love my apartment downtown. It's comfortable, well located and has good access to everything I need. To each their own.
I did a roadtrip from Boston to Fort Lauderdale and back with one of my friends and we would never use the HOV lane, we made better time by not using them, because unless there is a double HOV lane you cannot pass and we cruise much faster than most drivers.
@@chemicalfrankie1030 there are many issues with American drivers, our highway lane etiquette is terrible. Germany autobahns have unrestricted speed limits in most places when it’s not pouring rain, and their casualty rates are lower than American highways. In Europe and Germany people always stay in the right lane except to pass, their standards are higher and their drivers are better, it helps with traffic flow. American drivers fail to grasp many concepts like the zipper merge or passing lanes.
My small-ish town had a designated pick-up spot, kind of like hitchhiking. The problem is 1. there's not really that much in it for the driver unless they want someone to talk to while they drive, and most drivers don't, and 2. it's occasionally been used to commit crimes against drivers. And yes, I've used it as a passenger. But as a driver, it's kind of like "what's the point?" and therein lies the problem.
I tried taking the train when I lived 25 miles outside of the city, but I worked a lot of overtime so getting the train home was a hassle. In the morning sometimes I'd get to the station 30 minutes early if traffic was light. So it just became easier to take the car. Carpooling was not an option due to irregular hours.
When I lived in Orange County CA for a couple months I commuted to Hollywood. For a while I tried the train, but it was slower than driving - even with LA traffic. Public transit has to be faster than owning a car by a lot if it will catch on in the U.S.
It also presumes that people will be willing to give up homeownership and move to an apartment building with 300 other people in it in the city. The USA is huge and the majority of the population lives in the suburbs or rural areas. Public transportation would be better if more people needed / wanted it. For most people it is not geographically viable with where they live.
@@Kriss_L I suggest you guys watch the youtube channels Not Just Bikes and City Beautiful, among others. Those 2 channels have plenty of videos on how to improve cities in North America.
@@Kriss_L I suggest you guys watch the youtube channels Not Just Bikes and City Beautiful, among others. Those 2 channels have plenty of videos on how to improve cities in North America.
So true. I live about 32 miles from my BF. If I drive, it takes me around 30 minutes w/o traffic. It takes me about 1 hour with traffic. If I take BART (Mass transit) it takes about 50 minutes and my station is only 8 blocks (walking) away. I only see negatives taking mass transit, no positives. I still have to walk to the station (18 minutes) and he has to pick me up at the station down there. So all in all, it takes far longer and more effort to take mass transit than driving.
It's not just a city planner issue, or at least it's much less on them. Politicians control a lot of this, and they are motivated to not understand things. Worse, local politicians often can't even affect this for the better if they want to, it's under the control of regional or even state government bodies. Like in Austin Tx, the state government is trying (and hopefully won't succeed) in forcing a 20 Lane highway onto it's own capital city, which has consistently rejected that approach which has proven to fail because of induced demand. See Houston, which also expanded to a 23 Lane highway and traffic times INCREASED by 30%.
We need to stop subsidizing the suburbs and make them pay for their own infrastructure. If their taxes matched what their lifestyles cost the rest of us, they'd learn the value of density real quick.
Um no. We can't just bulldoze the suburbs and rebuild everything. It's 2021, we don't have the birthrate for that. Instead we should invest in a better layout of the suburbs. Less stroads, better sidewalks and bikelanes on the main streets, and help local buissnesses instead of big box stores.
The federal government should stop backing loans/mortages for properties in single-family-housing areas that restrict height construction, have parking requierements and minimum lot sizes. The Federal government should also stop funding infrastructure for these areas. To get Federal funding and loan backing, the property should be at a walkable distance from a public transit station and have non of the restrictions mentioned above.
I’ve always looked at the car vs bus (or carpool) question like the packet switching versus hard line for phones and data. Packet switching is so much better for sending something to a specific destination. A packet doesn’t have to keep a whole line connected all the way from one device to another. Same is true with a car. I can hop in my car get to where I need to go and be free to leave as soon as I’m ready. I’m also not stuck going wherever the bus is going. I can drive there myself. If our goal is to reduce emissions (and it should be) we should be looking at innovating ways to make less emissions more convenient than my current best option.
@@gahbah274 yeah I realize that. It’s a way to send information over a network. It is split into little packets and each one finds its own route to the destination. It can avoid traffic congestion by finding another route,. Because it is a small packet it doesn’t keep your phone line busy, etc.
Nice analogy as a programmer. I will try my own analogy. For packet switching public transport, we have something called "bicycles". The problem with cars is their bigger MTU compared to the number of data inside the packet, leading to congestion. Bus and trains has bigger MTU, but they also have bigger data inside it, maximizing efficiency. Bicycles have small data inside but smaller MTU.
I mean we are talking about roads so at most I would expect trams, but even then in my corner of Europe trams often get their own concrete free lanes in the middle of a wide median.
I don't drive to work and end up driving almost solely at off-peak times. My problem with HOV lanes is that they are the far left lane (where I live) and for some reason people insist on driving in them even when they're driving slower than the rest of traffic. People are usually pretty good about keeping to the right when driving slow but HOV lanes do not follow this for some reason. So I end up having to pass them on the right.
In my experience, HOV drivers will be either slower or much faster than others. The slower ones are the ones attempting to go the speed limit (because everyone here speeds). The faster ones basically treat it like a secondary passing lane, which around here is not used for passing so much as going progressively faster the further left you go. When they get tired of the people cruising at speed limit they use the passing lane for actually passing.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 I am totally fine with that. But then speed limits need to be reasonable (I.e. much higher than the current ones) and people should keep to the right when driving under the speed limit.
I used to love riding public transport, it cut my daily time behind the wheel from an hour and a half to less than fifteen minutes. Then last month my car got stolen from the bus stop parking lot. Haven’t been able to convince myself to ride it since.
At least where I live in northern California, when traffic jams up it includes the HOV lane because over half the drivers in the lane are by themselves. They have no problem essentially breaking the law because you never see CHP patrolling it. Considering the insane $500+ fine it could be a massive cash cow for the state but instead you only see CHP pulling speeders over when the roads are open which in itself can cause congestion from the idiots that think a cop will immediately let their current speeder go because your doing 10 over by going 75 in a 65. Drives me insane when you see the brake lights because someone is pulled over.
I do find it a bit absurd how it seems like cops focus primarily on speeding - not a particularly dangerous thing under most circumstances in which it's possible - yet don't do much about other things that are much more frustrating or dangerous. Like texting while driving, littering (including cigarette butts, which is infuriating in Colorado where everything is on fire half the time) or failing to signal. I'm guessing because speeding is relatively unambiguous and easy to prove with a radar gun, and in many cases a pretty big fine. A better cost-benefit for the officer, even if not the most useful thing they could do.
Covid threw a wrench into traffic in my city (Chicago). We have a fairly good public transit system, but after 2020, the covid risk , the crime increase and the overall decline in reliability made public transit far less desirable. Now, a 15 mile commute takes an hour and a half, express lanes be damned.
They should ticket the slow drivers and ban them from the HOV for life. If they do that then the HOV will never work. The best solution is rails with frequently scheduled trains. Cities have been tearing out rails instead of putting them in. It is crazy.
I feel like the best solution would be to set up a good passenger rail system and bus rapid transit system to reduce road usage, and modify lanes layouts, with a typical 4 lane road I’d change it to have 1 lanes for buses and emergency vehicles, 1 lanes for carpools, 1 lane for lorries and vans, and only one lane for single occupancy cars. That way, most people see the normal lane full of cars, and are spurred to take a carpool or better yet, a bus or train, heavily reducing the cars on the road. Adding new lanes to be carpool lanes is a mistake I feel, but using my system would make driving worse for people, and therefore reduce cars on the road. That’s why you also need buses and trains to provide good alternatives.
Paired with public transit er must create less convenient car use. Like less parking space. No free parking. Detours for cars, while BUSSES and bicycles can go the shortest route.
@@th5841 yep I agree, but my suggestion of reducing car lanes helps a lot too. If you see a bus going down the road at 60mph while you’re stuck in a single lane traffic jam you’re gonna reconsider driving next time.
@@justanotheryoutubechannel Agreed. That's why I said "Paired with..." We'd like to choose the fastest, cheapest and/or the most convenient alternative.
Well, after all the "car bad, bus/train good" videos everywhere, this is a point I haven't heard before. Although there are basically no HOV lines in Europe, so I should have seen this coming
I mean it's true, cars are way too prominent in transportation. That doesn't mean it doesn't have its place, it can still be important if you need to haul a lot of things or if you need to go from one far remote location to another, but in most cases this is not the case
In Europe we call them Bus lanes. Depending on the city taxis can use them too. Our highways also do not have so many lanes like the typical US highway. I think buslanes are the more effective way. Especially when combined with traffic light which gives the bus priority. Drivers see the bus overtaking them every day. If the bus is faster more people will use it.
In urban areas, I find taking (good) public transport much more enjoyable than driving and for short commutes, I love cycling. However in the low density rural region I currently reside, I think the car makes much more sense (or compact truck tbh). In regards to the HOV lane, I can honestly that its presence had NEVER induced me to carpool. I have used them when naturally carpooling but rarely felt like they truly made a difference. I like what Atlanta has done with their old HOV lane, which is to make it a tolled express lane. I rarely choose to use it but every once in a while I'm in more of a hurry when crossing Atlanta and love that I can opt for a faster experience in exchange for a few dollars. When it comes to travel in the US, the car is certainly the answer, but I would so quickly switch to trains if they were a real option.
It's not the HOV lane to blame on 5 lane highway. It's the bike lanes in the busy city with 2 bikes passing per 30 min and the 2 bus lanes with every 10 minutes passing interval per bus.
I would love to see more car sharing but I don't see how it's possible when so many of us start and end shifts at completely different times and live in completely different areas. I had just one coworker who lived near me, and our start and end times were an hours off from each other. Now I have a kid. Who's going to ride with me and wait while I go pick up my son? No one I know.
The thing about non-car centric infrastructure is that you don't have to give up your car. many cities in Netherlands were concrete wastelands, but after they started changing things to use less cars, travel times by car *improved* even with less lanes.
No matter how good public transportation gets, one thing that will always suck ass is being locked into its schedule. Not to mention the inability to change your route on the fly or make spontaneous stops. The flexibility of a personally operated vehicle is unrivaled
I live in Los Angeles and in 52 years, I have never met anyone in a carpool except for the vanpools that come from Palmdale to El Segundo, aerospace sponsored vanpools. All the car pool lanes due is clog up the rest of the lanes resulting in far more pollution and burning more gas.
I love driving, all my vehicles are fun & sporty. However, if public transit could somehow get me to work as quickly as my car does, I'd take it in a heartbeat even if I had to leave a few minutes earlier.
Personally, I love my humble ol' hatchback, and love even more to carpool my friends. But a big part of me feels that if in my country, there was more efficient public transport, i wouldnt hesitate. Solo drive is a fascinating experience but public transport has such a smaller footprint when more people adopt it
Thank you for this. It has always annoyed me that children count towards the HOV number, even babies (in my State). If your kids cannot drive, it’s not carpooling. You are not taking a car off the road. In my area, most carpool lanes are full of married adults and families - natural carpool. No one is actually changing their lifestyle to “carpool” and take a car off the road. It would be the same. I am okay with certain times a day carpool around the 8-5 commuter hour M-F, but when the lane stays HOV 24/7 all you are doing is giving natural carpool a benefit.
I'd rather see the carpool lane with more cars than less... Helps disperse the entire freeway better... While we are at it, we should allow motorcycle lane splitting on a federal level. A) it makes more room for cars B) it would encourage more people to ride motorcycles, which also makes more room for cars, which equals less congestion. Win/Win
@@jordesign motorcycle lane splitting isn't allowed because its dangerous, but then again I'm shocked how here in CT you aren't even required to wear a helmet on one so i guess who cares about safety. I also never even considered riding with family to be a carpool before. To me a carpool was 2 people riding together to the same destination so they didn't all have to drive, and not a family of 4 going on vacation.
"Spacious garages and workplace parking lots encouraged a car-centric lifestyle." No. Single-family-residential-only zoning and a serious lack of efficient and convenient public transportation _mandated_ a car-centric lifestyle.
Yep. The tinfoil hat brigade see some pro-car conspiracy. The reality is it was land speculation and development. Developers bought cheap land and built the houses that they could make the most profit on. That led to car-based infrastructure to support it.
Yes. It's not like I look at my work parking lot and garage and say to myself, "If only i could put more cars in here." I have the amount of vehicles it takes to get what I need to get done done.
I did get a house within walking distance of entertainment, and the property owner kicked the tenants out because lack of revenue during the pandemic. So many empty commercial properties around me now, so I drive more. It's not what I wanted.
The "serious lack of ... public transit" comes from disinvestent in public transit in favor of car infrastructure. People really like to forget about this, but planners in the 50s and 60s seriously thought and talked about how they could get everyone into a car. This is because this is what people wanted due to cultural pressures of various kinds. Consequently, our built environment was adapted to what people wanted. If you think about it, we did this to ourselves. We wanted it, the government obliged. It turned out to be a very stupid and unrealistic idea. You can't have everyone drive everywhere. It's just physically impossible to have that much parking and highway lanes, unless you have multi-level highways and parking deserts at every destination.
It is now up to us to convince enough people to demand that the government change tack.
@@wclark3196 The developers could not have done that if the government hadn't build highways into the boonies. Go buy a plot of farmland in the middle of nowhere and build a bunch of houses there without any road infrastructure, see how many you sell.
I find it hard to believe that none of the comments above mention the fact that big oil had a huge impact and influence on American lifestyles in the 20th century
I enjoy driving long distances. However, for day-to-day need, I would give up my car in a heartbeat if I could rely on public transit.
For my day-to-day commutes I bicycle. Four miles each way.
@@Stratelier Does it get icy where you live?
Same! I don't even own a car, whenever I want to travel I rent one, on a day to day basis I use the bus
(Needless to say I don't live in America)
@@dannydaw59 Generally, no, though I _have_ bicycled through snow and ice on occasions.
@@dannydaw59 Finlanders regularly bike through snow without issue.
In many big cities today, especially in the USA, it's impossible to trade in your car for public transport because there is NO useful public transport between most of the residential areas and the business / commercial areas, thus if you have to have the expense of a car you tend to use it in preference to anything else.
Exactly. I live in a city where public transport "goes everywhere," so a lot of people either choose not to drive or say you don't need to. But it's not convenient to have catch a train and then take a 20 minute bus ride after waiting 20 mins for it.
yeah and that is the basic problem, US is built on (at least rebuilt) on a car centric view, this lead to the creation of a suburban based lifestyle, where a car is essential, since the car is needed, of course people use more cars and this mean less investment on public transport and this mean even less people wants to use it. I don’t think the US will ever change on this and it makes me sad as an italian who lives in a city where a car is still probably needed but u are able to use it very few times
Its impossible to take public transit from the suburbs because people in the suburbs show up in droves to oppose public transportation at council meetings because they think it will fill their neighborhoods with poor people. Otherwise, everywhere would have public transportation lol.
@@ertavampy4622 I've seen public meeting against the construction of light rail networks in a suburb, but not seen any objection to the establishment of buses lines in a suburb.
So I suspect the issue is more along the lines of the buying back of land and work required for the public transport systems than anything else. However, regardless of the reason, it's why the public transport should be planned for in the initial development application and in place from day one.
@@ernestbywater411 its like that here in south Florida, buses everywhere in poor areas, but they don't go much of anywhere useful because all of the businesses people work at aren't in poor areas. Can't tell you how often I had to walk an extra mile or two because there are no cross over bus stops.
The main issue with the entire concept of carpooling is that you have to know someone who basically has the same schedule as you, but also lives at a reasonable distances away from you and your destination. So, this probably only applies to people working full time or at an office where their hours are set in stone.
If those conditions aren't met, then it'd make more sense to just take a bus if you're going to spend time driving east of the Mississippi to your friends house first
Which is basically impossible in a sprawl environment. The homes and jobs are so spread out that having matching commutes with someone else get increasingly rare.
I would give up my car in a heartbeat. When I was stationed in Germany, all we did was ride public transportation. It was so easy to get around town and my kids actually looked forward to riding the buses and trains. Taking public transportation really does force people to get out and see their community from a different perspective.
I'd rather be able to go directly to and from my destination
Public transportation sucks
I guess most people who say that public transportation sucks have never lived in an european city with an actual effective transportation system lol.
@@IroAppe public transport won't bring me right to my house or workplace, my car will
@@mwbgaming28 In most of Europe it actually will. Intra city public transport has a very large amount of stops, if you know their route of schedule they can drop you very close to your destination, about as close as available parking, sometimes more, reliably and on time.
It's a hell of a lot less of a hassle than cars for regular commute. Not saying cars have no use, I use one, for long distance irregular travel, public transport doesn't account that well for those cases. But for work? Unless you work in the middle of frigging nowhere like in a summer camp or something, buses or trams can probably take you there.
One big factor I feel that has driven the decrease in carpooling is just the reduced job schedule reliability, It's a lot harder to find a coworker you get along with who is also commuting in the same direction/along the same path as you who has the same schedule, and that becomes nigh impossible if your job doesn't have set schedules and the shifts you work change from week to week.
That's true. In my case a lot of people at my work live in the same general area/direction I live. I started at a local warehouse for a courier company (competitor of FedEx) without a car. On the night shift I was working there were about 20-25employee and about 10 lived in the eastern part of the city and use the only highway going East-West bound right in the middle of the city. I would carpool everyday with a coworker and if they were on vacation I'd take a lift from someone else, all they had to do is take the service road for 1exit/entrance and they were back on the highway.
I went to the city's HUB, more employee and still many living either close to me, a tad more east or north/south of where I live. At worst they'd have to take a nigh bus to get to the service road and wait for one of the other employee to pick them up, saving a good hour or so of transit.
Honestly the weekly schedule changes some retail corporations have are criminal and should be illegal. People aren't robots, they need to be able plan recreation and vacations. Which is probably why they do this...so you can't.
Family obligations are another reason for commuting solo. As a working mother I don’t want to strand a coworker because I had to leave work early for an emergency or an after school event or appointment. However carpooling with kids to school was much easier due to common schedules and location.
@@dearyvettetn4489 I guess it depend on where you are. Most people don't have to leave work early too often, in many workplace the schedules are quite rigid. Having to leave solo in public transit 1 per month isn't much of an issue.
@@gahbah274 : I used to work in retail, and I agree 100%. I don't know why they do that -- it just doesn't make any sense. It's terrible for the employees, and I can't see any benefit on the business side.
The main problem seems to be lack and the quality of public transport.
the main problem is US cities density. you can't expect to have a functioning public transport with people living so far appart in the suburb. but if you can't have high density you must accept orrible traffic and road infrastructure everywhere. that's the reality of things, traffic or density, no middle ground.
@@herlescraft Europe and Japan would disagree with you on that :)
@@herlescraft Americans lov bringing this up as an excuse for Terrible public transport
Russia ,China and Japan are all doing this in sparsely populated areas
@@antlerman7644 like how, tell me where i could find a city with the same density as austin in europe that has good public transport... oh wait, there are not with such a low density
@@gidd ok, let's test what you said, look at satellites pictures of any japanese city and of austin and compare the two... spot the difference? US cities are made to force you to use the car at the expense of any other form of transport.
I appreciate Not Just Bikes's view on the subject. The mode used will be the most efficient. The US is unlikely to change until it changes its views on transportation (the only way for people to get around is cars, only poor people ride the bus, etc)
And it will only change its views on transportation once it undoes all the damage from single family zoning and that awful suburban city planning. Otherwise, cars will always be the best option.
True. But it would help if there were actually good public transport systems in the US. The Bay Area's is piecemeal, infrequent and expensive. New York's is slow, very noisy and dirty. No other city has a remotely comprehensive system, and most ticketing systems are decades out of date. Even other suburbanised countries, like Australia, Canada and New Zealand, do significantly better.
Trains are making a comeback
@@nomadMik go to Chicago their combination of Metra and L are actually decent and could be the best in the country.
Brisbane Australia has been using bus lanes to reduce traffic. They are seperate roads which are parallel with the motor way so it is way faster to catch a bus during peak hour than to drive. It's a lot cheaper than building a new train line and the routes can be a lot more flexible. I guess technically this is an example of HOV lanes actually helping?
I’ve lived in NYC for most of my life and have never felt like I needed a car. In fact, having a car was a pain because parking was so difficult to find pretty much anywhere. I could enjoy walking to nearby stores or taking fairly reliable mass transit to anywhere further (yes NYC mass transit is actually quite good compared to most of the US). One I moved to Jersey I immediately felt the need for a car. I could walk to the closest mall area, but that area is designed for cars, not walkers. Also, it’s a 30 minute walk compared to a 5 min drive. It’s the kind of place where bulk purchases are more common, so going for a single item is…wasteful. Additionally, the transit system is just a bus that goes through several towns, so you can catch a bus every hour- not exactly conducive to ‘oh let me go down to the corner store and buy a snack’. All this comes together to say that a car is a must in order to enjoy similar freedom as I found while living in NYC. This adds up ridiculously in terms of emissions and climate impact. Until we as a people come together to create good alternatives to a car centric society, we won’t make any progress on the climate front.
I was raised 30 min south of Canada in NY, the closest interstate was over an hour away in Watertown (not counting crossing the border) so I'm used to the personal car being mandatory. Recently the county started a bus service but its most commonly used for inter town/city commutes, especially common for college students to ride to go home.
That said i also fully recognize that Manhattan could ban the personal car and probably close several streets to vehicles other than deliveries/city transit and it would massively improve quality of life.
I would love to be able to drive to a train station in some small town, ride into a city and transfer to a fast train to my real destination and get off into a high quality local transit system. Or to take it home and not drive 6-7 hours and just get picked up in town by family. But instead much of the US is stuck on you need a car when it shouldn't be the only method.
We already created a good alternative to car centric lifestyle. A great one even. It's called public transit. Most of Europe knows this. It's USA that's ignoring the lessons of the past. Kind of hilarious when you realize USA was practically built by its railway system yet since it was abandoned in favor of cars now people are saying USA rail could never work. Spoiler alert americans. If it can work in frigging SIBERIA, it can work in the midwest.
I agree with most of what you said. But let's be clear, cars are not the largest or even close to the largest contributor to climate change. Only about 14% of climate change gases are due to transportation and of that, only about 40% is due to cars/trucks. If we totally eliminated all cars and trucks we'd barely reduce the gas emissions by 14%. I'm not a denier, but there has to be more attention paid to other sources than just cars.
@@thespanishinquisition4078 It is difficult to maintain anywhere near cost effective public transport in most parts of the US because the population density is so low. A couple examples is like France has a population density of 119 per square km, Germany 232, while the US is just 36 per square KM
@@spocksvulcanbrain they also greatly reduce quality of life with all the noise and other problems. Like car fatalities being the leading cause of death for people below 60 years of age
I like how they made lanes for busses, then when bus use fell, instead of switching from the redundant requirment of occupants per vehicle, to just, you know, bus, they lowered the required amount of occupants per vehicle. very obvious side effect: the lanes aren't gonna function as intended.
I've pondered this thought, usage of bus lanes as HOV and/or toll express lanes. The goal isn't just higher occupancy, it's to have lanes that some traffic can use but not enough to jam it up. The primary goal of the lane, the reason for its existence, is for buses to use without being slowed by traffic in a regular lane. But buses are likely to come by once every few minutes at best, leaving the lane otherwise unused. It makes sense to allow some cars to use it, at the very least relieving some traffic from the general purpose lanes, but not everyone for free as then it would be just as jammed as the other lanes. So they want to have some selective way of selectively allowing some but not all traffic to use it - either a toll or an occupancy requirement, in a lot of cases motorcycles are allowed to use it free (justified by them being more efficient than cars). Set this to a level (either toll or number of people) that will allow it to be reasonably well utilized but not jammed.
@@quillmaurer6563 Your argument would make complete sense if it weren't for the principle of induced demand. The only way to sustainably relieve traffic is to get people out of their cars and onto other modes of transport; relieving traffic by redirecting part of it to a former bus lane will make it more attractive for people to drive, thus worsening the traffic issue you were trying to solve.
Allowing motorcycles is an interesting idea though; they don't have a significant edge over cars when it comes to emissions, but they are considerably more space-efficient, in the same way that bicycles are, so convincing people to get out of their car and onto a motorbike could be a valid way of relieving traffic sustainably. That said, you might as well go the whole way and just add protected bike lanes instead, because bicycles are even more space-efficient, are free of emissions, and act as a form of low-intensity exercise (quite handy when you've got an obesity epidemic).
@@rjfaber1991 You make good points, I've seen the "induced demand" argument, but I think it's sometimes taken too far to the point of suggesting that roads should never be widened as it won't ever help. For a given population, I'm sure more road capacity will help, but not proportional to the added capacity. The reality is that some - most probably - people in the US will drive no matter what. And public transit options aren't really viable for many Americans, so they don't really have a viable alternative. They don't choose to drive because wider roads make it easier, they do so because they don't really have a suitable alternative. Likewise with bicycling, for many people their commute is simply too long for bicycling to be feasible. Enticing - or forcing - more people to use public transit or bicycle isn't really realistic in many cases, and I think some people are reluctant to acknowledge this. Especially for suburban-dwelling people in the US. Much as I love bicycling and public transit, I find I don't often have suitable opportunities to use either. This "Induced Demand" idea thinks that demand for roads is highly elastic, and I suspect it's a bit more fixed. Most people need to drive, don't have viable alternatives, and will do so even if its a hassle. And there is finite demand in a given city, a finite number of commuters, a finite population (though in many cities, such as Denver where I live, all of this is growing very rapidly).
As for motorcycles, that's the route I've gone, I think it's a better alternative that many people could feasibly use as a second vehicle for commuting in good weather. Far more space efficient, easy to park (this is one of the big perks for going downtown), and much more fuel economical - mine gets 75 mpg. They're so cheap (to buy, run, and insure) that they could be feasible as a second vehicle for most people. I think that a lot of issues - traffic, fuel, parking - could be helped significantly if more people rode motorcycles. As for the emissions thing, at least mine is surely pretty bad - it's a 2002 model but, unlike cars of its era, it is carbureted and has no emissions control systems (catalytic converter). Despite its better fuel economy, it probably puts out more pollutants (other than CO2) than even an SUV of it's timeframe, and vastly more than a modern one even if it's burning 1/5 the gas. Personally I think of CO2 as the bigger concern in the long run, think it's short-sighted to think of a big SUV that puts out tons of CO2 that is more problematic on a larger and longer-term scale as "cleaner" than a motorcycle that puts out other pollutants that are more concerning to a local and near-term scale. CO2 is more out-of-sight out-of-mind, less immediate - until Florida is under water and Colorado is on fire. Also in my case, my regular daily car is a vintage car with no emissions controls either, so the motorcycle is still my cleaner option. Modern motorcycles are better in this regard to my knowledge, but probably still not the same standards as cars. What I'm really hoping for is a reasonable-cost decent-performance (equivalent of say a 250 or 400) electric motorcycle - all the enthusiasts see that as pointless but as a commuter I think it would be the holy grail of economical commuting.
@@quillmaurer6563 I'll return the compliment and say that you make some very good points too, because you do. How elastic the demand is definitely depends on a number of factors, and the US' propensity for urban sprawl is a major reason people have difficulty getting out of their cars even if they would want to. To use that as a reason for continuing to invest in car infrastructure is essentially saying "We can't solve this problem we've created (car dependency) because another problem we've created (urban sprawl) makes it infeasible", where the better solution is to sort out both problems, so I wouldn't go too far with it, but it definitely is an issue that is holding back alternatives to car use in the US, you're spot-on.
There is a lot that can be done to alleviate the way urban sprawl promotes car dependency, the most obvious being to loosen zoning restrictions so people can shop for groceries and other essentials in a shop two streets away that they can walk of bike to, instead of having to drive through half the city to get to a massive store with a parking lot the size of Monaco. That said, a lot of damage has already been done, and the US will never be as elastic in its transport solutions as countries with more compact cities, like here in the Netherlands. Doesn't mean that it's impossible to get people out of their cars and onto bikes or public transport, or that it should no longer be a priority to do so, but it will be a bit harder to do, and the results are going to be a bit less impressive.
An interesting thing about cycling longer distances, by the way; here in the Netherlands we've recently started constructing 'fietssnelwegen', which literally translates to 'bicycle highways', and they really are a solution to cycling longer distances. They use the same principles as planners from the '50s and '60s pioneered for regular highways (wide lanes, a smooth road surface, gentle curves, grade-separated crossings etc.) but apply them to bike paths. There's currently only one of those in my city, though they're constructing a second at the moment, but I can say they are an absolute game changer when it comes to cycling longer distances. They really make you realise that the thing that's jarring about cycling long-distance is not the distance itself, but the number of times you have to stop for a traffic light or slow down for a particularly sharp curve.
@@rjfaber1991 You're from the Netherlands? I visited Amsterdam last summer and it felt utopian in many ways compared with the US. Actually a first-world country! There are a lot of differences, some of which could be remedied and others would be more difficult. Some of it is due to how US cities are designed, and some is American cultural attitudes, the latter probably a driving factor of the former. Some of this might be possible to change over time, other will be more difficult, but certainly can't be changed even as quickly as expanding freeways.
Better public transit could help, I think it sort of has a catch-22. Public transit sort of sucks, so most people don't use it, so they don't see any motivation to invest in it. They don't even believe it could be better. But it could be if it were more prioritized (just think of how far the money spent on expanding freeways could go on it), and if it were run better. One thing I think of is that the commuter train I can take from near my house goes much slower than European commuter trains (such as German S-bahns and other countries' equivalent). Partially because they didn't invest in grade-separation, partially because Americans have much more concern for protecting the least intelligent of our population. If the trains we have ran faster I'd be more interested in using them, but as is it would take more than twice as long to get downtown on the train than riding my motorcycle, and cost 5x as much, so I don't usually bother.
The bicycle highway thing sounds nice, and there are some good bicycle routes near me. It's pretty twisty, but mostly grade separated. Though it's mostly designed and used as a recreational path rather than transport, which is how bicycles are regarded here in general. Where I live (Colorado) it's pretty hilly, which would make this more challenging than in the much flatter Netherlands. The bigger problem is that even with bicycle highways, bicycling will take a lot longer, especially for journeys over 15km, and (don't have any data on hand) I think the average commute in the US is longer than. This is another difference between life in the US than in Netherlands, life here is a "rat race." 40 hours per week of working is regarded as a minimum, everything is focused on productivity, everyone is always scrambling to make every second of every day count. In Amsterdam, I was amazed to see people just chilling out, unapologetically doing nothing. Simply enjoying life, not being "productive." This is a difference in culture, and the standard work week is less. That allows more time for less-fast but healthier (and more enjoyable) commuting, while the extra half hour or more each day it takes to bicycle rather than drive would be unacceptable to maxed-out Americans. That was what impressed me most, and I really wish we could have that way of life here, for so many reasons. Life is stressful and difficult here, honestly it sucks!
Planners in America will literally do anything to keep you inside a car
What better solution is there to travel long distances within not densely populated areas?
@@ctlspl but you built those place far away from everything exacly because you could travel long distances. in the past you built to the extent your transportation allowed you to that's why European cities are highly densly populated.
we have seen how cars are not sustainable and even if they were they make cities orrible to live in as car infrastructure does not allow it's existance without taking away from any other for of transport.
wanna have a parking lot for your car? better move that shop 100m away, what about that other one, 100 more meters, wanna walk to the third shop? what a shame what would have been a 50m walk is now a 300m one... enjoy. oh and we can't hava that park you wanted, we had to pay for the extra water and sewage pipes required to link those three shops... hope your trip by car was worthed becayse you will spend the rest of the hour stuck in traffic :P
@@ctlspl trains.
Not planners, but developers.
@@byfrax2371 Trains are linear modes of transportation, which cannot cover spead out areas. The problem is that US Zoning preferes Single Family Houses, which leads to far less people per square mile than in european cities. That makes public transport inefficient because it has to link far less people over greater distances. That’s why the car is the only viable mode of transportation for American cities.
when you are willing to try everything except public transportation
Public transportation sucks. It's slow, crowded and you have to deal with other people. I had to ride the bus for a week while my car was in the shop and it was terrible. It turned my 10 minute commute into almost 30 minutes each way. Unless you're super poor or live in a dense city then every American already has a car.
@@AC-im4hi Oh god, you're one of those people...
Maybe because it's UNDERFUNDED? Why else do you think public transport in Europe is amazing but it's garbage in the US?
@@VeeTHis Becuase no one in the US would dare ride a bus. There's no place I go regularly that takes me more than 15 minutes to get to. I can drive to the store and get a piece of plywood and put in my car. Are you really saying you'd rather walk down the street to the bus stop carrying a bunch of wood? What if it's raining? Do you want to walk in the rain to a bus stop when your car is dry? What if you want to get to a remote mountain? Are you really going to take public transit and then sit at a bus stop hoping to find an uber to take you the last 10 miles? Cars are better and it's not even remotely close.
@@AC-im4hi How often does the average person go to a "remote mountain"? Funding public transport doesn't mean getting rid of cars, you could just rent a car for the day if you wanted
@@VeeTHis : I have to agree with A C on this. Public transit really only works in very densely populated areas. Otherwise, it just isn't practical.
Edit: In fact, even in densely populated areas it isn't practical if you have a lot of groceries or other items to transport.
I never realized you guys didn't have BUS lanes. This seems fitting though, given how awful public transportation is in the US...
Our busses get stuck in traffic, so they are never likely to be used over driving. :(
Busses are slow and inefficient in the US because the areas where people get on are spread out and not densely populated. Busses work well when many people want to get from point a to point b. To properly fill a Bus it would have to cruise through too many streets to pick people up, while the others wait to get to the destination.
Some cities have them! Like here in NYC.
@@cheddar @Cheddar that's good! BUS lanes are what make taking the bus worth it, because they get stuck in traffic way less often that way.
(in here, only cabs and busses can use BUS lanes. There are no carpool lanes anywhere and I honestly don't think they're needed)
I'm really sad that you guys didn't have a good planning for public transportation over there, it's the *real* solution to prevent urban traffic congestion.
Honestly, maybe use the School Busses as a base, for starters? Idk you seem to have that figured out. In here, kids take the normal bus or subway when needed.
We do in Canada, they are in the city, on the highway they just use the HOV but there isn't many buses in the highway
Driving in Atlanta earlier this year, I observed for the first time "HOV" lanes that were e-toll only. In other words, you could not drive in the HOV lane with multiple occupants in your car if you didn't have the electronic pay device.
It only part HOV/Express. When you are right in downtown and the 10 miles near it, they are HOV lanes, however after a certain distance from downtown they turn into Express lanes which require a transponder. I use both regularly, but yes when in the express you can be a single occupant which doesn't necessarily meet the HOV conditions.
The wealthy have successfully lobbied to get out of traffic
I am pretty sure these are are called HOT lanes which mean high occupancy toll lanes, which is a form of congestion pricing
@@snowboard246 My point is that, at least from what I could see, you cannot drive in the HOV lane even if you have multiple occupants unless you have to payment device.
@@TheZipeedooThey do it similar in North Carolina you have to have a transponder and you can go on the app and notify them you'll be using the HOV lane toll free with the required 3+ occupants or on the fancy transponder there's an HOV switch or you can pay the toll if you don't have the required 3 occupants in the vehicle
I've always found it interesting how many single occupancy vehicles I often see in the HOV lanes.
Hey I’m one of them. I use brain. Brain says one more lane. Not being used much. Less congestion on other lanes. Means we all get to travel to our destinations faster. I like brain. Brain smart.
@@masongronen4988 follow the law Mason. You are not allowed in that lane and one day will receive a $500 fine or if there is an accident in that lane, you will be at fault.
@@masongronen4988 Don't act like you're doing it because you're so smart. You're doing it for selfish reasons because you don't want to wait in traffic and don't care about those that are carpooling and have a legal right to use that lane.
@@vitd5283 i mean hes not wrong, it is better for EVERYONE on the highway, its just against the law, but it reduces congestion and reduces wait times
Hov lane is joke, I honestly don't care lol
City planning at its worst. Let's change things when and while we can.
No no, the worst is express ways. Go to Houston, Dallas, Austin, etc... for examples and yes they also have HOV
@@Fallen7Pie Been through all three (reside in, not from Texas), Traffic can be so bad, there are times you’re better off walking.
@@valiroime can confirm, have walked downtown austin. 2 lane grid doesn't really seem fixable for a lot of it
What I love about drivers are, you will sit through traffic hell for a long time until you have the novel idea of "you know... If I wake up and leave 30 minutes earlier to beat peak hour traffic, I can get to work in peace." Then suddenly all at once everyone does it and the traffic hell is back again
5 minutes in the morning can make the difference between flying into work with no traffic like a breeze, or being stuck in traffic for a half hour and making you late.
Then everyone wakes up at 2am to get to work
Problem is, on many roads, traffic stays there for a very long time so Rush hour becomes Rush hours
It's worked very effectively for me
There's actually a term for this -- Braess's Paradox.
Alternatively, if you are driving during "rush hour" then you are not stuck "in" rush hour, you ARE rush hour, i.e. _intentionally contributing_ yourself to it.
Not anymore. Now it's just hell all hours of the days except 1-4 am.
Since I was a little kid the only time I’ve ever been in a HOV lane is when I was in a car with someone I would have been in with either way.
Yeah, didn't keep more cars off the road but didn't you enjoy being able to use them in those cases, especially during rush hour traffic?
@@SWLinPHX I absolutely do.
Personally, I'm super thankful I can work from home these days. Given the steep rise in gas prices reintroducing mass car pooling might be a good way for commuters to save some money, and reducing demand might help keep the price down. More infrastructure and coordination support would be helpful.
Phoenix finally finished their light rail project a few years back. What people don’t understand is that 6 months out of the year, we are in triple digit heat, all hours of the day AND night. Those of us who have office jobs and are required to wear more formal, business attire can’t use the light rail. If we did, we would show up to the office drenched in sweat and having to deal with our superiors who would accuse us of looking disheveled and/or unprofessional.
The other 6 months out of the year, the light rail is very useful. I wish they would have considered trying to engineer enclosed, air conditioned stations and better cooling units in the cars. I guarantee you, that would double the number of people willing to use public transit.
The poor public transport in the USA is the root cause, people simply don’t have the option. It is car or nothing. No trains, busses, trams or even bicycles.
no the "toot cause" is low density, bad public transport is a consequence of that
@@herlescraft Who do you think rallied US politicians to pass sparse populated city planning? The car Companies
More than 75% of all Americans live in (sub)urban areas, you don't need public transport in the middle of nowhere.
@@bastiaan4129 The topic at hand is on cities not rural areas
@@bastiaan4129 from what I know 86% of Americans live in metropolitan areas which is basically cities and suburbs
Used to ride a subway to work every day - it was great. (Chicago). Now I drive (Detroit). Sucks. I looked at the bus once since at the time I worked next to a SMART hub and there was a bus line about a block away from home - 35 minutes by car, 1.5 hours by bus (winding routes, waits for a transfer, etc.). I drove. I think part of the problem is the chicken and egg thing - mass transit sucks so ridership is small. Ridership is small so there is no reason to expand the mass transit...
I think the bigger issue is the zoning. If I had to take public transit for work and it took 1h it wouldn't be that bad if I didn't also have to walk/cycle/take public transit for 15+min every time I need to buy something.
Think of the Netherlands as example. They used to have more car dependent city 50 or so years ago but they gradually made the switch to better public transit & cycling options. Imagine if in your last mile of going back home you could get out of the subway, walk or take a bus getting closer to your home and grab some grocery for half a week because small business are allowed close to living units.
Woah!! The bus is always faster than car. How does it take almost 3 times as long in the bus????
buses are always slower than cars. the numerous stops needed to make buses efficient are also what slows it down. mass transit can't compete on speed, but it can compete on cost
I live in Los Angeles. I have the option to either drive or take the bus to university about 15 miles away. By car, it takes about 30 minutes on the freeway. By bus, 2 hours.
It would be much faster if there was a light rail on the route, but the busses I'd have to take use only surface streets.
@@yanDeriction not when you have bus lanes
I’ve never carpooled in my life and don’t ever plan on doing it, but I have been to Europe and Asia and taken competent public transit and I wish I could do that every day.
Aren't YOU a lucky little "man"??!! One day I garrauntee you,you'll be without a car.I hope it humbles you.
Saying that makes you a racist. Implying that a continent that has fewer African Americans can do something better than America can is racist
@@Tortoise7597 What the heck is that logic?
@@bs4real that sounds like a good thing.
@@bs4real the United states is not going to stop using cars for a very, very, long time. why would we throw away these resources? modern cars are very clean compared to those in the past. if you want to clean up the air get folks to stop buying all this junk for China as those huge container ships are not exactly green.
I was driving east to west across Toronto during rush hour. The HOV lane was great for the occasional, widely-spaced vehicles that used it, but traffic as a whole would have been more efficient if all vehicles could use all the lanes.
For me, HOV lanes are something of a blessing. My girlfriend in LA County used to work 25 miles from home, and it took over an hour to make the trip in her car. Once I started taking her on my motorcycle, using the HOV lanes and filtering through traffic, that got cut to less than 30 minutes.
The obvious reason motorcycles (especially riding like that) aren't the answer for everyone is the risk factor. Even going slowly between lanes can be dangerous, primarily when drivers very suddenly cut from one lane to the next. That's the big reason I appreciate HOV lanes so much; they mostly have solid lines separating them from the next lane, with limited merging sections, so it's far less likely for someone to cut over unexpectedly.
LA is actually one of the better places to ride through heavy traffic, since regular commuters are accustomed to motorcyclists filtering (or lane-splitting, if the riders in question have a death wish), and drivers often shift over to give us a little more room to get by.
I would gladly trade in my car for reliable and efficient public transit in addition to Dutch-style infrastructure for cycling and walking. I hate needing a car so much that my current car is my final car.
I would love to rebuild a car, but if I'm going to drive it I'll take it to a track where I can drive it properly.
I'll keep my car my job is 8-12 minutes away.
I would love that too but in south Florida it is way too hot and humid to do it.
@@Alexander-jr8nw Are you Romanian or visited Romania?
I visited in 2018 and yes, Romanian public transport is not good. Neither is public transport in most of former Yugoslavia. But that’s because it was left over from a different era. In America, it sometimes seems to be bad for the sake of being bad, or because the auto lobby is so strong that it sabotages our public transit.
I felt like Bucharest and Brasov (outside of their respective old centers) are insanely car-dependent. Both cities have a lot of wide streets and narrow sidewalks, and no cycling infrastructure. Google Maps doesn’t even show cycling as being an option anywhere in Romania.
@@Alexander-jr8nw What makes it unfortunate about having been born in Romania? It’s an EU nation that gives you access to a lot of good things! What town or city do you live in within Romania? București, Brașov, Oradea, Constanța? Sau altceva?
I actually get to work faster by just avoiding the highway entirely or if I have to by using the toll road. I actually see more wrecks on highways and see a lot less off it.
Is the accident rate on the highway higher than the greater number of cars that travel on it? For example, if the highway has twice as many accidents while moving 3* as many cars, then the highway is safer
Statistically it is safer to drive on the highway.
Accidents on high ways shut the thing down, but on side streets cars aren’t moving as fast and cars can usually be pushed or driven out of the way since the damage to the car is usually less.
@@Joexdude I swear accidents on side roads are usually more dramatic than highway crashes.
An obstacle to transit other than driving solo for a number of people is employers who are hostile to any kind of flexibility. A decade ago I worked for a well-known US public university in a town that had a very good transit system from which fares had been eliminated. When I started the job I lived in an adjacent town and used a park and ride lot that I had to drive past anyhow and took bus the rest of the way in. The route had to stop directly in front of the building where I worked and buses were on 10 minute intervals during commute times. Even so my management was direct that they considered that an unworkable limitation of my schedule versus parking on campus. They had similar attitudes toward coworkers who tried carpooling
How's that a limitation on your schedule? I literally cannot make it make sense
How would they know?
@@Mr_Bubbaz. I presume they expected OP to be "on call", which is such an insane, BS demand on anyone who isn't a cop, fire fighter or EMT. Should not even be something allowed.
This is another perspective that I forgot about that has an impact. In addition to the shear size of the USA, many people do not realize how much we work inthe USA. It is not uncommon for someone to only have 7 personal days off in a year. We have time clocks that flag you as late even if it is only 1 minute. Three strikes and you are fired. It is also not uncommon for a business to have a shift work schedule so people going to work at 00:00 is not unheard of. For a public transport system to work in the US it would need to be running 24/7, cover a vast area of land, and be able to take you anywhere quickly on demand. Unless we all move to massive city apartment buildings and get more leniency on arrival time, personal vehicles are here to stay.
There is no way they could know. Nor could make such a demand unless they were subsidizing your travel.
And if you had to get there quick you could have called a taxi...
The big mistake is reducing the number of occupants down to 2, minimum should be three, regardless of family status. Letting "clean emissions vehicles" through with just one person is a slap in the face for HOV.
Why? The ultimate goal is to reduce emissions, so what's the difference if you have 1 regular car with three people versus 3 low-emissions cars producing 1/3 the emissions each?
@@tuxedobob2 The ULTIMATE goal is to reduce the number of vehicles on an already congested roadway. That's why it's in the name! HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE!!! unless you want to name it the Low emissions vehicle lane? The good side effect is lower emissions if there are less vehicles on the road..... the carbon that it takes to generate electricity is another discussion by itself.
When they reduce the requirement is because the lanes are underused. Maybe they should instead toll them and remove any occupancy restriction. The EV privilege should also be lifted since it's essentially a gift for rich people who can afford those cars.
In our area, this has induced higher porportion of cars with very dark windows using HOV lane!
Trolleys and and more light rail from suburbs to where people work or go for food and entertainment is a great option but also allowing more people to work remotely from their homes also greatly reduces traffic. In Phoenix area the HOV lane is a flex lane and is only for HOV during rush hour times. All other times its a passing lane
Like 95% of white-collar jobs should be online.
Most meatspace offices only continue to exist because of tradition.
Another thing that would greatly reduce traffic is not building huge single family residential areas with nothing else in them. With mixed development people wouldn't have to go to a remote location for food or entertainment to begin with. Stop building suburbs and start building villages.
America's traffic problem isn't a single thing, they've managed to do almost everything wrong for 60 years and fixing it requires working, little by little, on all fronts. There's no one single thing that'll fix anything, the most important thing I believe is to stop going for bandaid solutions that wont be a building block for future actual change. An awful lot of money is being spent on things that not only does not help, but winds up rendered obsolete if car dependency got reduced.
Most cities use commuter rail in the US.
@@EnigmaticLucas quality of work decreased, my personal experience
being from the east coast, i recently went to utah and learned about "flex" lanes, its was something so new to me 😅 a bit weird only because its something different
I am now living in Vienna (Europe, Austria, no kangaroos) and I will sell my car. The car is actually slower than public transport during day time. During the night I have a bus line which stops 5 minutes walk from my flat. And the money I save on insurance, repair, gas can be used for rental cars and taxi/cab (Uber).
What is the job opportunities there?? I have a family member who loves there but he says the wages are low. Germany or Austria?
Lives*
For Germany I'd say if you are qualified you can find a good job. On average the wages are lower than in the US and energy is way more expensive, but almost all other goods are similarly priced or even cheaper, Healthcare and healthy food for example.
And if you live in a city you don't need a car which saves a lot of money whith current fuel costs of 1.75€ per liter (7.50$ per gallon).
@@sm3675 I'm from Austria. Like most western countries: Depends on what you work as & what place you compare it to.
If you compare the pure monetary value with f.e. bigger US cities you earn less, but the overall living costs are lower and the social safety net & public services easily make up for it. (f.e. we pay next to nothing for Healthcare... even though we still complain that we pay too much)
You had to ruin my dumb a dumber reference by being so specific
Only America would turn a bus lane into a "designated driver dropping people off after a night out-lane"
We're more spread out than Europe. If it takes me an extra 20 minutes a day using public transit compared to a car and I work 6 days a week 48 weeks out of a year that's 5760 minutes or 96 hours/year that I will never get back. Parking costs nothing since I park in the garage at my home and at my employer's parking lot.
@@dannydaw59car pool lanes or bus lanes are mostly found in urban areas. The time loss you describe is relative to the amount of cars on the road (traffic jams, bottlenecks, parking spaces) and the quality of public transport. Good public transport can be just as fast or even faster as private cars, it can reduce the need to be spread out and it can reduce travel times for those who still need their cars.... And by the way, the effect of lost time applies to europeans aswell, its not like our governements acknowledge us using public transport and giving us 3 more days off of work.
It would not if we had better transit and many AMERICAN cities in the US and Canada have proven that already. Yes if we’re talking Atlanta, Houston, no way taking a dinky smelly bus will ever be convenient, but the sky train in Toronto, or Boston’s metro system prove what can be done.
@@dannydaw59 because it's a positive feedback loop. You build shite transit, no one uses it, so it gets shafted, so it gets worse, so even less people use it, and so on. America used to have great transit before the age of the car, you've just decided to throw it all away in favour of a less efficient mode of transport.
Also, no need to go on about how "we're not like Europe". Not only am I not from Europe, but I'm from a country with an even lower population density than the US, and we still have better transit, so I know that being spread out is no excuse.
@@dannydaw59 and yeah you realise that’s not natural, cities have been bulldozed to make space for roads and make buildings further apart so you have to take a car to get to those places quicker
As a person from Europe this shockes me that carpool lanes exist, like you really just want to do everything to keep driving cars
I’ve lived in America my entire life and I’ve this is the first time I’ve ever heard of a Carpool Lane and I live right off I-95 (or rather I-395 but I’m only 16 minutes from I-95) right in the Northeast Corridor.
Love that all the Not Just Bikes viewers managed to make their way here
Algorithm blessed me for once with this video
Fortunately my commute these days is just a flight of stairs! I think the issue is that the US is very car centric and there is not desire to change this.
It seems like there’s a demand from the people, even if you scroll thru the comments on this video. The issue is rules around zoning, parking minimums, and NIMBY’ism haven’t kept up with this change. And simply don’t allow for communities to be built in a way that would allow for other efficient, effective, and cost effective modes of transportation.
You also CAN'T change this. Where it might make sense to do it, there isn't enough space left. Where there is enough space, people live and work too far apart to bother. This is definitely a situation where it needed to be fixed while the cities were growing.
@@user-K8T could you explain to me why it is unchangeable? To me, it seems that a proper public transit network takes up less space for the same capacity than the car infrastructure that is currently in place.
@@julian-xy7gh Because you can't and won't get rid of the car infrastructure. You still need cars to get to a lot of places in the US since there is a LOT of rural area. So, you'd need all the land and space and money that it takes to set up decent train transit within and between cities. Which means land acquisition which is massively expensive and often forces families and groups out of areas where they've lived for generations. Something that hits the disadvantaged the hardest. And that doesn't even touch on the physical limitations like mountainous terrain and rivers.
Plus, the US does have a fairly widespread train system. I haven't lived anywhere where I couldn't take a train from the general area where I live to the town where my parents live (except when I lived in a nearby town, of course). And their town isn't particularly big. I almost always choose to drive when I could because it takes between 5 and 7 hours longer to take a train rather than drive. We CAN beef up the existing train infrastructure. But we aren't and don't plan on it, so creating something entirely new is practically laughable.
You can't fix something that isn't a problem. Cars are more efficient on the 90% of low density land where public transportation would be too costly and inefficient. Things like buses and trains cannot get you to your destination in low density areas. And even if there is a bus stop near you or a train near you AND near your destination, taking that bus or train into the city or to another location could take anywhere from 30 minutes to 3 hours of total time between waiting, transferring, etc. People are making rational choices based on maximizing their utility. You are failing to understand the decision making involved.
I have an idea about how to improve carpool lanes.
Have many buses attached to each other, and make the lane into tracks, so lane is better fixed and more efficient.
Then make it so that you don't have to stop in traffic lights if you're on that lane, maybe bridges or tunnels or something, then stop them at various points where people are likely to get on and off...
They're called busways-- a separate roadway, often grade-separated, exclusively for buses. Minimal traffic lights, where required at grade crossings. Walls or railings separate them from the surrounding environment. Los Angeles has one or two. The G (Orange) Line runs in the San Fernando Valley. It is going to get some upgrades, such as new grade-separated crossings, in the next few years. The J Line runs east from downtown L.A. on a dedicated busway. It also has a portion running south in the toll/transit lanes from downtown L.A., with some buses going as far as San Pedro. Sad to say, the buses must go on surface streets in downtown. They also have higher fares than all the other buses and rail in the Metro system. The buses are not joined as trains, though articulated buses (longer buses that bend in the middle) can run on them.
cry more trainposter
trains are great for the densest routes, bad for everything else, which is why they generally have to be fed by feeder routes from a second mode of transport, eg. ...buses. even in the most transit friendly cities, only few people have the privilege of living near a train station.
@@yanDeriction that is simply not true. Most people in London (including suburbs) live within a short walk of a train station.
@@sublivion5024 "a short walk" LOL How short?
Just because you can walk somewhere doesn't mean you want or will. I grew up 500m (750m walk) from the nearest rail station and 1.5km (2km walk) from a second rail station, and most of my trips still involved a bus ride in part because the 2nd station was the hub and the bus stop was right on the doorstep of my apartment complex, making life a lot easier for everyone.
If the city ended bus service and forced people to walk, trips would have been a lot more miserable. There is a big difference between "usable" and "desirable".
My home "town" is pretty rare in having a fully grade separated bike road connecting the whole region, so biking may also be an option if the hub has good bike parking, but the point is walking sux and is not a solution.
@@sublivion5024 Or, to put in simpler terms:
London rail daily ridership: 2-4 million
London bus daily ridership: 6 million
Why would they take the bus when they can simply walk, hm?
In the Bay Area, carpool lanes are practically just as congested as the regular lanes. We have so many EVs around here, that the only way to avoid traffic is to drive at off hours, or to avoid the freeways altogether.
as someone who lives in a big city (Philadelphia) I'm so glad I haven't needed my car ONCE since I'm moved here a year ago. in the long run, it's far far cheaper and more environmentally friendly to bike, use public transit, and yes even Uber.
I would 100% stop driving if public transit took em where I needed to go
And at the hours you need to be there. I would love to take the bus if it didn't mean riding for three hours to cross a distance I could drive in 45 mins and hoping that the bus actually runs more than hourly at 5am on a weekend.
@@BonaparteBardithion exactly. It takes me 30 min to drive to work but 1 hour and 30 minutes on public transit. It's not worth it.
Already traded in my car for (relatively) easily accessible public transit and shorter walking distances to get to where I need to go.
A great part of the problem with HOV lanes is that they didn't stick with the original concept, of buses and public transport vans only. HOV-2 is ridiculously low occupancy.
Back when my parents drove to work together, it was a 3 passenger HOV. So they'd pick up someone waiting for a bus, and drive them there for free, so they could use the HOV.
Then they lowered the qualifications to 2 passengers, and that was that.
"Slugging" for access to the express lanes is still a thing in the DC Metro Area 👍🚘
As someone who lives in a small town, and avoids car pool lanes at all cost. I always wondered why car pool lanes are furthest to the left but exits are furthest to the right. Meaning you have to merge right through 3-4 lanes of traffic to exit the Express way? 🤔
Yup! In my experience it's super unsafe because everywhere else is congested. Especially in LA where I see the most carpool lanes. Express lanes in Chicago don't function in the same way.
Having never heard of this concept before, it seems like such a silly idea tbh^^
It feels like one of those cases where someone with influence just had this idea and really pushed it through, despite being second rate at best, and the money and effort could be used far better with some other ideas that got sacrificed for it.
It’s funny how I am sitting in the passenger side while my buddy drives us through HOV. While I’m watching this video
That would be funny 😄
It is funny that you are watching videos on your phone, instead of engaging with your buddy.
@@BatCaveOz you know when you are past that phase of interacting. That’s how long this drive is lol. But I agree that would be a bit odd.
Convert them all to bus rapid transit lanes
Even worse
@@jesusalvarez5563 how exactly
@@yonatanbehar3322 Buses are the worst form of public transport possible. Trams and trains are FAR superior.
I don't think I've ever seen a bus (excluding school buses) with more than 3 people in them including the driver...
@@demoniack81 This isn't mutually exclusive. You can't convert an HOV lane into a train or tram line. You can convert them into bus-only lanes (or at least bus + semi only lanes).
I live in metro Detroit, to make it here you have to own a car since nothing is truly in walkable distance, and the only form of public transit is sketchy unreliable bus service.
This needs to be the infrastructure addressed by the funds that are supposed to be allocated to fixing infrastructure. This _is_ infrastructure.
HOV is a paradox. The more it's used the more congested it gets. The more congested the regular lanes get, the more people cheat.
Implement a strict "keep right, pass left" regime and eliminate speed limits.
If you're serious about carpooling, replace those HOV lanes with high-speed rail.
"Implement a strict 'keep right, pass left' regime and eliminate speed limits." - You're making an assumption that people know how to drive, and will drive in a manner aimed at benefiting everyone rather than just themselves. This sounds like Germany, their Autobahns sound a lot like what you're thinking, and they work well. But drivers are held to much higher standards there than in the US, and they have a culture that believes more in the collective good. I don't think this would work in the US.
@@quillmaurer6563 I'm actually in Canada but whatever. I think it can happen in America, the Germans have an interesting degree of natural selection in their drivers. Drive too slow and you're going to get flashing high-beams and even honks to get your attention. In my Province, the Motor-Vehicle Act outlines that drivers can be ticketed for impeding traffic, especially on a freeway. I think a few "driving too slow, fail to keep right" tickets might be what we need.
My problem is that they seem to take up two lane's worth of concrete. So they had better be 'averaging' twice the speed of the regular lanes just to make up for their size. From what I can tell this is usually not the case.
Every morning on my commute to work the majority of cars in carpool lane are individuals alone.
They should put up more thermal cameras to catch these folks.
"What do you think?"
I think you never actually answered your headline about how they "make traffic worse".
You headed in that direction, but rather than actually showing examples, you just went to the textbook full of calculus equations and really just totally lost your audience there. I was expecting actual images and examples of the cases where the HOV lane didn't help (like, say, I-66 outbound in Virginia leaving the 495 beltway and heading through Fairfax - very much a case where the HOV lane can actually be worse than the main lanes). It didn't work to just show some formula highlighted like i'm supposed to just take it as if that's a real thing.
There's a lot in here that's good, but when the headline grabber is the one segment that is the most obscured in the presentation, not a good final product.
Welcome to Cheddar. Don't expect good quality.
The answer is simple. Cars without extra passenger can not use that HOV lane so there is more crowd and the traffic is slower. That's because in many cases those HOV line are not new lanes but rather adopted previously existing ones. In places where you had 4 lanes now you have only 3 because one was given to those who carry passenger, but there is not too many of them. Therefore 1% of driver suddenly got a faster lane but 99% lost 25% of lanes.
@@SpokoSpoko that's not a correct assumption, that the lane isn't a "new" lane. In every situation of new lanes in Virginia and Maryland (I-66 outside the beltay, Dulles Toll Road, I-95 into DC, the I-495 Virginia beltway HOT lanes, I-95 on the northern side of Baltimore, and US 50 coming in from Annapolis), the lanes were newly constructed as HOV upon conception.
This is also true for the lanes of I-85 leading in to Atlanta outside the 285 beltway, and the new lanes just added to I-77 southbound into Charlotte.
So in my experience, having driven all of these routes before and after the lanes were created over the last 30 years, your presumption is incorrect.
That clearly isn't true because induced demand is stated in the video. More drivers on the road means more people stuck in traffic.
recently I drove down i-95 south of Virginia the complete length of the HOV/toll lane. it probably saved me 30 minutes but then I looked at my EZ pass statement and the 15 mile drive cost $30. not sure if it was worth it
Covid upended this alot with more people working from home. But if you really want to reduce traffic, mixed use planning, so people don't have to drive as far, and well connected street networks reduce traffic more than Transit does, and is alot cheaper to implement
Goverments should support remote working even if no pandemic at all. Tax rates should be lowered. So companies will support that idea. So no gasoline spends. No enviromental damage is happens too.
That’s amazing!!!! In Europe we can only rely on Buses, Trains, bicycles, rickshaws, and in some areas, horses are still popular in inner city travel (luxury carriages and cheap carriages)
I kinda miss using transit, but gettin my own car has given me way more freedom. It's given me 2 extra hours of my day, and I'm standing around in the rain a lot less. Im also at a lot less risk of catching covid, or getting attacked/robbed, by being on a buss. But for carpooling, I don't have any co workers who work the same/similar shift as myself, or live near me.
If only the money was shovelled into public transport to make it great
The fact that 2 people counts as "high occupancy" blows my mind in a sad way. HOV lanes to make intercity buses better seem fine, maybe even good. It's kind of infuriating that they're not used as express lanes for buses any more.
They are used for buses in LA.
Maybe it's because no one rides buses anymore. Seriously, how often do you see a bus on a freeway?
@@dondiddly8942 I see busses on I-5 regularly, and they almost always have three or four people in them.
I've pondered this thought, usage of bus lanes as HOV and/or toll express lanes. The goal isn't just higher occupancy, it's to have lanes that some traffic can use but not enough to jam it up. The primary goal of the lane, the reason for its existence, is for buses to use without being slowed by traffic in a regular lane. But buses are likely to come by once every few minutes at best, leaving the lane otherwise unused. It makes sense to allow some cars to use it, at the very least relieving some traffic from the general purpose lanes, but not everyone for free as then it would be just as jammed as the other lanes. So they want to have some selective way of selectively allowing some but not all traffic to use it - either a toll or an occupancy requirement, in a lot of cases motorcycles are allowed to use it free (justified by them being more efficient than cars). Set this to a level (either toll or number of people) that will allow it to be reasonably well utilized but not jammed.
peronsly I think better idea would be par of dedcated truck/buss lanes let them do there thing with out having to worry about the 4 wheelers
I will have to admit, living in the UK, I had NEVER heard of HOV lanes… its only an American concept.
You have never heard of "Bus Lanes"?
@@BatCaveOz mate this guy lives in *the UK* and you think he doesn't know what bus lanes are?
what he meant was that only in america do you see former high capacity bus lanes being transformed into low capacity, polluting car lanes, increasing congestion due to induced demand.
I'm also UK, and we have an HOV lane on a major route. The road in question was built to reduce congestion on a nearby road, which worked. However, they then introduced the HOV lane (between 07:00 and 10:00) which caused congestion, and drivers reverted to their original route. Result: 2 congested main routes + 1 barely used HOV lane.
@@PLuMUK54 what road is it?
In the Virginia part of the DC region, there is (or at least was) a practice known as slugging, where a driver would pick up a stranger going to the same part of the District (or elsewhere inside the Beltway) and give them a one-way ride through the HOV lanes.
Some might call that cheating, but it actually is entirely the goal of HOV lanes - to encourage people to drive together rather than everyone in their own car. I call that a total win. I'd think this could be made even better with modern apps (which the city or transportation department could provide) where drivers and passengers can be matched up, a rideshare thing (this was what Lyft and Uber, calling themselves "rideshare," claimed to be, but in reality they are gig-worker taxi services). I think I've heard of programs like that, to help match up carpoolers, but haven't heard much success. I think they're typically designed around recurring situations, help match up people who live and work near each other to find each other and carpool regularly, but something designed for one time situations would make sense too.
I was about to comment this. The Slug Lines are fascinating as they came about completely informally without government support. Sadly the pandemic has taken its toll on the number of people commuting so the Slugs are dying.
Now in some places, they are changing HOV lanes to tolled High Occupancy Toll lanes
A big problem that wasn't addressed in this Fine forensic analysis, is the bottle necking that occurs when the lane ends.
Where I live the HOV lanes are just as slow as every other lane and react/slow/stop when every other lane does. They're absolutely useless.
Sounds like where you live could stand to build more. If there's enough demand to fill them to capacity then there's enough demand to give them more space.
@@RonnocFroop Something something induced demand /s
@@tompeled6193 Induced demand exists no matter what. It's all about what type of demand you want to induce. In this case, would you rather have everyone in their own car, with more cars out there pumping crap into the air, or would you rather people carpooled?
@@RonnocFroop I'd rather have more people in public transit.
@@TheLazySleeperLives Theoretically more HOV lanes would help with that given that they'd help reduce bus travel time. And personally I'm a fan of larger measure than HOV lanes, but I'm trying to keep my arguments topical.
basically carpool is a flawed solution that makes an already big problem slightly less bad by like 1 to 2 % with no majour reconsiliation of what the issue actually is. a bit like EVs they are better than regular cars but the solution is no car at all so it's hard to say no at all because they do something... it's just that there are better alternatives out there way under used that get ignored in favour of them...
The solution to your problems may be having no car at all, but don't speak for everyone else.
@@DavidKen878 sure if one person decides to live in the middle of nowhere they may need to use a car, but going out of your way to artificially make the middle of nowhere every suburb does seem like incentivising car usage for no reason at all. Not everyone wish to live in an apartment and. It everyone wish to live in a field. But in the US you have no alternatives to those two. And considering most people lives in Europe in multifamily housing that isn't an Appartment I'd say most of us issue are fabricated to be this way.
The EU has over twice the population of the US in half the size. We'd have to pay more proportionally for less of a common benefit in order to get a similar public transit system. Frankly that's not going to work for most people and places in the US. Keep these systems run by the areas who use them.
@@jeremiahblake3949 True, but what we COULD do is go back to building our suburbs more like the old small towns, garage in the back, corner stores pakcing in the back for them, real neighbroods where you can walk ort bike around town and save the care for going out of town or talking large amounts of goods
Streetcraft has great video about this called "We might be able to fix the suburbs"
Buses can still be used by buses, so they’re still useful for transit. Buses around Toronto frequently use them to skip past traffic. Also, just because other drivers don’t like them doesn’t mean they’re not good. Lots of those same drivers probably hate bike lanes, but that doesn’t make those bad.
Park-and-rides, however, are pretty terrible. They take up huge amounts of space, provide minimal actual benefit due to low capacity, and affirm the auto-orientated nature of a neighbourhood for years to come.
I think I have to disagree with you about park & ride lots. You're never going to get buses to stop at everyone's home -- or even at everyone's neighborhood. There is no practical alternative to what to do about what's called the 'last mile". So it is necessary to at least allow and encourage people to use their cars to get from their homes to a central location where they can meet up to carpool or catch a bus.
Also, I can't help noticing the internal inconsistency in your statement that park & ride lots "take up huge amounts of space and provide minimal actual benefit due to low capacity." That's like Yogi Berra saying "Nobody goes there anymore -- it's too crowded."
@@Milesco You can’t stop at everyone’s home or block, sure, but everyone’s neighbourhood? That’s pretty easy? Even small Canadian cities with mediocre transit services generally can get a bus to every neighbourhood every half an hour or so. As long as you’re not elderly or disabled, the two to three block walk to a bus stop isn’t some great struggle.
There’s no inconsistency in that statement? Cars are massive, so even a parking lot for just 500 cars is large, while only being able to fill up, like, 10 buses, two LRT vehicles, or less than one subway car. Now *bike* park and rides, those make sense, because you can easily 8-10 of those in the space of one car, with significantly less infrastructure needed to surround those parking spaces.
I agree that idea of park & ride does will never bring intended effect in american suburbia. As you said, it takes a lot of space, and still implies that you have to have a car, as those stations are not pedestrian friendly.
While the problem was to transit traffic going through neighbourhood, they designed them in a branching pattern without any shortcuts for pedestrians, cyclists, and potentially buses, making them travel same, or more than a car.
That's right, buses are not gonna work in suburbs NOT because they are not dense enough, but because they have to go in circles to get everywhere.
You know what park & ride stations would would work great? Bicycle ones.
You get on a 5min ride to a train station and from there it's straight line towards the city centre without bulky bike (with branches using buses or trams to fill the network).
As soon as enough people use the HOV lane that it's actually "doing it's job" of reducing single drivers, then it becomes busy enough that it loses it's advantage of being a faster lane. Clearly the answer is that we all just need to drive faster.
You're 100% right. There was a theory concerning why traffic happens that I ran across years ago. The analogy they used was comparing traffic volume to water pressure. The more cars are on the road, the faster the speed needed to be in order to maintain the same flow rate. it was a bit of an eye opener. It would also be helpful if people did not pace the car next to them.
The problem with HOV lanes, at least in NYC, is that there is practically ZERO enforcement.
We need to have a broader conversation about the individual vehicle ownership model itself. If we were to replace the entire fleet with electric vehicles tomorrow, we'd still be wasting away our lives sitting in traffic.
In the near term, a massive expansion of bus routes (and improving the experience) is an obvious choice. But in the mid- to longer term, we need to get with the program and start building out rail.
Honestly, I think the conversation shouldn't revolve around cars, but single family zoning. With more densely populated urban areas, the rest will follow suit.
@@Corredor1230 hells to the yes!
@@MichaelTheophilus906 Then don't live in a city. It's literally that simple. Plenty of people are willing to live in apartments and have better lives free of shit traffic all around them. If you want rural life, then live in rural areas. Suburbs just make things worse for everyone.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 Well don't live in an apartment lol. It's that simple. Move to the countryside or something. No reason to do something you hate, man. There are plenty of remote jobs nowadays. Get one of those and move somewhere you can be close to nature.
Personally I love my apartment downtown. It's comfortable, well located and has good access to everything I need. To each their own.
@@Corredor1230 Where I live, it is zoned for one house per 5 acres. Nearest road that has a bus line is over ten miles away.
I did a roadtrip from Boston to Fort Lauderdale and back with one of my friends and we would never use the HOV lane, we made better time by not using them, because unless there is a double HOV lane you cannot pass and we cruise much faster than most drivers.
@@chemicalfrankie1030 uh yes, ofc. But we tried it, considering the trip is 3k+ miles we wanted to see if we could make better time.
@@chemicalfrankie1030 there are many issues with American drivers, our highway lane etiquette is terrible. Germany autobahns have unrestricted speed limits in most places when it’s not pouring rain, and their casualty rates are lower than American highways. In Europe and Germany people always stay in the right lane except to pass, their standards are higher and their drivers are better, it helps with traffic flow. American drivers fail to grasp many concepts like the zipper merge or passing lanes.
"The US's car-centric lifestyle doesn't appear to be going anywhere"
No we _know_ where it's going, we just can't say it in front of young children.
Car centric? I'm living the biker lifestyle. I ain't no cager loser. Forever 2 wheels. Ride or die.
@@theenzoferrari458 You misspelled "and".
Nah thanks, I'll leave your flying coffins to you guys
@@theenzoferrari458 Collectively speaking, yes.
(I'm actually a cyclist.)
@@Stratelier didn't realize ur the borg
@@theenzoferrari458 punchline searching for a joke there?
My small-ish town had a designated pick-up spot, kind of like hitchhiking. The problem is 1. there's not really that much in it for the driver unless they want someone to talk to while they drive, and most drivers don't, and 2. it's occasionally been used to commit crimes against drivers. And yes, I've used it as a passenger. But as a driver, it's kind of like "what's the point?" and therein lies the problem.
I tried taking the train when I lived 25 miles outside of the city, but I worked a lot of overtime so getting the train home was a hassle. In the morning sometimes I'd get to the station 30 minutes early if traffic was light. So it just became easier to take the car. Carpooling was not an option due to irregular hours.
When I lived in Orange County CA for a couple months I commuted to Hollywood. For a while I tried the train, but it was slower than driving - even with LA traffic. Public transit has to be faster than owning a car by a lot if it will catch on in the U.S.
It also presumes that people will be willing to give up homeownership and move to an apartment building with 300 other people in it in the city. The USA is huge and the majority of the population lives in the suburbs or rural areas. Public transportation would be better if more people needed / wanted it. For most people it is not geographically viable with where they live.
@@Slater6377 Where I live, it is zoned for one house per 5 acres. Nearest road that has a bus line is over ten miles away.
@@Kriss_L I suggest you guys watch the youtube channels Not Just Bikes and City Beautiful, among others. Those 2 channels have plenty of videos on how to improve cities in North America.
@@Kriss_L I suggest you guys watch the youtube channels Not Just Bikes and City Beautiful, among others. Those 2 channels have plenty of videos on how to improve cities in North America.
So true. I live about 32 miles from my BF. If I drive, it takes me around 30 minutes w/o traffic. It takes me about 1 hour with traffic. If I take BART (Mass transit) it takes about 50 minutes and my station is only 8 blocks (walking) away. I only see negatives taking mass transit, no positives. I still have to walk to the station (18 minutes) and he has to pick me up at the station down there. So all in all, it takes far longer and more effort to take mass transit than driving.
City planners in the USA should take a master class by Europeans
It's not just a city planner issue, or at least it's much less on them. Politicians control a lot of this, and they are motivated to not understand things. Worse, local politicians often can't even affect this for the better if they want to, it's under the control of regional or even state government bodies. Like in Austin Tx, the state government is trying (and hopefully won't succeed) in forcing a 20 Lane highway onto it's own capital city, which has consistently rejected that approach which has proven to fail because of induced demand. See Houston, which also expanded to a 23 Lane highway and traffic times INCREASED by 30%.
European city planning would never work in the US for MANY reasons.
We need to stop subsidizing the suburbs and make them pay for their own infrastructure. If their taxes matched what their lifestyles cost the rest of us, they'd learn the value of density real quick.
The problem is that most of the suburbs have a downtown dense main street, but they divulge into white picket hell very quickly.
THIS. Their Ponzi scheme must end. Make them pay for what they use. Sell it as libertarianism if it helps
Um no. We can't just bulldoze the suburbs and rebuild everything.
It's 2021, we don't have the birthrate for that.
Instead we should invest in a better layout of the suburbs.
Less stroads, better sidewalks and bikelanes on the main streets, and help local buissnesses instead of big box stores.
The federal government should stop backing loans/mortages for properties in single-family-housing areas that restrict height construction, have parking requierements and minimum lot sizes. The Federal government should also stop funding infrastructure for these areas.
To get Federal funding and loan backing, the property should be at a walkable distance from a public transit station and have non of the restrictions mentioned above.
@@sm3675 - What you described is simply less suburbs. If we stop subsidizing the suburbs, the market will take care of the rest.
those old AMC video clips are awesome, my mom used to have an Ambassador wagon
I’ve always looked at the car vs bus (or carpool) question like the packet switching versus hard line for phones and data. Packet switching is so much better for sending something to a specific destination. A packet doesn’t have to keep a whole line connected all the way from one device to another. Same is true with a car. I can hop in my car get to where I need to go and be free to leave as soon as I’m ready. I’m also not stuck going wherever the bus is going. I can drive there myself.
If our goal is to reduce emissions (and it should be) we should be looking at innovating ways to make less emissions more convenient than my current best option.
I don't think most people know what packet switching is. I don't either.
@@gahbah274 yeah I realize that. It’s a way to send information over a network. It is split into little packets and each one finds its own route to the destination. It can avoid traffic congestion by finding another route,. Because it is a small packet it doesn’t keep your phone line busy, etc.
Where I live, it is zoned for one house per 5 acres. Nearest road that has a bus line is over ten miles away.
Nice analogy as a programmer. I will try my own analogy.
For packet switching public transport, we have something called "bicycles".
The problem with cars is their bigger MTU compared to the number of data inside the packet, leading to congestion.
Bus and trains has bigger MTU, but they also have bigger data inside it, maximizing efficiency.
Bicycles have small data inside but smaller MTU.
"HOV lanes were only for the highest capacity transit--"
Me: trains?
Video: "buses."
I mean we are talking about roads so at most I would expect trams, but even then in my corner of Europe trams often get their own concrete free lanes in the middle of a wide median.
I don't drive to work and end up driving almost solely at off-peak times. My problem with HOV lanes is that they are the far left lane (where I live) and for some reason people insist on driving in them even when they're driving slower than the rest of traffic. People are usually pretty good about keeping to the right when driving slow but HOV lanes do not follow this for some reason. So I end up having to pass them on the right.
I have noticed it as well. I believe most people are too afraid to change lanes or be too close to exits that they accidently get off the ramp.
In my experience, HOV drivers will be either slower or much faster than others. The slower ones are the ones attempting to go the speed limit (because everyone here speeds).
The faster ones basically treat it like a secondary passing lane, which around here is not used for passing so much as going progressively faster the further left you go. When they get tired of the people cruising at speed limit they use the passing lane for actually passing.
@@BonaparteBardithion exactly the same where I live. IMO it should be used as the "fast" or passing lane.
@@MichaelTheophilus906 I am totally fine with that. But then speed limits need to be reasonable (I.e. much higher than the current ones) and people should keep to the right when driving under the speed limit.
Wait, in America you have carpool lanes, but the rules of overtaking still apply? That's a fault in my opinion.
I can't wait to get rid of my car when I move back to New York
I used to love riding public transport, it cut my daily time behind the wheel from an hour and a half to less than fifteen minutes. Then last month my car got stolen from the bus stop parking lot. Haven’t been able to convince myself to ride it since.
Damn sorry
At least where I live in northern California, when traffic jams up it includes the HOV lane because over half the drivers in the lane are by themselves. They have no problem essentially breaking the law because you never see CHP patrolling it. Considering the insane $500+ fine it could be a massive cash cow for the state but instead you only see CHP pulling speeders over when the roads are open which in itself can cause congestion from the idiots that think a cop will immediately let their current speeder go because your doing 10 over by going 75 in a 65. Drives me insane when you see the brake lights because someone is pulled over.
You're mostly correct, but I have been pulled over by CHP on the Highway 4 HOV lane because he couldn't see my son in the back seat.
you are supposed to slow down or move over for a stopped emergency vehicle. Those people who do that are following the law.
I do find it a bit absurd how it seems like cops focus primarily on speeding - not a particularly dangerous thing under most circumstances in which it's possible - yet don't do much about other things that are much more frustrating or dangerous. Like texting while driving, littering (including cigarette butts, which is infuriating in Colorado where everything is on fire half the time) or failing to signal. I'm guessing because speeding is relatively unambiguous and easy to prove with a radar gun, and in many cases a pretty big fine. A better cost-benefit for the officer, even if not the most useful thing they could do.
Covid threw a wrench into traffic in my city (Chicago). We have a fairly good public transit system, but after 2020, the covid risk , the crime increase and the overall decline in reliability made public transit far less desirable. Now, a 15 mile commute takes an hour and a half, express lanes be damned.
Half the time in HOV lanes u got a slow car holding everyone up and you can’t switch lanes cuz the other lane is the lane other cars are speeding in.
They should ticket the slow drivers and ban them from the HOV for life. If they do that then the HOV will never work.
The best solution is rails with frequently scheduled trains. Cities have been tearing out rails instead of putting them in. It is crazy.
Me living in country with normal, working infrastructure: What is this shlt?
I use those lanes when I'm going a really long distance and I want to relax. Less stressful.
I feel like the best solution would be to set up a good passenger rail system and bus rapid transit system to reduce road usage, and modify lanes layouts, with a typical 4 lane road I’d change it to have 1 lanes for buses and emergency vehicles, 1 lanes for carpools, 1 lane for lorries and vans, and only one lane for single occupancy cars. That way, most people see the normal lane full of cars, and are spurred to take a carpool or better yet, a bus or train, heavily reducing the cars on the road. Adding new lanes to be carpool lanes is a mistake I feel, but using my system would make driving worse for people, and therefore reduce cars on the road. That’s why you also need buses and trains to provide good alternatives.
Paired with public transit er must create less convenient car use. Like less parking space. No free parking. Detours for cars, while BUSSES and bicycles can go the shortest route.
@@th5841 yep I agree, but my suggestion of reducing car lanes helps a lot too. If you see a bus going down the road at 60mph while you’re stuck in a single lane traffic jam you’re gonna reconsider driving next time.
@@justanotheryoutubechannel Agreed. That's why I said "Paired with..."
We'd like to choose the fastest, cheapest and/or the most convenient alternative.
Well, after all the "car bad, bus/train good" videos everywhere, this is a point I haven't heard before.
Although there are basically no HOV lines in Europe, so I should have seen this coming
In France you have them, don't know about other countries.
I mean it's true, cars are way too prominent in transportation. That doesn't mean it doesn't have its place, it can still be important if you need to haul a lot of things or if you need to go from one far remote location to another, but in most cases this is not the case
In Europe we call them Bus lanes. Depending on the city taxis can use them too. Our highways also do not have so many lanes like the typical US highway.
I think buslanes are the more effective way. Especially when combined with traffic light which gives the bus priority. Drivers see the bus overtaking them every day. If the bus is faster more people will use it.
@@matthiasmay1977 Some European countries do have motorways with a lot of lanes (Netherlands, Belgium, France, etc)
@@EvilTaco Cars are the most convenient method of transportation like 90% of the time.
If you found this interesting, please check out 'not just bikes'!
I second that 👍Especially "Why I hate Houston" is pretty fitting here
Why not just revert the carpool lanes to what they started off as, bus lanes, and improve bus infrastructure?
In urban areas, I find taking (good) public transport much more enjoyable than driving and for short commutes, I love cycling. However in the low density rural region I currently reside, I think the car makes much more sense (or compact truck tbh). In regards to the HOV lane, I can honestly that its presence had NEVER induced me to carpool. I have used them when naturally carpooling but rarely felt like they truly made a difference. I like what Atlanta has done with their old HOV lane, which is to make it a tolled express lane. I rarely choose to use it but every once in a while I'm in more of a hurry when crossing Atlanta and love that I can opt for a faster experience in exchange for a few dollars. When it comes to travel in the US, the car is certainly the answer, but I would so quickly switch to trains if they were a real option.
It's not the HOV lane to blame on 5 lane highway. It's the bike lanes in the busy city with 2 bikes passing per 30 min and the 2 bus lanes with every 10 minutes passing interval per bus.
I would love to see more car sharing but I don't see how it's possible when so many of us start and end shifts at completely different times and live in completely different areas. I had just one coworker who lived near me, and our start and end times were an hours off from each other. Now I have a kid. Who's going to ride with me and wait while I go pick up my son? No one I know.
American road/traffic design is one major flop🤦♂️
I actually really like driving! I wouldn’t enjoy being forced to use public transit which is why I can’t see myself living in a city
The thing about non-car centric infrastructure is that you don't have to give up your car.
many cities in Netherlands were concrete wastelands, but after they started changing things to use less cars, travel times by car *improved* even with less lanes.
@@cola98765 Travel times may have improved, but what about parking?
@@b-chroniumproductions3177 There wern't much in the first place, an people that don't drive don't use parking.
No matter how good public transportation gets, one thing that will always suck ass is being locked into its schedule. Not to mention the inability to change your route on the fly or make spontaneous stops. The flexibility of a personally operated vehicle is unrivaled
I live in Los Angeles and in 52 years, I have never met anyone in a carpool except for the vanpools that come from Palmdale to El Segundo, aerospace sponsored vanpools. All the car pool lanes due is clog up the rest of the lanes resulting in far more pollution and burning more gas.
I love driving, all my vehicles are fun & sporty. However, if public transit could somehow get me to work as quickly as my car does, I'd take it in a heartbeat even if I had to leave a few minutes earlier.
Personally, I love my humble ol' hatchback, and love even more to carpool my friends. But a big part of me feels that if in my country, there was more efficient public transport, i wouldnt hesitate. Solo drive is a fascinating experience but public transport has such a smaller footprint when more people adopt it
the purpose of the word personally?
Thank you for this. It has always annoyed me that children count towards the HOV number, even babies (in my State). If your kids cannot drive, it’s not carpooling. You are not taking a car off the road.
In my area, most carpool lanes are full of married adults and families - natural carpool. No one is actually changing their lifestyle to “carpool” and take a car off the road. It would be the same.
I am okay with certain times a day carpool around the 8-5 commuter hour M-F, but when the lane stays HOV 24/7 all you are doing is giving natural carpool a benefit.
I'd rather see the carpool lane with more cars than less... Helps disperse the entire freeway better... While we are at it, we should allow motorcycle lane splitting on a federal level. A) it makes more room for cars B) it would encourage more people to ride motorcycles, which also makes more room for cars, which equals less congestion. Win/Win
@@jordesign motorcycle lane splitting isn't allowed because its dangerous, but then again I'm shocked how here in CT you aren't even required to wear a helmet on one so i guess who cares about safety.
I also never even considered riding with family to be a carpool before. To me a carpool was 2 people riding together to the same destination so they didn't all have to drive, and not a family of 4 going on vacation.
Laughs in Toronto because HOV lanes go slower than regular traffic. Just make it a bus only lane we can get decent bussing if you ask me.
That miata in thumbnail look clean