according to union of concerned scientists an electric vehicle produces 28 tons of pollution to create, even when powered by renewables it's still considerable.
No problem 😇 helsinki and north european cities are mostly not good examples for how cramped european cities are on average as in north they build them mostly from wood (so many cities have burned and there are few old buildings) this is why houses arent build so closely
It seems like a feedback cycle. Without cars you want to live within walking distance and then you don't need a car because everything is built for walking. LA and American suburbs are an example of the opposite.
Even if you live within walking distance of many things, sometimes you just plain need a car. Try hauling anything even remotely large and bulky on public transit and see how that goes. Or buying a bunch of groceries or anything in large quantity and its going to be a chore.
@@UzumakiNaruto_ There're trailers that you can attach to bikes. Said bikes could then be installed with an electric motor to help you pedal it... But in general it's possible to do deliveries (even of furnitures etc.) without owning a vehicle. You just pay for the deliveries (or the cost be included in the purchase). Or maybe someone somewhere could subsidy it...
@@UzumakiNaruto_ " Try hauling anything even remotely large and bulky ..." How often do you do that? "Try hauling anything even remotely large and bulky ..." How about, buy less but more often? See, among others: th-cam.com/video/8Tej4eRez-8/w-d-xo.html
@@UzumakiNaruto_ Most Europeans don't buy a giant load of groceries all at once like most Americans do. They normally stop into the grocery store on their walk home from work or something else since its much more convenient, and buy just what they need for the next couple days or so.
@@UzumakiNaruto_ Occasionally paying the delivery fee when you need a new couch or whatever, if a fee is even there at all, is still way cheaper than owning a car that you barely use.
Life would definitely be better if most of life's essential services were within walking distance. Plenty of green spaces, parks, outdoor amenities, Grocery, schools, healthcare and childcare. Cars are expensive financially, environmentally, mentally and physically. There would also be a stronger sense of community.
Yes, there is a lack of community in the U.S. that's due to vehicles are personal so you are driving by yourself in contrast when riding public transit you are riding with other people.
Yes as here. I live in a city at lake constance, I walk 20 minutes to the largest lake in Germany, 10 minutes and I'm in a forest to relax. But everything can also be reached on foot, by bike or by bus. And the station for trains to go to other cities is just around the corner. I have a car, but I actually don't need it very often. There are now even roads here for bicycles only, and some time ago there was even a bridge built over the Rhine (Germany's largest river) exclusively for bicycles and pedestrians. Also I think I need more time with my car to go to work then by bike.
I greatly appreciate the environmental/economic end of reducing cars in cities. However, I’d wager what we should really be using as a factor is simply the bump in quality of life. I feel freer, more connected, and overall happier being able to walk/bike to my destinations rather than hop on a big street/freeway just to get my groceries.
I agree. I would want to be able to just walk/bike to a local corner store for my weekly groceries and then know that in my neighbourhood there is plenty of green space, parks for recreation, nearby healthcare, school/daycare and even a community centre to give more options for indoor/outdoor learning and recreational space. But alas, I live in a small Canadian city which has unfortunately fell to the more American-style of growth with moves away from city centres an close-knit neighbourhoods to suburbs sometimes far away from essentials (car-far away, that is). My hope is that when the idea of less walk/bike, short-ride friendly cities catches on that it also catches on in North America and the rest of the world.
Yeah same. Honestly being able to walk to a destination helped my depression more than anything. When I was depressed in surburbia, I would go days without food, because driving to the store or to a restaurant was too much. But when I moved into a more walkable area, I was able to walk to get food at a local restaurant or the convenience store. It really helped me.
@@coolioso808 healthcare is an interesting thing to bring up, because I'm just thinking now about how as an American, there are doctors' offices in walking distance from me, but the one that my insurance takes I need to drive a town over. Really amazing system we have here...
@@GalladofBales Yeah, that is quite strange and interesting. However, even though it would be nice if your doctor was closer, the doctor isn't someone people generally have to visit on a daily or weekly basis, so a little extra transit time is probably okay. Whereas things like groceries, pharmacies, fuel stations, restaurants, shops, parks, gyms are often daily/weekly visits and should be as close to most residences as possible.
Agreed. It will take many angles and this is a gripping one. I encourage you to check out the book "Curbing Traffic" by Melissa Bruntlett and Chris Bruntlett
@Anti Tengu i feel you, probably the best thing about my area is the little pockets of wilderness remaining between the lawns. actually, atlanta has some pretty good tree cover in parts. some roads are totally shaded by foliage :)
I live in The Netherlands and all our cities, even the ones with a population of 20,000 have banned cars from the centres. The city I live in (Groningen) offers park & ride facilities. Parking lots are build on the outskirts of the city, where you can park for free and you can take the bus towards the city centre and back for just 2 Euros per 3 people. This video basically explained my everyday life.
Still not everywhere though. Especially in some smaller places. I was on holiday last week on the IJsselmeer and I was really annoyed by the 2 places I went out to eat. FIrst, the Melkmarkt in Enkhuizen. There are a couple of restaurants with terasses along a road that looks like a promenade. But it's full with through traffic! And they ride relatively fast for the amount of people walking and sitting there. Second, the Nieuwstraat in Medemblik. Also a street with many restaurants. I was told that that street used to be autoluw (only for people living there and goods deliveries). But now they changed it again to allow throughtraffic. And not for the better. Granted, these two cities are below the 20.000 population you mentioned, but thats is no excuse for not banning cars. Both cities are attractive to tourists that often come by boat: i.e. have to walk around the city and don't drive a car.
More than anything else, I think that last part is why these attempts fail in the US. I'd love to not have to drive to go into the nearby city, and while they're doing their best to make the city itself more walkable and car hostile, they forget to make any provision for people coming into the city to get there and get around. So now I just avoid it.
That's such a more economical model too. Urban land has high value and cars take up a lot of space. It is a far better use of land to build urban amenities densely without automobile infrastructure and having parking lots on the edge of town accessed by public transit. This maximizes tax value per acre, which is a prime metric for a city's fiscal health. Infrastructure costs more the more area you have to cover. The more money you have per hectare the better funded your infrastructure can be.
Great vid. Don't know if you avoided in purpose the "zoning" factor: In Europe, you can walk around the block and find 6 markets, 2 restaurants, 4 cafes... and so on. This makes it so that most of your needs you can suply them with a short, pleasant walk. In cities with single-zoning, you have to travel several kilometers just to buy juice.
Great point! The zoning is a major issue. It makes such a huge difference. I grew up in Vancouver and the nearest supermarket was 21 blocks away. Now I live in Hamburg and the nearest supermarket is a 1-minute walk away. And within a 10 minute walk there are at least 4 supermarkets. It makes a huge difference to the transportation needs
@@Kibatsume1 If you want to only buy groceries every 2 to 3 weeks, no one is stopping you! Having a grocery store a minute away would just make your biweekly grocery trip that much faster ;D and if you happen to forget something, it's easy to grab. it's a win win for everyone!
@@Kibatsume1 I buy groceries daily or bidaily. It's quite pleasant and adds a nice routine to your weeks :) Only possible because the closest store is within pleasant walking-distance though.
@@TurtleGamers1 Good for you , I work 12 hour shifts or more not uncommon to work 6 days a week , Haven forbid there is a emergency case I have had to stay 14 1/2 hours! I have restricted air way disease. Walking is simply not an option, you will be scraping me off the concrete later.
I visited Barcelona and Madrid this summer, and my favorite aspect of the cities was EASILY the walkability. So many restaurants and attractions within a 5 mile radius, I didn't even need to rent a car. I was just able to walk or take the train/metro. It was so nice.
🥰 I lived in Madrid in my teens and it was a great city to come of age. By my 12th birthday I knew all of the metro stations (159 at the time, now more) by heart and on which line they were and how to transfer. I was totally independent and safe. The metro was my default transport and rarely did I walk a few kilometers without taking a metro inbetween. But when I did, I discovered things were often closer to each other than I thought. Driving around it is stupid. 🤣 🧐Which is why 80% of the households in Barcelona have a car that they only use at weekends, on trips away from the city. The statistics are similar in Brussels and Berlin. 🤩
Yea one of the great selling point of most European cities is that car rental is never something you have to deal with unless you want to go inter-city travelling (and even then, the plethora of public transport means offer plenty of alternatives still). And another great part is that this means more people in general are out on foot, which adds to the general atmosphere and life of the cities rather than having every person sitting in traffic all day.
After basically being radicalized from watching Not just Bikes, I weep when I look at before and after photos of Americans cities. Our cities layouts were great and they got bulldozed for the car and it’s freeways. So many Cities are extremely ugly and unpleasant to go in, it’s terrible. I hope we can undo the damage and restore cities to their former glory
@@justrandomthings319 I thought you guys didn’t believe in evolution. Also evolution isn’t always good, like in natural evolution. Some people haven’t evolved yet, while some people evolved in different ways.
Not likely. Unless your in one of the Pre-car cities like Boston or NYC, the Zoning laws prohibited mixed use. Thus you would have to rezone downtown and rebuild to allow the neighborhood shop under the apartments.
Cars are ridiculously dangerous. Once you start taking note of how often someone is killed by a car you start to think, how is this allowed? If anything else were this lethal we would have declared it a public health crisis.
Not at all. Pedestrian deaths in the US at most are 7000 people a year. That's. 002 percent of the population. Covid killed 1 million people in two years, .15 percent a year. The percentage of people killed in pedestrian accidents is practically zero. Not a public health crisis.
@Anti Tengu City-to-city by train or river raft, from cargo hub to destination by cargo bike. The Netherlands is already leading the way. You just gotta build good bike lanes everywhere and prevent sprawl.
Well the point is just take a look at houston atlanta dallas los angeles san diego miami Phoenix and most other major us cities and see how ridiculously car dependant they built them
I never thought my city could be car-free until the local government decided to heavily invest in esplanades/linear parks. The city became more bike-friendly and the pandemic further encouraged bikes as an alternative transportation. Now the local restaurants near the linear parks have started installing bike racks to entice bicyclists to stop by and eat. Bike lanes are slowly being provided and more linear parks are under construction. More people are buying bikes to alleviate boredom and hang out with friends & family at the parks and this in turn encourages more people to try it out. This coming from a province in a developing country has actually pleasantly surprised me.
@@winterwolf211 Wait really, this is happening in the Philippines? Metro Manila has the worst traffic conditions and city planning because of the car-centric urban culture brought about by U.S. colonial rule
@@Theophan123 Iloilo is in the Visayas. Burnham had a hand in planning the downtown area but not to the scale of cars so it gets confusing but not to the nightmare levels of traffic in Manila. I'd say Iloilo, if compared with other major cities in the Philippines, is known to be relatively less traffic heavy. Smooth sailing compared to Manila standards for sure. Plus due to the presence of esplanades cutting across the City itself, it became easier to navigate through bike.
I am a Houten resident. Houten is a amazing city to live. It sets pretty good example in how we should build suburbans. Cycling in Houten is super safe. It is one of the few cities were cycling is faster than taking the the car (made by design). In order to get from one neighbourhood to the other you must use the ring road. Wich can take up to 15 minutes while using the bicycle can only take 5. We also have roads wich prioritise cyclist over cars. Meaning cars always have to stop for cyclist, can’t overtake cyclist and have a max speed of 30 km. I definitely would recommend checking Houten and Utrecht out if you are in the Netherlands!
Yeah he got it wrong. There are cars allowed but the city is divided in several sections. You can’t go directly from for example section A to section B, you have to drive to the ring road and then enter section B. But you can cycle and walk between section A and B without making a detour The result of this, is that some trips take 15 minutes with the car, while the same trip costs you only 10 minutes with the bike, so it’s obvious that many people cycle instead of drive
@@tempestosfugi9846 Makes sense. Creates a helpful incentive. Funny cuz a lot of Americans would be like, "goddamn socialists" despite the fact that that's pretty much what supply side economics does but much less effectively
But that wouldn't be transportation free city. Like he compares to those cities from the past, when they didn't have cars but there were also no buses.
@@imcarlosjr4898 Commuter rail is very much possible there i think. Connecting cities that would take 2 to 4 hours to drive to could be more reachable with trains that only need half the time.
@@lambda6564 Would be amazing, but our current passenger rail networks are stuck in a nasty cycle of lower passenger demand leading to higher costs leading to lower demand leading to less service routes leading to lower demand. Breaking that cycle will be hard. Also, the universal requirement to have a car outside of a few rare urban centers leads to a (usually correct) assumption of "well I'll need a car when I get there anyways".
It’s honestly astounding how much space we have sacrificed to cars, and particularly parked cars (which is how cars spend 90% of their time). Most residential streets in London give well over half of their space to parked cars, and another 30+% to moving cars, leaving less than 20% for pedestrians.
Maybe it's my messed up thought process, but what if you have a family emergency? You need to get across town RIGHT NOW! No time to walk or bike. No time to wait on the public transit schedule. That parked hunk of steel and glass is now very handy. Or let's say a belligerent army is invading your country and you need to get your loved ones out as quickly as you can. (I assume you're going to stay behind and fight.) Or a natural disaster is imminent and it's time to bug out?
@@PakkiNakki so they were more beautiful in the buggy days when there was horse manure all over the streets? Nice. Look what you just stepped in on that "walkable " street.
@@jameshigh6481 that’s an understandable thought process however the mass use of cars would actually be detrimental rather than helpful in these cases. In a car free-for-all, traffic would probably prevent you from being able to drive fast enough in a family emergency. In an invasion or natural disaster, the potential gridlock would be astronomical. Cars are very useful on an individual level, but the traffic created is just too much unfortunately. Good for rural areas, not cities tbh
@@jameshigh6481 also there’s always going to be people who can’t/done drive, and would have to rely on other means of transport in these situations anyway. It’s kind of beside the point I know but still worth thinking about 😅
Thanks for this. I'm trying to make something similar happen in Harrisburg, PA as a Planning Commissioner. Removing parking requirements, lowering speed limits to 20mph, and making alleyways into woonerfs are all in my agenda. But...most Harrisburgers look at me like I'm a madman.
Once I explained the rationale to individual Harrisburgers who expressed an interest in it, I was usually able to get them on board with the idea. I remember how much damage city planners did to American neighborhoods in the 20th century by not listening to the people who actually lived in those places. The stuff I'm aiming to do is repeal as much of those misguided efforts as possible.
this won't get you anywhere. if you have authority on your side, resort to a heavy-handed approach if the outcome will lead to better life quality overall
@@jpe1 I don't know about all of Manhattan, but either lower Manhattan as far up as Houston, or maybe 14th street would be worth a try. You have to be pretty crazy to drive down there anyway.
@@zoicon5 yes I think starting off with little sections would be more ideal than big chance with Manhattan since it’s basically a car hive mind(before the pandemic anyway)
@@zoicon5 Start off doing it like Amsterdam did in the 70s, i.e. instead of allowing through-traffic between different parts of Manhattan, only allow through-traffic along the rivers, so every ten blocks or so the avenues would be blocked for cars and perhaps even block one of the avenues, maybe 6th, for crossing east-west traffic. This would increase the time it takes to drive while still allowing pedestrians and cyclists through and delivery trucks can still get to their destinations, but it would likely reduce private vehicle and taxicab traffic drastically. Possibly due to the size of Manhattan, there would still have to be a couple of cross-streets open for essential traffic to work properly.
Normally I dont care much about when youtubers advertise things like nebula, curiosity stream, skillshare etc. But your content is the one that makes me want to jump over there. You dangled a lure out and ya caught me, hook line and sinker.
Barcelona is my favorite place in the world to explore on foot. I also lived in Hamburg Germany without a car over 1 year and I really didn’t miss car ownership the whole time. The public transport was so dependable and effective, it was great!
And the noise and the ressources consumed and the high costs to society when all the electric infrastructure has to be expanded at a great cost to accommodate the electric vehicles. People say electrics are silent, well they aren't, all vehicles create terrible roll noise, the frequency of the tyre noise spreads for very long distances, most engines can't be heard from half as far as tyres can. The most stressful component of living in a city or even in a tiny village is generally the incredible traffic noise. In villages you hear the noise from trucks, farmers and fast moving cars from all directions as well.
True. Electric cars are just marginally less polluting than thermic cars. My electric cargo bike, on the other end, uses very little electricity, almost no spare parts, and does basically everything an electric car can do.
I like how everyone forgets that we still burn fossil fuels. What if all the electricity for your car comes form coal??? PROBLEM NOT SOLVED!! How long is it going to take for people to take non-car related transport seriously?? Like, NO MORE CARS, it's not that difficult a concept. Besides, this isn't even mentioning the fact that cars take up too much space, are dangerous, and simply are not compatible with cities. Cars in and around cities need to go, period. Full stop.
I'm so envious of all of the amazing transit-based development that's occurring in Europe. I look at cities in the US and while there are a few neighborhoods and towns that favor walking or cycling, those that exist are insanely expensive to live in. It's a real bummer that I literally don't have a choice but to own a car if I want to get to work, unless I want to pay multiple thousands of dollars monthly in rent.
I’m surprised you didn’t mention Milan, one of Europe’s cities that have been making the biggest effort to convert into a green and pedestrian-friendly city over the last 10 years. It was the third city in the world to introduce a road pricing scheme after Oslo and London and it built two new metro lines in just over 10 years. The core historic centre has been almost entirely pedestrian for many years now.
You can go inside that ring with a car in Houten. Its more that all the through traffic uses the ring to pass around the core and the residential areas. Also, Houten is far to small, even for Dutch standards, to qualify as a city. Its more like a hamlet turned into a suburb of Utrecht.
Yes, that wasn't explained very well. You can drive the car inside the ring, but you cannot pass from district to district inside the ring. Removing through traffic is the key ingredient that makes Dutch cities so bike-friendly.
I discovered this channel just recently and now I'm binge watching all episodes. Fantastic content. Warm regards from a cycling enthusiast from Brazil.
Just wanted to say thanks for the super informative and accessible videos... not only are they entertaining, but they encouraged me to dig deeper into urban planning and urban studies in my own time, after I realized how fascinating it all is to me. I finished a bachelors in politics and philosophy early last year and had always regretted not taking more classes on urban issues. But now in September I will be starting a masters program in urban planning :) Keep up the vids!
The claim isn't really true either. Only through-traffic is forbidden, so you need to drive on the figure 8 to get from neighborhood to neighborhood by car, but many, if not most, streets are open to local car traffic.
@@sagichnicht6748 Yeah, so if you're not driving on a major street, that means you're always going to be a few hundred meters away from your destination. But cyclists get to zip right through the bollards and get from compartment to compartment directly and with ease. It's always fun to browse Google Maps and see how different areas of the Netherlands have pulled off that very same trick. Like, for example, Amsterdam is an extreme example of this. Just for fun, look up car directions between the New Church and the Old Church in Amsterdam. The distance is literally 10x longer by car than if you were to walk or cycle, and that's only because cars have to take the long way 'round on the bigger streets instead of cutting through the busy shopping streets.
@@weetikissa If you have a thin motorcycle can you "drive" between districts THROUGH the bollards? Alternatively: if you have a bulky cargobike, a trike or a velomobile - despite being pedal powered you still have to go the long way around? The system sounds good overall, but i can see some holes in it.
Can we get a video on drawing city boundaries? I always find that they're absolutely nonsensical in the US (like the municipal equivalent of gerrymandering). Thanks!
good observation there! It has always bothered me that people take New York and New Jersey as two different cities, when in reality they are not. I know it's because of political and historical reasons, but C'mon, they are linked in so many ways, they merge into one single entity.
@@antoinetremblay22 I'm not an expert on this topic, so I can't say much. I just wanted to mention that the idea of limiting city boundaries is starting to take hold in a few areas in the US. Portland comes to mind, and a few cities in California are also debating it, mostly to restrict the conversion of farm land to urban. I personally like the idea, though I'm traditionally a rural fellow. I've seen first hand how urban sprawl can affect others. Houses that were obviously built in the country that are now surrounded by urban blocks. I've also experienced LA first hand, and yes, the entire place is a cluster****. I hate that city with a passion. In the past, most cities in the US had ample land to expand, and low density residential was cheaper and more desirable, especially during the baby boomer years. Between lack of convince, rising cost of living and environmental issues (wildfires in CA, for example) that's starting to change. I personally despise being crammed on top of others and not having personally owned land, but I can see how others would enjoy this kind of lifestyle.
When I arrived at Dallas I had no car (obviously) so I had to move somehow, I walked, used the train and busses (which are horrible) and uber, every time someone told me to "drive here, or there" and I told them I didn't have a car they would just look at me with a "wtf is wrong with you" face. Everybody is expected to have a driver's license here, everybody is expected to have a car, not having one makes you weird, for someone who didn't need a car for the first 25 years of his life, this place is weird
Same story in Germany with the difference that the drivers license here cost 20 times more than in most US states ... and yet most teens do their license and can't wait to finally not having to use bus and train
Can't imagine what it must be like to live in a car-centric city and not be able to drive (due to vision impairment, a disability, etc.). Must be a nightmare. You'd be completely dependent on other people to drive you around.
I used to live in dallas. First job was walking distance to mockingbird station, and at the time I was near downtown Plano station. The amount of people that looked at me crazy when I told them I took the train to work…
@@safe-keeper1042 this is me right now. I had a seizure 3 months ago and Its now illegal for me to drive. But I live in atlanta so it’s almost inevitable. And i live in a walkable neighborhood (midtown) so I can accomplish a lot on foot, but when all my doctors appointments are all far…
I live just outside Oslo and another reason there are so few drivers in Oslo is because it's super stressful to drive there. Finding the road you're allowed to drive on isn't easy, many streets are one-way and it changes frequently enough for it not to get easier. People do not fear cars and also don't respect them (which I think is good, Oslo is for people), so you need to stay extra vigilant to make sure you don't hit anyone. Most streets are narrow and might have uneven paving or tram tracks so the drive won't be smooth. The city centre is pretty well covered by different types of public transit, it's much less stressful and might be faster anyway
When I was studying in Quito, Ecuador I noticed the colonial section of the city has much narrower streets and significantly less traffic than the modern parts of the city.
I think this is a thing in South America, my city’s colonial area has really narrow streets and sidewalks, so a large majority of them have been turned to pedestrian streets or only bus/ambulances streets.
also, let's not mince words here: electric vehicles are not zero-emission. the car could be moved around by magic and it still would require literal tonnes of metal, glass, and plastics, all of which cause huge emissions throughout their lifecycle.
Lol your post here isn't zero-emission and even if it showed up on phones by magic the device its read on is made up of materials... what's your point?
@@Andrew1680 Enough with the Global Warming Agenda already. It is not worth sacrificing the constitutional liberites of others just to supposedly save the Earths Wildlife from extinction. That can be best done through parks and reserves. If your worried about air pollution why don't you all talk to China about their high "Carbon Footprint" because it is not helping the wildlife there. The air in Europe before this car-free mess started was perfectly clean in the 1990s due to air-pollution reduction laws which were perfectly fine by themselves.
@@mapgar1479 ok. I think electric cars are cool, low maintenance, crazy fast at accelerating, and the future. I'm not for one world order or making you give up your gas car
5:13 I don't get why you would build expensive underground tunnels for trash, and robot delivery. In Amsterdam there are block trash bins which are way more easily to maintain and more efficient. Also if you'd build your grocery store around the corner you could just walk there normally.
The trash I get, the robots seem like a gimmick. I think the trash works because you remove the need for industrial machinery to need to use the streets on a regular basis. But the robots just seem to be asking for problems I agree.
But who's going to deliver to the grocery store? You could have an underground system delivering all the necessary items to a transport hub then local stores could pick up their items from there. That way you'd get yet more trucks off the road. As for it being expensive: don't we have sewers and trains underground? It probably justifies the expense once you have a lot of people and don't need long tubes to serve a given amount of people.
@@izdatsumcp I don't know what's easier to maintain, I have nothing against the tunnels if that's the case. And of course getting more cars of the road is always great.
I recently spent a week in Paris. For various reasons we drove there. When we got there parked the car and left it for the week. I had been lent an underground parking space. If not, parking for week would have been as expensive as a hotel. I wouldn't have driven anywhere in the city as I would have spent hours looking for somewhere to park. In any case nowhere in the city is further than a few minutes walk from a metro station. The majority of Parisians do not own a car!
This makes me feel a lot better about not knowing how to drive yet. I live in a suburb neighbourhood with older houses. And there are plenty of opportunities to bike and walk places. Never knew how much city planning affects everyone. Hope to have car free cities in North America. That’d be cool!
Not so long ago, people were expecting individual FLYING cars for the bright future. It really puts things into perspective, how we're inclined to imagine and think accordingly to our current ways of life.
True, wich takes some of the worst aspects of the car (noise, non-scalability, huge energy requirements) and makes it even more difficult and dangerous. And people are still expecting this to be a big part of the future. Imagine every person that is now taking the train flying to work with a helicopter, how could anyone think this would be a good idea or even remotely feasible.
A particularity in Eastern Europe, in cities and towns influenced by soviet street planning, you can go to shopping or to do work both on foot or with personal car, taxi or public transport.
I am in Slovenia, we had cars on main square in capital, we only closed it since we got capitalism. And we closed old streets build before comunism. I didnt travel much in eastern europe, but i was in Moscow and all i saw is endless traffic that doesnt even move for ambulance:) catastrophy basically. People driving 2h to work etc.. crazy.
Seattle’s grid runs completely on renewable energy as well as Burlington and most of the entire state of Washington, Oregon, Vermont, and Maine. Also the USA govt is investing $7B/year in R&D for new green technologies which is by far the largest investment in green energy research of any country in the world at the moment. Not to mention, the 5 largest corporate buyers of renewable energy in the world are all American companies lol, emissions have been steadily decreasing in America since 2005
@@mwanikimwaniki6801 You are correct, the U.S is #2. However, China is a far more polluted country ranked #14 in the world. www.iqair.com/world-most-polluted-countries
I would also like to see videos about cities around the world, not only European and American cities.... This channel is too western centric and that it´s a shame...
I did a whole video specifically dedicated to the history of Tokyo. And I recently did a video on land reclamation that focused on Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Seoul.
What I meant is having cities from different parts of the world in 1 topic, like the one about megalopolis, not 1 region for 1 topic, hope you can accept my proposal 😊
In the US for you to have a job you need a car, to have a car you need a job. Majority of American workers are working just to maintain their vehicle/s The cost of fuel, maintenance, repairs, insurance, taxes, vehicle payments adds up taking a big chunk of what could of been a big savings, down payment for a home, emergency, vacation trips or just financial stability.
@MikeN Ike It's a massive improvement in their lives. It reduces noise and air pollution and it increases the amount of physical activity which is good for both mind and body.
@MikeN Ike And holy shit! Motorcycles will make noise pollution worse. Somehow a motorcycle can be louder than a 6,000 horsepower diesel locomotive. Not everyone can afford to buy and maintain a car.
I don't understand the hate for cars, you can literally get anywhere where you want on the other part of the city without having to wait for taxi or something, especially if you're in a hurry. You won't have to freeze in winter waiting for public transport. You don't have to be a bodybuilder to carry a bunch of bags from the supermarket, but you can put them in a back of a car like any normal person, you can even carry some smaller furniture or your computer/tv to a service shop or something. If you want to be an Eco warrior, go fight China and India, which cause much more pollution than cars do.
with public transit providing a tight network and schedule you can go to any part of the city at the time you like to as well. In my home town of 200k the most frequent bus lines were served on a 10 minute schedule. In Oslo, high speed trains on the very same line go on the same 10 minute schedule. Also with public transit you don't spend time and money for a place to park. You can transport groceries also by bike, or if you transport lots of them on a regular basis also a cargo bike
You’re so right!!! My car is my FREEDOM!!! I don’t understand why people want to give up their cars. I hate not having a car, I want to be independent. Go everywhere I want, to visit family in another city or go on roadtrips! Driving makes me happy and I’m never going to give that up! It’s their choice if people want to get rid of their cars, but I choose to keep my car and enjoy life
Greetings from LA. For obvious reasons I would LOVE to see fewer cars here. It definitely won't work citywide but in certain areas like the touristy areas of Hollywood, downtown, and other places.
I live in Oslo, driving and parking in the city is super easy, it is just way too expensive, so only the rich people can drive, I don't think that should be a model
I don't think there is a total solution. Neither complete car culture nor complete car bans work. The most important task of public transit and pedestrian friendly development is the reduction of car traffic in short daily commutes. But cars still offer benefits, that public transport and walking cannot fulfill. Cars are very useful and the longer a trip is, the more viable they become. Not every village can be perfectly reachable by bus and train, that is just not economically possible. And crossing a big city can take more time in public transit, if the path is not a main traffic artery. Outright banning cars is not the best idea, but making other options available for short trips is the better way in my opinion.
Not so much banning cars as making them unnecessary. Cars are far from the only option for longer trips. Trains are a better option. But for trains to be an option we also need to talk about density and making villages better.
I agreed with this, I love car, but despite owning a car, I still commute using public transit because while it's not any quicker than driving, it's more relaxing that getting stuck in traffic and reserved the car only when I need them like nice fun roadtrip that is also flexible which is usually impossible with train even if the place have the rail station (like going to random national park and stop in some random small town), monthly grocery shopping, buying bulky item. Car are here to stay because there is still demand for them.
Whilst I don't agree with an outright ban - the idea that villages cannot be served by public transport is largely a myth. Let's take rural scotland - Kinlochewe is 50 miles (80 km) away from the nearest "city" - inverness, a settlement with just 47,000 residents. Yet it has 3 bus routes serving it. Kildonan station only has about 200 passengers per year - yet has 8 daily trains serving it a day. Even the low populated islands of scotland are able to support public transportation - like even villages like braemore (population under 100) on the isle of harris (no road link to mainland) have a bus service. The idea that public transport cannot support villages in any way is absurd when we have these kind of examples. And, really, how many big cities with a decent metro system have cars moving faster. I mean in London even cycling is faster than driving across it. And cars do not become more viable the longer the journey. Take London to Edinburgh (450 miles) - 5 hours by train or 7 hours 30 minutes by car or Hamburg to Munich (500 miles) - 6 hours by train or 8 hours by car. Berlin to Paris (700 miles) 8 hours 20 minutes by train - 11 hours 30 minutes by car. And that's assuming you don't take any breaks in the car - and let's be honest I'd rather be sat on the train reading a book, watching a film or even sleeping than spending 8 hours driving! It's only in places like the United States where people bring up these kinds of excuses - because they don't know how public transport works. A bus route isn't a point-to-point village to city. It's usually village-village-village-town.
I think you're right that it's different for different places. A small town isn't going to have a lot of congestion and, consequently, isn't going to have bad air quality. Additionally, it's less likely to have the scale to make public transport viable. Ultimately, I think, you should be only looking at taking cars off the road in big cities i.e. where they cause congestion and air pollution. But we should allow mixed use and tall buildings so we can get the population density to allow car free places to happen.
@@CultOfAlan But surely it doesn't make much economic sense, nor are the buses that often. Edit: I'm talking about public transport and rural Scotland.
We shouldn’t go to either extremes. Daily ventures should be within safe walking or cycling distance. But the joy of cruising wherever you like should remain an everlasting personal freedom.
Mexico has similar problems with sprawl and love of cars yet many Mexican cities continue converting streets to pedestrian only zones. I realize the two countries are very different but it gives me hope that the US will do the same. Road diets are a good start. In fact, the street I live on had a major road diet project and it has been such a blessing. It's better than nothing I suppose.
As weird of a plan as it may seem, I think it would be really cool to see a highway system for bikes where the outside lane is used to ride slowly and an inside lane to go fast. Personally, cycling is my favourite method of transportation. It's probably also the fastest considering it doesn't create traffic
I wouldn't say it doesn't create traffic. Traffic isn't about the mode of transport, its about how much congestion and backup and delay happens. Inside buildings when a hallway is crowded it is said to be a high traffic area. Its just bikes and pedestrians fit a lot easier than cars do into the same space and as such are less likely to cause "traffic" that inconveniences you. And i do agree with the idea of a bike "highway" just more in the sense of having a lot of multipurpose paths to take shortcuts intentionally unavailable to cars. Cars have a use, but that is more for rural regions and not urban and suburbs that should focus on transit and bike/pedestrian infrastructure.
As somone who lives in Oslo and moved from a car centric city it is a amazing change. I myself used to own a car but dont see the point anymore. The Tram / Train / Bus in Oslo is cheap and is super convinient longest i have ever waited for the tram was for 10 miniutes.... Also car sharing is a big thing so if i ever need a car to go to say ikea i can rent one for a small fee.
I live in LA and it's an absolute traffic nightmare. I wish we could adopt measures like these, but I don't know how feasible it is due to the city's layout.
@@neutrino78x Some of LA's light rail is horrible. There's a Metro in the middle of the highway. And, from videos I've seen it's an incredibly unpleasant place to be. Just with all of the cars zooming at the speeds, very little done in the way of soundproofing, it's loud enough to damage hearing with repeated exposure.
American cities should do this. It could be successful in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, NYC, and Boston.
This won't work in Southern US Cities due to Republican politics and unreal car culture, but the Northern US Cities, like NYC, Boston, Philly, DC, Seattle, San Fran and Baltimore seems more likely for this to happen.
New York City, Boston, Savannah, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, parts of Los Angeles could all do this without much effort. Southern cities it is a no go, not enough people live near the core to make it possible, especially Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, well any of them. Car free would not work well in America, most people do not live in the 'city'.
@@jrus690 Living car-free isn't really about having enough people. In this video, he used the example of Houten in the Netherlands for a good car-free city, and they only have a population of 50k, which is smaller than most American city suburbs.
@@treyshaffer No I was meaning that many southern cities do not have enough of anything to do this. Even if you open them up for people they would just be boring places to walk around, so therefore hardly anybody would go there. Houten of the Netherlands is a actual city, whereas Houston's downtown is almost the same size and there is nothing there, mostly glass tower action. Los Angeles, for all of its flaws, is actually a fairly lively city by US standards, there is storefront at the bottom of the buildings. Houston, and especially Atlanta are in terrible shape.
As a lifelong driver, I agree, we need to get more cars off the road, electric or otherwise. I live in a rural area of Canada and am about to give up my truck. I understand for work/kids you need a car or truck, but now that I'm an empty nester with part time jobs it's totally do-able. I will get jobs that work around the bus schedule- I am absolutely loving taking the bus, and funnily when I meet up with friends for lunch or whatever the first thing they say is how awful the traffic/parking are. I see it as my own private limo :)
Europe may end up with fewer cars on the roads in the core of their cities, but it will NEVER EVER be car free because all these ideas are mostly only feasible in the very heart of a city where its most dense and busy and it might make sense to drastically reduce the number of cars in those areas. Outside of that core area for many cities, I don't see why many people would want to drop driving if they can afford it. Drive less? Perhaps, but not drive at all? I doubt it. Also outside of enviromental reasons, why stop driving if you actually enjoy it? If I lived in a city with great transit I would consider driving less, but I would NEVER give it up completely when I enjoy simply cruising the streets and going where I want to go without having to be cooped up with other strangers on a bus, subway etc. and being restricted to where I can go based on where the transit goes.
zero car is just irrealistic ma drive less is 100% possibile here in Europe, unless you live in rural areas not only urban cores but also many residential neighborhoods and towns are 100% walkable, with medium-density and services-packed so that you potentially have houses and services/shops/schools/workplace all at walk distance mixed-use neighborhoods are the solution
To be fair even his 'car-free' examples still allowed private cars, just restricted their use. I agree the goal for now should be making transit, walking and cycling so appealing that if a household needs a car they can do well with just one small one rather than 3 large cars per family.
@@l0ndon429 Well that's more likely to happen in Europe than it ever will in places like North America where the land is plentiful and even if we should be increasing density here its not going to happen anytime soon. Its unfortunate but that's the way it is and will always be here.
@@UzumakiNaruto_ I really doubt that it will happen ‘no time soon.’ The general trend globally (and in the US) is towards sustainable development. In older cities like Boston they’ve managed to reverse decades of urban renewal through things such as replacing a freeway cutting the city in half with a new huge park, while Minneapolis has abolished single family zoning, as has all of Oregon. Even in newer car dependent cities we’re seeing change. Los Angeles 2030 has a clear vision of reducing emissions and encouraging active transport. San Francisco has taken moves to pedestrianise major roads. Austin has a $7 billion plan to create a complete and comprehensive with a new light rail, new electric bike fleet, expanded bus services, all electric bus fleet and new and expanded commuter lines, and so much more. If Austin, a sprawling city in Conservative Texas can make moves in the right direction, I think most cities can. And yes, some cities have continued to build more highways and worse, but the general trend is very clear. Things are changing, they’re not ‘the ways things will always be’ as you describe.
@@l0ndon429 Boston simply moved their traffic from above ground to below it with the massive tunnels they've built for vehicles. Go look up the Big Dig and see for yourself what that project was all about. 'Los Angeles 2030 has a clear vision of reducing emissions and encouraging active transport. San Francisco has taken moves to pedestrianise major roads. ' Goodluck to LA in trying to hit those emission goals. If they can do it good for them, but I'm not holding my breath on that one. 'Austin has a $7 billion plan to create a complete and comprehensive with a new light rail, new electric bike fleet, expanded bus services, all electric bus fleet and new and expanded commuter lines, and so much more. ' Its one thing to create all those things, its quite another to convince people to give up their cars to use all those bikes, buses etc. if its not convenient for them to do so. I'm sure people living in downtown Austin will likely adopt to using those things more, but people living in the suburbs? I doubt they'll switch over anytime soon. 'And yes, some cities have continued to build more highways and worse, but the general trend is very clear. Things are changing, they’re not ‘the ways things will always be’ as you describe.' The trend is people who live in the city core and around those areas will use transit and other means of transportation more while everyone else will continue to drive if they can afford to because it will likely remain the most convenient form of transportation for decades to come.
Thank you for this thought-provoking, timely video. Creating vibrant, flourishing pedestrian-/cyclist-oriented communities and town/city centres allows people to interact. Automobile-oriented communities teeming with strip development, shopping malls, and wide roads do not; they are also most often off-putting, ugly, depressing, and alienating. Lively, bustling neighbourhoods once defined American cities before the automobile became king. If anything positive has has come from the horrific pandemic, more people than ever recognise that cities can once again become people-oriented. I am fortunate to live in glorious Middelburg in the Netherlands; its charming, attractive, and busy town centre is reserved for pedestrians. It thrives, and it is not exceptional in this country. Americans can reclaim their city centres by embracing the New Urbanism which emphasises thriving, compact communities and transit-oriented development where the needs of people eclipse those of the automobile.
There are certainly places in the USA where having no car is actually better, like Manhattan for example. But if you want a single family home with a sizeable yard, and MANY Americans do including myself, it pretty much comes with suburban sprawl and with it, cars, because the density is too low for mass transit to be convenient enough. A 5 minute quick run to the grocery store becomes 20 minutes.
In all fairness there's sprawl and then there's sprawl. Most street car suburbs are made up of detached houses, row-houses and some small apartment buildings and are more than dense enough to have all of that. Even in a district of mostly detached homes, if you put all of the apartment buildings into one central area with transit, shops and a school or two, you're gonna have a significant minority of people able to go about their lives without a car. Once you include bikes, you can easily have everyone within a short trip of everything they need.
You can modify the cul-de-sac design to include multiuse trails (bikes and walkers) for shortcuts and have trams/street cars on main roads with stops in convient places (like infront of schools, stores, and apartment complexes as well as every few "blocks" of culdesac spurts off the main road. You could even try having higher density on the main roads with the low density on short culdesacs to balance everyone's needs and not "need" a car for everything. Obviously not everywhere can ditch the car but urban and suburban can atleast minimize the dependency and have a interface with the countryside through train stations on the outskirts that have extra large parking so those people can park outside the city for free/cheap and take transit in.
Oslo did a great job already; Just returned from a roadtrip and I experienced Oslo during rush hour ... not only in downtown streets with pedestrian zones, but also in plain normal neighborhoods at e.g. the 2nd ring road: even during rush hour on a week day there's a low number of individual car traffic going on. On a 4 lane street, only the left lanes are for individual car traffic, while the right lane is for bicycles, buses, taxis and electric cars; Btw concerning electric cars: more than 50% of all new registered cars in Norway are ALL electric, not even regarding the share of hybrids
Atlanta’s BeltLine is a surprising development towards making the city more pedestrian friendly and it’s shown the same increase in shopping that was observed in Oslo.
@@blilla9142 Lemme fix that for you: “The problem is that we need more pedestrian pathways to decongest the popular ones that are starting to be installed because everyone hates driving and being dependent on cars for everything. They want to take their kids with them to enjoy the city and now we need to keep up with demand to rededicate more of the city to something that isn’t just enjoyable but proven to be economically more successful for our outdated, failed stroad/highway experiments from the second half of the 20th century.”
I live in a city where the inner city was made mostly car free(Regensburg). It's very pleasant to walk and bike there. It's quite refreshing walking somewhere and not having to worry about getting run over by cars. In regular roads, i always subconciously think about it, even when I'm on a seperated sidewalk. Also interesting that i get the same feeling with roads in the old town where there have sidewalks. Sidewalks always make one feel unsafe and obligated to use them, even when the car free area suggests otherwise.
Imagine the logistics of actually being able to deliver goods/groceries/supplies/etc to places like this. Not even to businesses, but to houses as well. Hell, even the mail
Exactly! That is the biggest problem with going car free. In North America our grocery stores get there goods delivered by semi. How is that supposed to work for a grocery store in a car free district?
@@dustmybroom288 I live in oslo and grocery stores can still get their goods delivered to them via delivery trucks just fine. Delivery trucks has actually certain priveliges over other cars. Streets reserved for people actually often let delivery trucks enter so that small grocery shops can get their goods. If this really was a problem, grocery shops wouldnt exist here. That has not happened so i guess its not a problem then.
no big deal. Pedestrian zones usually have several hours in the morning where delivery trucks can deliver goods to shops located there. Mail can also be transported by bikes, is done here for decades already. Supplies: backpacks, bags to carry with your hands, normal bikes with bags on either side or even cargo bikes ... there are many different way to get your groceries into car-free areas.
Hi! How are you? South Korea/Seoul started the cold spell this week. The average temperature is -12'C. It snowed. I hope you have a healthy day this week. ^O^
I have watched all the videos on this channel, am subscribed and have alerts on and new videos never come up on my feed until at least a week after they've been put up.
I'm a car guy, Seriously I love cars n stuff. However I do agree, city centers should be reserved for pedestrians, cyclists, and utility vehicles. When I lived in Los Angeles it always frustrated me that I couldn't walk anywhere, and had to ask either my parents or friends for a ride (Too young to drive at the time)
I used to live in Kalasatama and you can only fill your little shopping bag-sized trash bag 3/4s of the way or else it clogs the tubes, therefore we had to use more plastic bags for our trash. Big garbage trucks still come into the area, especially because of Redi mall right in the middle of it all. It's also still full of street parking, and the slanted intersections make it really hard to see around corners.
Can't see a comment from a car enthusiast so would like to add one. From Perth, Australia, I'm genuinely excited to live in a city not largely oriented towards cars! Even though cars are my hobby, the A-B traffic grind and need to drive to almost every shop takes away from most of the fun, especially when just about everyone is on the road at the same time doing just that... And when you are a pedestrian, the time it takes to cross an intersection while you inhale all the exhaust fumes would have to be one of the worst aspects of the city lifestyle. Give me a more connected transport network, safe places to bike and walk, and let me drive the car for fun once or twice a week without traffic in the country side (where it might make more sense with less public transport)! I'm sure many enthusiasts feel the same way?
Side note: Electric cars are great but to replace every petrol and diesel car with an electric one is a lot of emissions in vehicle production alone. And you can bet manufacturers will convince people to trade in their current electric car for a better one in 3 years time, thus continuing the consumerism emissions.
I'm really happy to see a car enthusiasts' opinion here! I've been very curious about how car enthusiasts view these leftist policies for urban planning, and its really nice to see that like them :3
Oslo centre is already car light, everything is super walkable and the combination of busses trams and the underground makes it super easy and fun to get around. To make it car free would be fine but probably not that noticeable in the grand scheme of things. In winter it would be good to have EV's only as the emissions from cars hang around much longer and seem to smell much worse
In the 70's, Eugene, Oregon closed some of the downtown streets to create the downtown mall. It was successful for the first few years, then business started failing and and closing with no new businesses coming in. Around "85" or so, they re-opened the streets to cars, and businesses came back. After they built the new bus station, homeless and crime came to the downtown and still exists. A lot of this stuff is tolerated by the city, but business owners are becoming irritated at the city for not policing the area very well. With homeless and druggies sleeping in doorways and storefronts, and accosting residents and such, some businesses have closed and property remains vacant. I'm afraid that the downtown area may become a ghetto some day. If residents who live downtown could be persuaded to close downtown to cars and make use of businesses, it might become carless. But another problem are the homeless and mentally ill that inhabit the area. Until that problem gets rectified, the future of downtown doesn't look too promising. Perhaps we might get get there?
I like making random stuff for fun with things I gather, like, or know from personal studies. I didn't study urban planning, but being a person who studied the application of trees and other plants in urban areas among other agricultural things I had the chance to focus on, I decided I would design a city just for fun. It will feature a big central square with a historical point of interest, major streets leading to it, smaller squares somewhere else and a particular order for residential buildings (superblocks sound neat honestly). The project is meant to be as car-free as possible of course and major streets leading to the central square are gonna have trams / trolleybuses / ecological buses only, there's gonna be bike lanes and plenty of e-bike sharing places, I also saw "bike parking lots" in some areas near my city, basically enclosed spaces where you can safely put your bike avoiding sunlight, downfalls or thieves from damaging your bike. But a lot of focus is also put in green areas. Major streets are going to have big trees, but with regard. I often see lime trees in really small beds so they break the asphalt with their roots and they struggle growing anyways, only to have horrible pruning. So bigger trees for long streets, smaller ones (but more in quantity) for regular streets. Some parks for every neighborhood, a little playground and garden for every X number of blocks of buildings so people can meet, relax and socialise, and I'd say a centralized system that takes care of all that greens. It's usually under commission of various private companies, maybe one big company works really well so they are going to have the entire city as a customer idk. Ah yes and decentralized areas are gonna have as many roundabouts as possible instead of intersections, they're gonna have some nice decoration and some bushes - trees, let's just stop those useless cement islands I see sometimes. A lot of green areas = more carbon capture + shade + people's appreciation. I hope it doesn't sound naive or utopistic but I don't think it does. Cars won't be completely banned for example in neighborhoods or to access the city from the borders. But public transportation would be capillarized to be more efficient and convenient, hence increasing the number of people using them and therefore reducing their cost.
6:26 See, the issue with showing someone a picture like this is that, on the surface, Americans and non-Americans would say it looks pretty, but the problems are unseen. A homeowner might have some yard space and a quiet place to live, but the neighbors hardly know one another in this type of suburbia, and there's nothing that unites the people here. Everyone drives, no one walks (there might be the occasional runner), and the incentive to be a part of the lives of others in the community is low, because everyone takes their car to some distant, unconnected place to work, then returns home in their separate, secluded living space. You'll only know your neighbors if you try really hard to put together some community thing, or if you make connections at work, or when your kid makes friends in school. But even that does not do a good job at uniting the neighborhood. It's amazing that so many American neighbors only meet on something like Halloween! In the modern suburb, no one depends on another (which I guess is a part of that American-independent mindset), but the psychology of being connected in some way to your neighbors cannot be underestimated for a good, lively, livable space. Even a single local shop creates a neighborly connection because it establishes a shared space where we interact with others to get what we need, which is actually crucial for bonding with people, and seems to have been forgotten in the US. The suburb lifestyle is definitely accepted more so because people are unaware of any other way for constructing living spaces!
What really shocks me is the real hostility many Americans have towards any idea of community. 'Leave me alone' is a prevailing attitude with many in the US.
I live in Amsterdam. Iive in an apartment building with these so called community, I walk and bike a lot. I will burst your bubble. I have never made friends while commuting and I don’t know my neighbors besides the causal Hi. I have made friends at parties, school, work, the gym, dance class, restaurants, bars, but never because I am biking or walking in the neighborhood. If you wanna make friends, you can still do that while driving everywhere. I think you expect to much from getting rid of cars and not living in suburbia.
@@Churros1616 I agree that changing city infrastructure into less car dependent and isolated living spaces won't necessarily make people congregate into communities, but it does create conditions which facilitates congregation, and which are necessary for congregation, and that's important. Suburbia does neither of these things effectively.
The Boston region has very walkable old centers because everything is more compact, dense, and was built hundreds of years before the automobile. And high use of mass transit.
The only country in the world that used to be car free was Albania, during 50 years of communism. We had only public transport, trains, buses and a few taxis. Private cars were banned by law in all the country. We used to play into the streets and run wild all around the town. No accidents, no traffic, no noises, no pollution. The country was completely virgin, full of wild flowers and fireflies. In terms of nature, we lived in Paradise, but we didn't know that....
I wish the America can adopt this plan. Its so hard when the mentality of people is so dynamic. In my city, we always talk about disadvantages of sprawl, traffic congestion and such while city councils live in their suburb home. Also I feel like my city is hard to adapt to car free because of the landscape and especially if you have kids in the winter.
Yeahhh, try walking everywhere in 105-110 degree Texas summer heat in Dallas or Houston. In many places walking or biking during certain seasons is simply not happening
I prefer biking over walking in extreme heat. Well, biking fast, on a road with little traffic or outside the city. Why? Very simple expalantion: wind. Yes, you heat up when you do exercise, but after a lifetime of experience I can tell you between the self heating of the body and the cooling of the wind when you go fast, the cooling effect is surprisingly stronger. Bare in mind this is true despite me being obese - 100kg - thus more suseptible to overheat when doing exercise, and traveling on a shitty mountain bike that I can only pedal at 20 kph. So if you have a fancy road bike and can go 40 or 50 kph, you'll start wearing warm cloths just to cycle.
Texas needs to invest in public transportation (not gonna happen but I'm just saying). Hot and humid places like Singapore, Japan, and Taiwan are able to do it so building that infrastructure in such a climate is possible but only if one wants to do it instead of going down the "one more highway lane" route.
@@crazymonky256 Yeah but I'm just saying it is possible in such a climate. Texas could aim to densify their cities and promote public transportation. But no, instead we decided to add more highway lanes which encourage more car use and traffic over time.
I visit Oslo fairly frequently, living an hour or so away, and the car-free streets are so nice. In so many cities, pedestrians get a meter-wide stretch of asphalt to walk on while the cars get four lanes to use, but having all that room just for pedestrians is so relaxing and makes walking through the city much easier and more effective. And if I need to get through the city quick, there are cheap scooters to rent everywhere you go and trams are cheap, frequent, and quick. Cities definitely need to start prioritizing people instead of cars. Also I met Spider-Man on the street shown on 0:12
![[MV] A leap of faith...ความเชื่อใจครั้งสุดท้าย (From "Petrichor the series")](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U1piZH2CNXA/mqdefault.jpg)
Sorry to all Finnish speakers out there! I pronounced Kalasatama as KalaTaSama. I’ll try to do better next time!
2:55
Yes 😏
You also wrote it the same way.
Finnish speaking viewer reporting. Great video apart from that mishap.
according to union of concerned scientists an electric vehicle produces 28 tons of pollution to create, even when powered by renewables it's still considerable.
No problem 😇 helsinki and north european cities are mostly not good examples for how cramped european cities are on average as in north they build them mostly from wood (so many cities have burned and there are few old buildings) this is why houses arent build so closely
It seems like a feedback cycle. Without cars you want to live within walking distance and then you don't need a car because everything is built for walking. LA and American suburbs are an example of the opposite.
Even if you live within walking distance of many things, sometimes you just plain need a car. Try hauling anything even remotely large and bulky on public transit and see how that goes. Or buying a bunch of groceries or anything in large quantity and its going to be a chore.
@@UzumakiNaruto_ There're trailers that you can attach to bikes. Said bikes could then be installed with an electric motor to help you pedal it...
But in general it's possible to do deliveries (even of furnitures etc.) without owning a vehicle. You just pay for the deliveries (or the cost be included in the purchase). Or maybe someone somewhere could subsidy it...
@@UzumakiNaruto_
" Try hauling anything even remotely large and bulky ..."
How often do you do that?
"Try hauling anything even remotely large and bulky ..."
How about, buy less but more often? See, among others:
th-cam.com/video/8Tej4eRez-8/w-d-xo.html
@@UzumakiNaruto_ Most Europeans don't buy a giant load of groceries all at once like most Americans do. They normally stop into the grocery store on their walk home from work or something else since its much more convenient, and buy just what they need for the next couple days or so.
@@UzumakiNaruto_ Occasionally paying the delivery fee when you need a new couch or whatever, if a fee is even there at all, is still way cheaper than owning a car that you barely use.
Life would definitely be better if most of life's essential services were within walking distance. Plenty of green spaces, parks, outdoor amenities, Grocery, schools, healthcare and childcare. Cars are expensive financially, environmentally, mentally and physically. There would also be a stronger sense of community.
That’s actually how European cities work
This is how life is in places made for human beings and not vehicles.
Yes, there is a lack of community in the U.S. that's due to vehicles are personal so you are driving by yourself in contrast when riding public transit you are riding with other people.
Yes as here. I live in a city at lake constance, I walk 20 minutes to the largest lake in Germany, 10 minutes and I'm in a forest to relax. But everything can also be reached on foot, by bike or by bus. And the station for trains to go to other cities is just around the corner. I have a car, but I actually don't need it very often. There are now even roads here for bicycles only, and some time ago there was even a bridge built over the Rhine (Germany's largest river) exclusively for bicycles and pedestrians. Also I think I need more time with my car to go to work then by bike.
Welcome to life outside America
I greatly appreciate the environmental/economic end of reducing cars in cities. However, I’d wager what we should really be using as a factor is simply the bump in quality of life. I feel freer, more connected, and overall happier being able to walk/bike to my destinations rather than hop on a big street/freeway just to get my groceries.
I agree. I would want to be able to just walk/bike to a local corner store for my weekly groceries and then know that in my neighbourhood there is plenty of green space, parks for recreation, nearby healthcare, school/daycare and even a community centre to give more options for indoor/outdoor learning and recreational space.
But alas, I live in a small Canadian city which has unfortunately fell to the more American-style of growth with moves away from city centres an close-knit neighbourhoods to suburbs sometimes far away from essentials (car-far away, that is).
My hope is that when the idea of less walk/bike, short-ride friendly cities catches on that it also catches on in North America and the rest of the world.
Yeah same. Honestly being able to walk to a destination helped my depression more than anything. When I was depressed in surburbia, I would go days without food, because driving to the store or to a restaurant was too much. But when I moved into a more walkable area, I was able to walk to get food at a local restaurant or the convenience store. It really helped me.
@@coolioso808 healthcare is an interesting thing to bring up, because I'm just thinking now about how as an American, there are doctors' offices in walking distance from me, but the one that my insurance takes I need to drive a town over. Really amazing system we have here...
@@GalladofBales Yeah, that is quite strange and interesting. However, even though it would be nice if your doctor was closer, the doctor isn't someone people generally have to visit on a daily or weekly basis, so a little extra transit time is probably okay. Whereas things like groceries, pharmacies, fuel stations, restaurants, shops, parks, gyms are often daily/weekly visits and should be as close to most residences as possible.
Agreed. It will take many angles and this is a gripping one. I encourage you to check out the book "Curbing Traffic" by Melissa Bruntlett and Chris Bruntlett
I live in Atlanta and really wish it was more walkable and cyclists friendly.
I live in the metro and I really wish it was at all walkable and cyclist friendly
Anti Tengu everyone has a price
@Anti Tengu lol i love driving through there, it's so much more vibrant compared to where i live.
@Anti Tengu i feel you, probably the best thing about my area is the little pockets of wilderness remaining between the lawns. actually, atlanta has some pretty good tree cover in parts. some roads are totally shaded by foliage :)
Well! I agree. I live in another city and I'm tired of how my city puts cars over people. We need to start working together!
you often mention ¨But that´s for a future video¨. I just want that future video
Maybe the future video is on Nebula
You'll never get "future video" because it becomes "present video" when you're watching it.
He has many video in the pipeline
sells the sizzle, not the steak
If you interested in this subject, I recommend you to read about NEOM.
I live in The Netherlands and all our cities, even the ones with a population of 20,000 have banned cars from the centres. The city I live in (Groningen) offers park & ride facilities. Parking lots are build on the outskirts of the city, where you can park for free and you can take the bus towards the city centre and back for just 2 Euros per 3 people. This video basically explained my everyday life.
Still not everywhere though. Especially in some smaller places.
I was on holiday last week on the IJsselmeer and I was really annoyed by the 2 places I went out to eat. FIrst, the Melkmarkt in Enkhuizen. There are a couple of restaurants with terasses along a road that looks like a promenade. But it's full with through traffic! And they ride relatively fast for the amount of people walking and sitting there.
Second, the Nieuwstraat in Medemblik. Also a street with many restaurants. I was told that that street used to be autoluw (only for people living there and goods deliveries). But now they changed it again to allow throughtraffic. And not for the better.
Granted, these two cities are below the 20.000 population you mentioned, but thats is no excuse for not banning cars. Both cities are attractive to tourists that often come by boat: i.e. have to walk around the city and don't drive a car.
More than anything else, I think that last part is why these attempts fail in the US. I'd love to not have to drive to go into the nearby city, and while they're doing their best to make the city itself more walkable and car hostile, they forget to make any provision for people coming into the city to get there and get around. So now I just avoid it.
Amazing
That's such a more economical model too. Urban land has high value and cars take up a lot of space. It is a far better use of land to build urban amenities densely without automobile infrastructure and having parking lots on the edge of town accessed by public transit. This maximizes tax value per acre, which is a prime metric for a city's fiscal health. Infrastructure costs more the more area you have to cover. The more money you have per hectare the better funded your infrastructure can be.
What about emergency vehicles?
Great vid. Don't know if you avoided in purpose the "zoning" factor: In Europe, you can walk around the block and find 6 markets, 2 restaurants, 4 cafes... and so on. This makes it so that most of your needs you can suply them with a short, pleasant walk. In cities with single-zoning, you have to travel several kilometers just to buy juice.
Great point! The zoning is a major issue. It makes such a huge difference. I grew up in Vancouver and the nearest supermarket was 21 blocks away. Now I live in Hamburg and the nearest supermarket is a 1-minute walk away. And within a 10 minute walk there are at least 4 supermarkets. It makes a huge difference to the transportation needs
Speak for yourself I do two to three weeks worth of grocery shopping at once. I do not have time for a daily trip
@@Kibatsume1 If you want to only buy groceries every 2 to 3 weeks, no one is stopping you! Having a grocery store a minute away would just make your biweekly grocery trip that much faster ;D and if you happen to forget something, it's easy to grab. it's a win win for everyone!
@@Kibatsume1 I buy groceries daily or bidaily. It's quite pleasant and adds a nice routine to your weeks :)
Only possible because the closest store is within pleasant walking-distance though.
@@TurtleGamers1 Good for you , I work 12 hour shifts or more not uncommon to work 6 days a week
, Haven forbid there is a emergency case I have had to stay 14
1/2 hours!
I have restricted air way disease. Walking is simply not an option, you will be scraping me off the concrete later.
I visited Barcelona and Madrid this summer, and my favorite aspect of the cities was EASILY the walkability. So many restaurants and attractions within a 5 mile radius, I didn't even need to rent a car. I was just able to walk or take the train/metro. It was so nice.
🥰 I lived in Madrid in my teens and it was a great city to come of age. By my 12th birthday I knew all of the metro stations (159 at the time, now more) by heart and on which line they were and how to transfer. I was totally independent and safe. The metro was my default transport and rarely did I walk a few kilometers without taking a metro inbetween. But when I did, I discovered things were often closer to each other than I thought. Driving around it is stupid. 🤣
🧐Which is why 80% of the households in Barcelona have a car that they only use at weekends, on trips away from the city. The statistics are similar in Brussels and Berlin. 🤩
Ok? Some people want to live in a detached home in a low density environment. Everything isn’t all about ‘proximity’ and ‘walkability’
Yea one of the great selling point of most European cities is that car rental is never something you have to deal with unless you want to go inter-city travelling (and even then, the plethora of public transport means offer plenty of alternatives still). And another great part is that this means more people in general are out on foot, which adds to the general atmosphere and life of the cities rather than having every person sitting in traffic all day.
Now what we should do then when it comes to transporting really heavy cargo in a car free city?
@Galloping Goose “A lot of us”. Some loud voices on social media
In Amsterdam only 1/3 of total journeys is made with cars. Another 3rd is cycling and the final 3rd public transport.
It’s 3rd, not 3th
@@dungeonbeast1087 You do realise English is a second Language in The Netherlands?
@@noahwon9253 he just corrected him, didn't seem to be in a agressive way at all.
@@noahwon9253 is sander not allowed to learn some english? Now he knows that it is 3rd not 3th
@@oceanman7868 -ing
After basically being radicalized from watching Not just Bikes, I weep when I look at before and after photos of Americans cities. Our cities layouts were great and they got bulldozed for the car and it’s freeways. So many Cities are extremely ugly and unpleasant to go in, it’s terrible. I hope we can undo the damage and restore cities to their former glory
It's called evolution. Why don't you go back to the former glory of striking two stones to make fire and cooking your food over it. 🙄
@@justrandomthings319 I thought you guys didn’t believe in evolution. Also evolution isn’t always good, like in natural evolution. Some people haven’t evolved yet, while some people evolved in different ways.
@@sunshineimperials1600 who's "you guys"?
Not likely. Unless your in one of the Pre-car cities like Boston or NYC, the Zoning laws prohibited mixed use. Thus you would have to rezone downtown and rebuild to allow the neighborhood shop under the apartments.
Yeah, NJB will do that to you.
Cars are ridiculously dangerous. Once you start taking note of how often someone is killed by a car you start to think, how is this allowed? If anything else were this lethal we would have declared it a public health crisis.
We love our vehicles in the US and they're not going away.
NA EVROPSKIM ULICAMA POGINE VIŠE LJUDI.NEGO U NEKIM RATNIM AKCIJAMA
Cars are killing machines
@@michah321but here in europe we have high speed trains, metro systems and commuter trains
Not at all. Pedestrian deaths in the US at most are 7000 people a year. That's. 002 percent of the population. Covid killed 1 million people in two years, .15 percent a year. The percentage of people killed in pedestrian accidents is practically zero. Not a public health crisis.
LMAO, we Europeans are getting rid of our cars and sending them to the US so you guys can monster truck them. Best export ever!
@Anti Tengu I was just making a joke, but actually considering how good our rail system is, with a little bit of work we could do everything by rail
@Anti Tengu okay fine, whatever. It was just a joke.
@Anti Tengu City-to-city by train or river raft, from cargo hub to destination by cargo bike. The Netherlands is already leading the way. You just gotta build good bike lanes everywhere and prevent sprawl.
@Anti Tengu cars are useful, but they should not be as widely used as they are. It’s ruining urban life
HECC YEAH LETS MAKE VW AND MERCEDES CRY
2:17 'Unlike many US cities'
Ah yes, that famous US highway with it's Arabic signage.
lmaoo i also saw that, its dubai. with its many space consuming highways xD
Played it fast and loose with the stock footage and got busted. :)
Well the point is just take a look at houston atlanta dallas los angeles san diego miami Phoenix and most other major us cities and see how ridiculously car dependant they built them
What’s the difference?
Isn't there a town filled with lbanese people in the USA? Deborah, Michigan, or something like that? Maybe the sign is from there. :)
I never thought my city could be car-free until the local government decided to heavily invest in esplanades/linear parks. The city became more bike-friendly and the pandemic further encouraged bikes as an alternative transportation. Now the local restaurants near the linear parks have started installing bike racks to entice bicyclists to stop by and eat. Bike lanes are slowly being provided and more linear parks are under construction.
More people are buying bikes to alleviate boredom and hang out with friends & family at the parks and this in turn encourages more people to try it out.
This coming from a province in a developing country has actually pleasantly surprised me.
what city would that be?
@@souheib9343 iloilo
@@winterwolf211 Wait really, this is happening in the Philippines? Metro Manila has the worst traffic conditions and city planning because of the car-centric urban culture brought about by U.S. colonial rule
@@Theophan123 Iloilo is in the Visayas. Burnham had a hand in planning the downtown area but not to the scale of cars so it gets confusing but not to the nightmare levels of traffic in Manila.
I'd say Iloilo, if compared with other major cities in the Philippines, is known to be relatively less traffic heavy. Smooth sailing compared to Manila standards for sure.
Plus due to the presence of esplanades cutting across the City itself, it became easier to navigate through bike.
This was definitely the best ad for Nebula I've seen yet
Buh Bye. All your videos are just Nebula ads nowadays. Time to unsubscribe.
@@dlwatib It's not like he tries to make a living here.
IKR it really makes me want nebula to get off this cliffhanger. And it is a good deal.
The last third of the video was an advertisement. I skipped it.
Venice: "am I a joke to you?"
It's car free but hard to recommend canals as practical 21st century urban policy.
@@CityBeautiful With global sea levels rising, it might not be a bad idea to consider this century 😅
@@jjbarajas5341 haha true, BUT, with sea levels rising, every coastal city will become like Venice soon 😂
@@CityBeautiful
Definitely don't have to worry about jaywalkers 😋🧜♂️
@@CityBeautiful it combats the urban heat island effect
I am a Houten resident. Houten is a amazing city to live. It sets pretty good example in how we should build suburbans.
Cycling in Houten is super safe. It is one of the few cities were cycling is faster than taking the the car (made by design). In order to get from one neighbourhood to the other you must use the ring road. Wich can take up to 15 minutes while using the bicycle can only take 5.
We also have roads wich prioritise cyclist over cars. Meaning cars always have to stop for cyclist, can’t overtake cyclist and have a max speed of 30 km.
I definitely would recommend checking Houten and Utrecht out if you are in the Netherlands!
Lol I thought you said Houston as in Texas
"... without a car in sight"
Except for the 5 cars, in clear view, in parking spaces, in front of houses.
Time stamp?
@@PHCuber 6:06
Yeah he got it wrong. There are cars allowed but the city is divided in several sections. You can’t go directly from for example section A to section B, you have to drive to the ring road and then enter section B. But you can cycle and walk between section A and B without making a detour
The result of this, is that some trips take 15 minutes with the car, while the same trip costs you only 10 minutes with the bike, so it’s obvious that many people cycle instead of drive
@@tempestosfugi9846 Makes sense. Creates a helpful incentive. Funny cuz a lot of Americans would be like, "goddamn socialists" despite the fact that that's pretty much what supply side economics does but much less effectively
without a *running* car in sight
Yes, we need more public transportation!
Public transportation only works well in dense cities.
But that wouldn't be transportation free city. Like he compares to those cities from the past, when they didn't have cars but there were also no buses.
America is too spread out for public transit
@@imcarlosjr4898 Commuter rail is very much possible there i think. Connecting cities that would take 2 to 4 hours to drive to could be more reachable with trains that only need half the time.
@@lambda6564 Would be amazing, but our current passenger rail networks are stuck in a nasty cycle of lower passenger demand leading to higher costs leading to lower demand leading to less service routes leading to lower demand. Breaking that cycle will be hard.
Also, the universal requirement to have a car outside of a few rare urban centers leads to a (usually correct) assumption of "well I'll need a car when I get there anyways".
It’s honestly astounding how much space we have sacrificed to cars, and particularly parked cars (which is how cars spend 90% of their time). Most residential streets in London give well over half of their space to parked cars, and another 30+% to moving cars, leaving less than 20% for pedestrians.
and they just make cities look ugly. i saw a picture of my city where there happened to be no/few cars and it was beautiful
Maybe it's my messed up thought process, but what if you have a family emergency? You need to get across town RIGHT NOW! No time to walk or bike. No time to wait on the public transit schedule. That parked hunk of steel and glass is now very handy.
Or let's say a belligerent army is invading your country and you need to get your loved ones out as quickly as you can. (I assume you're going to stay behind and fight.)
Or a natural disaster is imminent and it's time to bug out?
@@PakkiNakki so they were more beautiful in the buggy days when there was horse manure all over the streets? Nice. Look what you just stepped in on that "walkable " street.
@@jameshigh6481 that’s an understandable thought process however the mass use of cars would actually be detrimental rather than helpful in these cases. In a car free-for-all, traffic would probably prevent you from being able to drive fast enough in a family emergency. In an invasion or natural disaster, the potential gridlock would be astronomical. Cars are very useful on an individual level, but the traffic created is just too much unfortunately. Good for rural areas, not cities tbh
@@jameshigh6481 also there’s always going to be people who can’t/done drive, and would have to rely on other means of transport in these situations anyway. It’s kind of beside the point I know but still worth thinking about 😅
Thanks for this. I'm trying to make something similar happen in Harrisburg, PA as a Planning Commissioner. Removing parking requirements, lowering speed limits to 20mph, and making alleyways into woonerfs are all in my agenda. But...most Harrisburgers look at me like I'm a madman.
It takes a lot to convince people and you won’t be able to convince everyone but don’t give up!! :-)
Once I explained the rationale to individual Harrisburgers who expressed an interest in it, I was usually able to get them on board with the idea. I remember how much damage city planners did to American neighborhoods in the 20th century by not listening to the people who actually lived in those places. The stuff I'm aiming to do is repeal as much of those misguided efforts as possible.
this won't get you anywhere. if you have authority on your side, resort to a heavy-handed approach if the outcome will lead to better life quality overall
@MikeN Ike did you not watch the video??
@@UrbaneOracle I hope you succeed!
I feel like if any US city could go car-free, it'd be Boston
Yeah
Manhattan could pull it off, and perhaps San Francisco.
@@jpe1 I don't know about all of Manhattan, but either lower Manhattan as far up as Houston, or maybe 14th street would be worth a try. You have to be pretty crazy to drive down there anyway.
@@zoicon5 yes I think starting off with little sections would be more ideal than big chance with Manhattan since it’s basically a car hive mind(before the pandemic anyway)
@@zoicon5 Start off doing it like Amsterdam did in the 70s, i.e. instead of allowing through-traffic between different parts of Manhattan, only allow through-traffic along the rivers, so every ten blocks or so the avenues would be blocked for cars and perhaps even block one of the avenues, maybe 6th, for crossing east-west traffic. This would increase the time it takes to drive while still allowing pedestrians and cyclists through and delivery trucks can still get to their destinations, but it would likely reduce private vehicle and taxicab traffic drastically. Possibly due to the size of Manhattan, there would still have to be a couple of cross-streets open for essential traffic to work properly.
Normally I dont care much about when youtubers advertise things like nebula, curiosity stream, skillshare etc. But your content is the one that makes me want to jump over there. You dangled a lure out and ya caught me, hook line and sinker.
2:57 Ok you've really got me off guard, I've almost spilled my beer
Barcelona is my favorite place in the world to explore on foot. I also lived in Hamburg Germany without a car over 1 year and I really didn’t miss car ownership the whole time. The public transport was so dependable and effective, it was great!
"everyone should just switch to electric cars"
We can't ignore the amount of emissions electric cars make during production
And the noise and the ressources consumed and the high costs to society when all the electric infrastructure has to be expanded at a great cost to accommodate the electric vehicles. People say electrics are silent, well they aren't, all vehicles create terrible roll noise, the frequency of the tyre noise spreads for very long distances, most engines can't be heard from half as far as tyres can. The most stressful component of living in a city or even in a tiny village is generally the incredible traffic noise. In villages you hear the noise from trucks, farmers and fast moving cars from all directions as well.
And still works out cheaper and less polluting in the long term than ice cars.
@@mikewade777 yes ofc, assuming people actually keep their cars long term
True. Electric cars are just marginally less polluting than thermic cars. My electric cargo bike, on the other end, uses very little electricity, almost no spare parts, and does basically everything an electric car can do.
I like how everyone forgets that we still burn fossil fuels. What if all the electricity for your car comes form coal??? PROBLEM NOT SOLVED!! How long is it going to take for people to take non-car related transport seriously?? Like, NO MORE CARS, it's not that difficult a concept. Besides, this isn't even mentioning the fact that cars take up too much space, are dangerous, and simply are not compatible with cities. Cars in and around cities need to go, period. Full stop.
You should take a walk around Night City in cyberpunk and give it a review.
Yes, i agree with you. His computer might however not be strong enough to play that game.
Google Stadia or something
I'm so envious of all of the amazing transit-based development that's occurring in Europe. I look at cities in the US and while there are a few neighborhoods and towns that favor walking or cycling, those that exist are insanely expensive to live in.
It's a real bummer that I literally don't have a choice but to own a car if I want to get to work, unless I want to pay multiple thousands of dollars monthly in rent.
you could increase your skills so you have a sufficient salary that said rent is only 1/3 of your monthly income you know. Just a thought.
@@neutrino78x shut up you know, just a thought
I’m surprised you didn’t mention Milan, one of Europe’s cities that have been making the biggest effort to convert into a green and pedestrian-friendly city over the last 10 years. It was the third city in the world to introduce a road pricing scheme after Oslo and London and it built two new metro lines in just over 10 years. The core historic centre has been almost entirely pedestrian for many years now.
6:06 "without a car in sight"
Cars are in sight in this footage, interesting 🤔
comment bait :)
Sorry. Didn't see. I had posted too. 😔
You can go inside that ring with a car in Houten. Its more that all the through traffic uses the ring to pass around the core and the residential areas. Also, Houten is far to small, even for Dutch standards, to qualify as a city. Its more like a hamlet turned into a suburb of Utrecht.
Yes, that wasn't explained very well. You can drive the car inside the ring, but you cannot pass from district to district inside the ring. Removing through traffic is the key ingredient that makes Dutch cities so bike-friendly.
I discovered this channel just recently and now I'm binge watching all episodes. Fantastic content.
Warm regards from a cycling enthusiast from Brazil.
Just wanted to say thanks for the super informative and accessible videos... not only are they entertaining, but they encouraged me to dig deeper into urban planning and urban studies in my own time, after I realized how fascinating it all is to me. I finished a bachelors in politics and philosophy early last year and had always regretted not taking more classes on urban issues. But now in September I will be starting a masters program in urban planning :) Keep up the vids!
I can totally relate. I also regret not studying urban planning.
6:00 Not the best choice of b-roll for "without a car in sight"
The claim isn't really true either. Only through-traffic is forbidden, so you need to drive on the figure 8 to get from neighborhood to neighborhood by car, but many, if not most, streets are open to local car traffic.
@@sagichnicht6748 Bollards. Hella bollards. Retractable bollards, regular bollards, bollards that swivel sideways, artwork, plants, or boulders that double as bollards. Bollards everywhere.
@@sagichnicht6748 Yeah, so if you're not driving on a major street, that means you're always going to be a few hundred meters away from your destination. But cyclists get to zip right through the bollards and get from compartment to compartment directly and with ease.
It's always fun to browse Google Maps and see how different areas of the Netherlands have pulled off that very same trick. Like, for example, Amsterdam is an extreme example of this. Just for fun, look up car directions between the New Church and the Old Church in Amsterdam. The distance is literally 10x longer by car than if you were to walk or cycle, and that's only because cars have to take the long way 'round on the bigger streets instead of cutting through the busy shopping streets.
@@weetikissa If you have a thin motorcycle can you "drive" between districts THROUGH the bollards? Alternatively: if you have a bulky cargobike, a trike or a velomobile - despite being pedal powered you still have to go the long way around? The system sounds good overall, but i can see some holes in it.
@@RoScFan Motorcycles can drive through but they don't. Trikes and cargo bikes fit through as well.
6:06 "without a car in sight"
Me: sees several cars on the side of the road
Can we get a video on drawing city boundaries? I always find that they're absolutely nonsensical in the US (like the municipal equivalent of gerrymandering). Thanks!
That's a good video idea!
I remember in japan, the use of UZA and cities couldn't build outside of it. Forced condensation.
good observation there! It has always bothered me that people take New York and New Jersey as two different cities, when in reality they are not. I know it's because of political and historical reasons, but C'mon, they are linked in so many ways, they merge into one single entity.
@@antoinetremblay22 I'm not an expert on this topic, so I can't say much. I just wanted to mention that the idea of limiting city boundaries is starting to take hold in a few areas in the US. Portland comes to mind, and a few cities in California are also debating it, mostly to restrict the conversion of farm land to urban.
I personally like the idea, though I'm traditionally a rural fellow. I've seen first hand how urban sprawl can affect others. Houses that were obviously built in the country that are now surrounded by urban blocks. I've also experienced LA first hand, and yes, the entire place is a cluster****. I hate that city with a passion.
In the past, most cities in the US had ample land to expand, and low density residential was cheaper and more desirable, especially during the baby boomer years. Between lack of convince, rising cost of living and environmental issues (wildfires in CA, for example) that's starting to change. I personally despise being crammed on top of others and not having personally owned land, but I can see how others would enjoy this kind of lifestyle.
@@isaaccastillo5080 new jersey isn't a city. They're different states. When you get to third grade you'll learn about them
Such an interesting, as always, Dave, video! Thank you for sharing 👏☺️
🅱️🅾️🅾️Ⓜ️ĒR
When I arrived at Dallas I had no car (obviously) so I had to move somehow, I walked, used the train and busses (which are horrible) and uber, every time someone told me to "drive here, or there" and I told them I didn't have a car they would just look at me with a "wtf is wrong with you" face. Everybody is expected to have a driver's license here, everybody is expected to have a car, not having one makes you weird, for someone who didn't need a car for the first 25 years of his life, this place is weird
Same story in Germany with the difference that the drivers license here cost 20 times more than in most US states ... and yet most teens do their license and can't wait to finally not having to use bus and train
@@captaingreen6160 can't blame them.
Can't imagine what it must be like to live in a car-centric city and not be able to drive (due to vision impairment, a disability, etc.). Must be a nightmare. You'd be completely dependent on other people to drive you around.
I used to live in dallas. First job was walking distance to mockingbird station, and at the time I was near downtown Plano station. The amount of people that looked at me crazy when I told them I took the train to work…
@@safe-keeper1042 this is me right now. I had a seizure 3 months ago and Its now illegal for me to drive. But I live in atlanta so it’s almost inevitable. And i live in a walkable neighborhood (midtown) so I can accomplish a lot on foot, but when all my doctors appointments are all far…
I like how you pointed out that many places in Europe were designed without cars in mind... it makes the changes much easier...
Many america cities were built before the car was invented.
Alright, you got me with this one. Signing up for nebula today.
Thanks!
I live just outside Oslo and another reason there are so few drivers in Oslo is because it's super stressful to drive there. Finding the road you're allowed to drive on isn't easy, many streets are one-way and it changes frequently enough for it not to get easier. People do not fear cars and also don't respect them (which I think is good, Oslo is for people), so you need to stay extra vigilant to make sure you don't hit anyone. Most streets are narrow and might have uneven paving or tram tracks so the drive won't be smooth. The city centre is pretty well covered by different types of public transit, it's much less stressful and might be faster anyway
When I was studying in Quito, Ecuador I noticed the colonial section of the city has much narrower streets and significantly less traffic than the modern parts of the city.
I think this is a thing in South America, my city’s colonial area has really narrow streets and sidewalks, so a large majority of them have been turned to pedestrian streets or only bus/ambulances streets.
also, let's not mince words here: electric vehicles are not zero-emission. the car could be moved around by magic and it still would require literal tonnes of metal, glass, and plastics, all of which cause huge emissions throughout their lifecycle.
It’s only as good as what went into it. It doesn’t give its own, but was still born dirty
They also produce around the same amount of sound on a highway (tires and wind) and still produce fine dust with their brakes.
Lol your post here isn't zero-emission and even if it showed up on phones by magic the device its read on is made up of materials... what's your point?
@@Andrew1680 Enough with the Global Warming Agenda already. It is not worth sacrificing the constitutional liberites of others just to supposedly save the Earths Wildlife from extinction. That can be best done through parks and reserves. If your worried about air pollution why don't you all talk to China about their high "Carbon Footprint" because it is not helping the wildlife there. The air in Europe before this car-free mess started was perfectly clean in the 1990s due to air-pollution reduction laws which were perfectly fine by themselves.
@@mapgar1479 ok. I think electric cars are cool, low maintenance, crazy fast at accelerating, and the future. I'm not for one world order or making you give up your gas car
5:13 I don't get why you would build expensive underground tunnels for trash, and robot delivery.
In Amsterdam there are block trash bins which are way more easily to maintain and more efficient.
Also if you'd build your grocery store around the corner you could just walk there normally.
The trash I get, the robots seem like a gimmick.
I think the trash works because you remove the need for industrial machinery to need to use the streets on a regular basis.
But the robots just seem to be asking for problems I agree.
But who's going to deliver to the grocery store? You could have an underground system delivering all the necessary items to a transport hub then local stores could pick up their items from there. That way you'd get yet more trucks off the road. As for it being expensive: don't we have sewers and trains underground? It probably justifies the expense once you have a lot of people and don't need long tubes to serve a given amount of people.
@@izdatsumcp I don't know what's easier to maintain, I have nothing against the tunnels if that's the case.
And of course getting more cars of the road is always great.
I recently spent a week in Paris. For various reasons we drove there. When we got there parked the car and left it for the week. I had been lent an underground parking space. If not, parking for week would have been as expensive as a hotel. I wouldn't have driven anywhere in the city as I would have spent hours looking for somewhere to park. In any case nowhere in the city is further than a few minutes walk from a metro station.
The majority of Parisians do not own a car!
This makes me feel a lot better about not knowing how to drive yet. I live in a suburb neighbourhood with older houses. And there are plenty of opportunities to bike and walk places. Never knew how much city planning affects everyone. Hope to have car free cities in North America. That’d be cool!
As an oslo-person myself, i gotta say it is more convenient biking or walking around the city centre
Not so long ago, people were expecting individual FLYING cars for the bright future.
It really puts things into perspective, how we're inclined to imagine and think accordingly to our current ways of life.
Before the automobile, futurists imagined the mechanised horse as the future.
True, wich takes some of the worst aspects of the car (noise, non-scalability, huge energy requirements) and makes it even more difficult and dangerous. And people are still expecting this to be a big part of the future. Imagine every person that is now taking the train flying to work with a helicopter, how could anyone think this would be a good idea or even remotely feasible.
dude... flying BUSES
what no one foresaw was the rise of diversity and wokeness
@@izdatsumcp That's just a plane.
A particularity in Eastern Europe, in cities and towns influenced by soviet street planning, you can go to shopping or to do work both on foot or with personal car, taxi or public transport.
How do they encourage this?
@@adrees see the Soviet Urban Design video.
Yes, because in Soviet system you might be “given” a car... but you’re on a long list for it.
@@joermnyc Yes, and that's why the Eastern European cities are evolved around pedestrians and public transport.
I am in Slovenia, we had cars on main square in capital, we only closed it since we got capitalism. And we closed old streets build before comunism.
I didnt travel much in eastern europe, but i was in Moscow and all i saw is endless traffic that doesnt even move for ambulance:) catastrophy basically. People driving 2h to work etc.. crazy.
"Cities in Europe are taking emissions seriously"
America be like, "What's an emission"
Seattle’s grid runs completely on renewable energy as well as Burlington and most of the entire state of Washington, Oregon, Vermont, and Maine. Also the USA govt is investing $7B/year in R&D for new green technologies which is by far the largest investment in green energy research of any country in the world at the moment. Not to mention, the 5 largest corporate buyers of renewable energy in the world are all American companies lol, emissions have been steadily decreasing in America since 2005
*Smogs up in California*
@@KrishnaAdettiwar I'm pretty sure China is the largest investor of Green tech
@@mwanikimwaniki6801 You are correct, the U.S is #2. However, China is a far more polluted country ranked #14 in the world. www.iqair.com/world-most-polluted-countries
@@mitchr85 Far more polluted by what metric?
Can we get videos on parks and green spaces?
Or parks and recreation, i need more Ralphio!
Please make more video about East Asian cities like Tokyo, Shanghai, Beijing and Seoul. 🙏
I would also like to see videos about cities around the world, not only European and American cities.... This channel is too western centric and that it´s a shame...
Singapore too
I'd love to see something about Shenzhen
I did a whole video specifically dedicated to the history of Tokyo. And I recently did a video on land reclamation that focused on Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, and Seoul.
What I meant is having cities from different parts of the world in 1 topic, like the one about megalopolis, not 1 region for 1 topic, hope you can accept my proposal 😊
In the US for you to have a job you need a car, to have a car you need a job. Majority of American workers are working just to maintain their vehicle/s
The cost of fuel, maintenance, repairs, insurance, taxes, vehicle payments adds up taking a big chunk of what could of been a big savings, down payment for a home, emergency, vacation trips or just financial stability.
Allow me to ride a bicycle and give me trains and I would absolutely go for this. I can imagine how much quieter the cities are.
@MikeN Ike Why not? Saddle bags can accommodate a decent number of purchases.
@MikeN Ike It's a massive improvement in their lives. It reduces noise and air pollution and it increases the amount of physical activity which is good for both mind and body.
@MikeN Ike Yes they are definitely big enough issues to warrant restricting car use.
@MikeN Ike And holy shit! Motorcycles will make noise pollution worse. Somehow a motorcycle can be louder than a 6,000 horsepower diesel locomotive. Not everyone can afford to buy and maintain a car.
@MikeN Ike Cars are definitely not safer than public transit. In the U.S. car crashes kill tens of thousands yearly.
I don't understand the hate for cars, you can literally get anywhere where you want on the other part of the city without having to wait for taxi or something, especially if you're in a hurry. You won't have to freeze in winter waiting for public transport. You don't have to be a bodybuilder to carry a bunch of bags from the supermarket, but you can put them in a back of a car like any normal person, you can even carry some smaller furniture or your computer/tv to a service shop or something. If you want to be an Eco warrior, go fight China and India, which cause much more pollution than cars do.
Cars pollute, kill 30k people each year in the US, make streets unsafe for kids, require huge amounts of pavement, etc, etc.
with public transit providing a tight network and schedule you can go to any part of the city at the time you like to as well. In my home town of 200k the most frequent bus lines were served on a 10 minute schedule. In Oslo, high speed trains on the very same line go on the same 10 minute schedule. Also with public transit you don't spend time and money for a place to park.
You can transport groceries also by bike, or if you transport lots of them on a regular basis also a cargo bike
You’re so right!!! My car is my FREEDOM!!! I don’t understand why people want to give up their cars. I hate not having a car, I want to be independent. Go everywhere I want, to visit family in another city or go on roadtrips! Driving makes me happy and I’m never going to give that up!
It’s their choice if people want to get rid of their cars, but I choose to keep my car and enjoy life
"Can't have traffic if no parking" GENIUS
General Motor be like : F this
Greetings from LA. For obvious reasons I would LOVE to see fewer cars here. It definitely won't work citywide but in certain areas like the touristy areas of Hollywood, downtown, and other places.
I think it can be bigger than that. Check out Streets for All Los Angeles.
there's plenty of public transit in LA. Use it. Solved.
BEEN waiting for this. You didn't disappoint. Gorgeous!!!
I live in Oslo, driving and parking in the city is super easy, it is just way too expensive, so only the rich people can drive, I don't think that should be a model
yeah, rich people should also take the bus and be forced out of their cars
I don't think there is a total solution. Neither complete car culture nor complete car bans work. The most important task of public transit and pedestrian friendly development is the reduction of car traffic in short daily commutes. But cars still offer benefits, that public transport and walking cannot fulfill. Cars are very useful and the longer a trip is, the more viable they become. Not every village can be perfectly reachable by bus and train, that is just not economically possible. And crossing a big city can take more time in public transit, if the path is not a main traffic artery. Outright banning cars is not the best idea, but making other options available for short trips is the better way in my opinion.
Not so much banning cars as making them unnecessary.
Cars are far from the only option for longer trips. Trains are a better option. But for trains to be an option we also need to talk about density and making villages better.
I agreed with this, I love car, but despite owning a car, I still commute using public transit because while it's not any quicker than driving, it's more relaxing that getting stuck in traffic and reserved the car only when I need them like nice fun roadtrip that is also flexible which is usually impossible with train even if the place have the rail station (like going to random national park and stop in some random small town), monthly grocery shopping, buying bulky item.
Car are here to stay because there is still demand for them.
Whilst I don't agree with an outright ban - the idea that villages cannot be served by public transport is largely a myth.
Let's take rural scotland - Kinlochewe is 50 miles (80 km) away from the nearest "city" - inverness, a settlement with just 47,000 residents. Yet it has 3 bus routes serving it.
Kildonan station only has about 200 passengers per year - yet has 8 daily trains serving it a day.
Even the low populated islands of scotland are able to support public transportation - like even villages like braemore (population under 100) on the isle of harris (no road link to mainland) have a bus service.
The idea that public transport cannot support villages in any way is absurd when we have these kind of examples.
And, really, how many big cities with a decent metro system have cars moving faster. I mean in London even cycling is faster than driving across it.
And cars do not become more viable the longer the journey. Take London to Edinburgh (450 miles) - 5 hours by train or 7 hours 30 minutes by car or Hamburg to Munich (500 miles) - 6 hours by train or 8 hours by car. Berlin to Paris (700 miles) 8 hours 20 minutes by train - 11 hours 30 minutes by car.
And that's assuming you don't take any breaks in the car - and let's be honest I'd rather be sat on the train reading a book, watching a film or even sleeping than spending 8 hours driving!
It's only in places like the United States where people bring up these kinds of excuses - because they don't know how public transport works.
A bus route isn't a point-to-point village to city. It's usually village-village-village-town.
I think you're right that it's different for different places. A small town isn't going to have a lot of congestion and, consequently, isn't going to have bad air quality. Additionally, it's less likely to have the scale to make public transport viable. Ultimately, I think, you should be only looking at taking cars off the road in big cities i.e. where they cause congestion and air pollution. But we should allow mixed use and tall buildings so we can get the population density to allow car free places to happen.
@@CultOfAlan But surely it doesn't make much economic sense, nor are the buses that often. Edit: I'm talking about public transport and rural Scotland.
We shouldn’t go to either extremes. Daily ventures should be within safe walking or cycling distance. But the joy of cruising wherever you like should remain an everlasting personal freedom.
I don't see this happening in the US anytime soon
One can dream
Especially with the cities dying
It will go slowly. Some places faster than others and they will be the examples.
Mexico has similar problems with sprawl and love of cars yet many Mexican cities continue converting streets to pedestrian only zones.
I realize the two countries are very different but it gives me hope that the US will do the same. Road diets are a good start. In fact, the street I live on had a major road diet project and it has been such a blessing. It's better than nothing I suppose.
Seattle is trying, but it'd be impossible for them to accomplish their goals given they're distracted with policing and homelessness rn
As weird of a plan as it may seem, I think it would be really cool to see a highway system for bikes where the outside lane is used to ride slowly and an inside lane to go fast. Personally, cycling is my favourite method of transportation. It's probably also the fastest considering it doesn't create traffic
I wouldn't say it doesn't create traffic.
Traffic isn't about the mode of transport, its about how much congestion and backup and delay happens.
Inside buildings when a hallway is crowded it is said to be a high traffic area.
Its just bikes and pedestrians fit a lot easier than cars do into the same space and as such are less likely to cause "traffic" that inconveniences you.
And i do agree with the idea of a bike "highway" just more in the sense of having a lot of multipurpose paths to take shortcuts intentionally unavailable to cars. Cars have a use, but that is more for rural regions and not urban and suburbs that should focus on transit and bike/pedestrian infrastructure.
As somone who lives in Oslo and moved from a car centric city it is a amazing change. I myself used to own a car but dont see the point anymore. The Tram / Train / Bus in Oslo is cheap and is super convinient longest i have ever waited for the tram was for 10 miniutes.... Also car sharing is a big thing so if i ever need a car to go to say ikea i can rent one for a small fee.
I live in LA and it's an absolute traffic nightmare. I wish we could adopt measures like these, but I don't know how feasible it is due to the city's layout.
LA has buses and light rail
@@neutrino78x
Some of LA's light rail is horrible. There's a Metro in the middle of the highway. And, from videos I've seen it's an incredibly unpleasant place to be. Just with all of the cars zooming at the speeds, very little done in the way of soundproofing, it's loud enough to damage hearing with repeated exposure.
American cities should do this. It could be successful in Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Chicago, Miami, Atlanta, DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, NYC, and Boston.
This won't work in Southern US Cities due to Republican politics and unreal car culture, but the Northern US Cities, like NYC, Boston, Philly, DC, Seattle, San Fran and Baltimore seems more likely for this to happen.
New York City, Boston, Savannah, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, parts of Los Angeles could all do this without much effort. Southern cities it is a no go, not enough people live near the core to make it possible, especially Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, well any of them. Car free would not work well in America, most people do not live in the 'city'.
@Pack Action Put me in the tooth and nail category. I like driving. I'll never give it up, and I'll never live in a major city.
@@jrus690 Living car-free isn't really about having enough people. In this video, he used the example of Houten in the Netherlands for a good car-free city, and they only have a population of 50k, which is smaller than most American city suburbs.
@@treyshaffer No I was meaning that many southern cities do not have enough of anything to do this. Even if you open them up for people they would just be boring places to walk around, so therefore hardly anybody would go there. Houten of the Netherlands is a actual city, whereas Houston's downtown is almost the same size and there is nothing there, mostly glass tower action. Los Angeles, for all of its flaws, is actually a fairly lively city by US standards, there is storefront at the bottom of the buildings. Houston, and especially Atlanta are in terrible shape.
As a lifelong driver, I agree, we need to get more cars off the road, electric or otherwise. I live in a rural area of Canada and am about to give up my truck. I understand for work/kids you need a car or truck, but now that I'm an empty nester with part time jobs it's totally do-able. I will get jobs that work around the bus schedule- I am absolutely loving taking the bus, and funnily when I meet up with friends for lunch or whatever the first thing they say is how awful the traffic/parking are. I see it as my own private limo :)
Europe may end up with fewer cars on the roads in the core of their cities, but it will NEVER EVER be car free because all these ideas are mostly only feasible in the very heart of a city where its most dense and busy and it might make sense to drastically reduce the number of cars in those areas. Outside of that core area for many cities, I don't see why many people would want to drop driving if they can afford it. Drive less? Perhaps, but not drive at all? I doubt it.
Also outside of enviromental reasons, why stop driving if you actually enjoy it? If I lived in a city with great transit I would consider driving less, but I would NEVER give it up completely when I enjoy simply cruising the streets and going where I want to go without having to be cooped up with other strangers on a bus, subway etc. and being restricted to where I can go based on where the transit goes.
zero car is just irrealistic
ma drive less is 100% possibile here in Europe, unless you live in rural areas
not only urban cores but also many residential neighborhoods and towns are 100% walkable, with medium-density and services-packed so that you potentially have houses and services/shops/schools/workplace all at walk distance
mixed-use neighborhoods are the solution
To be fair even his 'car-free' examples still allowed private cars, just restricted their use. I agree the goal for now should be making transit, walking and cycling so appealing that if a household needs a car they can do well with just one small one rather than 3 large cars per family.
@@l0ndon429
Well that's more likely to happen in Europe than it ever will in places like North America where the land is plentiful and even if we should be increasing density here its not going to happen anytime soon. Its unfortunate but that's the way it is and will always be here.
@@UzumakiNaruto_ I really doubt that it will happen ‘no time soon.’ The general trend globally (and in the US) is towards sustainable development.
In older cities like Boston they’ve managed to reverse decades of urban renewal through things such as replacing a freeway cutting the city in half with a new huge park, while Minneapolis has abolished single family zoning, as has all of Oregon.
Even in newer car dependent cities we’re seeing change. Los Angeles 2030 has a clear vision of reducing emissions and encouraging active transport. San Francisco has taken moves to pedestrianise major roads.
Austin has a $7 billion plan to create a complete and comprehensive with a new light rail, new electric bike fleet, expanded bus services, all electric bus fleet and new and expanded commuter lines, and so much more. If Austin, a sprawling city in Conservative Texas can make moves in the right direction, I think most cities can.
And yes, some cities have continued to build more highways and worse, but the general trend is very clear. Things are changing, they’re not ‘the ways things will always be’ as you describe.
@@l0ndon429
Boston simply moved their traffic from above ground to below it with the massive tunnels they've built for vehicles. Go look up the Big Dig and see for yourself what that project was all about.
'Los Angeles 2030 has a clear vision of reducing emissions and encouraging active transport. San Francisco has taken moves to pedestrianise major roads. '
Goodluck to LA in trying to hit those emission goals. If they can do it good for them, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.
'Austin has a $7 billion plan to create a complete and comprehensive with a new light rail, new electric bike fleet, expanded bus services, all electric bus fleet and new and expanded commuter lines, and so much more. '
Its one thing to create all those things, its quite another to convince people to give up their cars to use all those bikes, buses etc. if its not convenient for them to do so. I'm sure people living in downtown Austin will likely adopt to using those things more, but people living in the suburbs? I doubt they'll switch over anytime soon.
'And yes, some cities have continued to build more highways and worse, but the general trend is very clear. Things are changing, they’re not ‘the ways things will always be’ as you describe.'
The trend is people who live in the city core and around those areas will use transit and other means of transportation more while everyone else will continue to drive if they can afford to because it will likely remain the most convenient form of transportation for decades to come.
Thank you for this thought-provoking, timely video. Creating vibrant, flourishing pedestrian-/cyclist-oriented communities and town/city centres allows people to interact. Automobile-oriented communities teeming with strip development, shopping malls, and wide roads do not; they are also most often off-putting, ugly, depressing, and alienating. Lively, bustling neighbourhoods once defined American cities before the automobile became king. If anything positive has has come from the horrific pandemic, more people than ever recognise that cities can once again become people-oriented. I am fortunate to live in glorious Middelburg in the Netherlands; its charming, attractive, and busy town centre is reserved for pedestrians. It thrives, and it is not exceptional in this country. Americans can reclaim their city centres by embracing the New Urbanism which emphasises thriving, compact communities and transit-oriented development where the needs of people eclipse those of the automobile.
Easier said than done.
Athens has a massive pedestrianised area right in the centre and it's booming with restaurants, markets and streetlife.
Nice that you're starting to make more videos of European-style city planning now!
There are certainly places in the USA where having no car is actually better, like Manhattan for example. But if you want a single family home with a sizeable yard, and MANY Americans do including myself, it pretty much comes with suburban sprawl and with it, cars, because the density is too low for mass transit to be convenient enough. A 5 minute quick run to the grocery store becomes 20 minutes.
In all fairness there's sprawl and then there's sprawl. Most street car suburbs are made up of detached houses, row-houses and some small apartment buildings and are more than dense enough to have all of that. Even in a district of mostly detached homes, if you put all of the apartment buildings into one central area with transit, shops and a school or two, you're gonna have a significant minority of people able to go about their lives without a car. Once you include bikes, you can easily have everyone within a short trip of everything they need.
You can modify the cul-de-sac design to include multiuse trails (bikes and walkers) for shortcuts and have trams/street cars on main roads with stops in convient places (like infront of schools, stores, and apartment complexes as well as every few "blocks" of culdesac spurts off the main road. You could even try having higher density on the main roads with the low density on short culdesacs to balance everyone's needs and not "need" a car for everything.
Obviously not everywhere can ditch the car but urban and suburban can atleast minimize the dependency and have a interface with the countryside through train stations on the outskirts that have extra large parking so those people can park outside the city for free/cheap and take transit in.
even Germany where the density is much lower can't make a good job when it comes to public transport.
Oslo did a great job already; Just returned from a roadtrip and I experienced Oslo during rush hour ... not only in downtown streets with pedestrian zones, but also in plain normal neighborhoods at e.g. the 2nd ring road: even during rush hour on a week day there's a low number of individual car traffic going on. On a 4 lane street, only the left lanes are for individual car traffic, while the right lane is for bicycles, buses, taxis and electric cars;
Btw concerning electric cars: more than 50% of all new registered cars in Norway are ALL electric, not even regarding the share of hybrids
Bikevana, haha! The Netherlands is on a whole other level!
Atlanta’s BeltLine is a surprising development towards making the city more pedestrian friendly and it’s shown the same increase in shopping that was observed in Oslo.
The problem is that they allow Beltline to be overrun with kids on fucking scooters. Not a pleasant or safe experience for people / pedestrians
@@blilla9142 Lemme fix that for you: “The problem is that we need more pedestrian pathways to decongest the popular ones that are starting to be installed because everyone hates driving and being dependent on cars for everything. They want to take their kids with them to enjoy the city and now we need to keep up with demand to rededicate more of the city to something that isn’t just enjoyable but proven to be economically more successful for our outdated, failed stroad/highway experiments from the second half of the 20th century.”
Reducing dependence on cars is surely a good idea which not only helps improved AQI but makes streets more lively with activities!
I live in a city where the inner city was made mostly car free(Regensburg). It's very pleasant to walk and bike there. It's quite refreshing walking somewhere and not having to worry about getting run over by cars. In regular roads, i always subconciously think about it, even when I'm on a seperated sidewalk.
Also interesting that i get the same feeling with roads in the old town where there have sidewalks. Sidewalks always make one feel unsafe and obligated to use them, even when the car free area suggests otherwise.
Imagine the logistics of actually being able to deliver goods/groceries/supplies/etc to places like this. Not even to businesses, but to houses as well. Hell, even the mail
Exactly! That is the biggest problem with going car free. In North America our grocery stores get there goods delivered by semi. How is that supposed to work for a grocery store in a car free district?
@@dustmybroom288 I live in oslo and grocery stores can still get their goods delivered to them via delivery trucks just fine. Delivery trucks has actually certain priveliges over other cars. Streets reserved for people actually often let delivery trucks enter so that small grocery shops can get their goods. If this really was a problem, grocery shops wouldnt exist here. That has not happened so i guess its not a problem then.
The deliver thw goods just like anywhere else. I dont see the problem
no big deal. Pedestrian zones usually have several hours in the morning where delivery trucks can deliver goods to shops located there. Mail can also be transported by bikes, is done here for decades already. Supplies: backpacks, bags to carry with your hands, normal bikes with bags on either side or even cargo bikes ... there are many different way to get your groceries into car-free areas.
@@dustmybroom288 car free districts usually have a delivery time corridor in the morning where all shops will get their deliveries. No problem at all.
Actually, car was invented only for transportation, means just for taxi, but as capitalism came private cars started dominating automobile industry.
Oh man Barcelonas plazas for everyone, just by taking away a few routes for cars. That's quite a good ratio between effort and earnings
Hi! How are you?
South Korea/Seoul started the cold spell this week. The average temperature is -12'C. It snowed.
I hope you have a healthy day this week. ^O^
I have watched all the videos on this channel, am subscribed and have alerts on and new videos never come up on my feed until at least a week after they've been put up.
I'm a car guy, Seriously I love cars n stuff. However I do agree, city centers should be reserved for pedestrians, cyclists, and utility vehicles. When I lived in Los Angeles it always frustrated me that I couldn't walk anywhere, and had to ask either my parents or friends for a ride (Too young to drive at the time)
I agree I think cars in cities centers should be banned but not in outskirts though
Yhea, cars should be mostly banned in city centers and the cars in there should be only for destinations, but outside can have city to city traffic
What year? Not sure when the light rail was built in LA but the bus system has been there forever
Cities that were built in the automobile era are definitely fucked.
I used to live in Kalasatama and you can only fill your little shopping bag-sized trash bag 3/4s of the way or else it clogs the tubes, therefore we had to use more plastic bags for our trash. Big garbage trucks still come into the area, especially because of Redi mall right in the middle of it all. It's also still full of street parking, and the slanted intersections make it really hard to see around corners.
Can't see a comment from a car enthusiast so would like to add one.
From Perth, Australia, I'm genuinely excited to live in a city not largely oriented towards cars!
Even though cars are my hobby, the A-B traffic grind and need to drive to almost every shop takes away from most of the fun, especially when just about everyone is on the road at the same time doing just that... And when you are a pedestrian, the time it takes to cross an intersection while you inhale all the exhaust fumes would have to be one of the worst aspects of the city lifestyle.
Give me a more connected transport network, safe places to bike and walk, and let me drive the car for fun once or twice a week without traffic in the country side (where it might make more sense with less public transport)!
I'm sure many enthusiasts feel the same way?
Side note: Electric cars are great but to replace every petrol and diesel car with an electric one is a lot of emissions in vehicle production alone.
And you can bet manufacturers will convince people to trade in their current electric car for a better one in 3 years time, thus continuing the consumerism emissions.
I'm really happy to see a car enthusiasts' opinion here! I've been very curious about how car enthusiasts view these leftist policies for urban planning, and its really nice to see that like them :3
6:05 “Without a car in sight”
Shows video with 5 cars in sight.
Oslo centre is already car light, everything is super walkable and the combination of busses trams and the underground makes it super easy and fun to get around. To make it car free would be fine but probably not that noticeable in the grand scheme of things. In winter it would be good to have EV's only as the emissions from cars hang around much longer and seem to smell much worse
1:26 note that the USA has also signed on to be carbon neutral by 2050
In the 70's, Eugene, Oregon closed some of the downtown streets to create the downtown mall. It was successful for the first few years, then business started failing and and closing with no new businesses coming in. Around "85" or so, they re-opened the streets to cars, and businesses came back. After they built the new bus station, homeless and crime came to the downtown and still exists. A lot of this stuff is tolerated by the city, but business owners are becoming irritated at the city for not policing the area very well. With homeless and druggies sleeping in doorways and storefronts, and accosting residents and such, some businesses have closed and property remains vacant.
I'm afraid that the downtown area may become a ghetto some day. If residents who live downtown could be persuaded to close downtown to cars and make use of businesses, it might become carless. But another problem are the homeless and mentally ill that inhabit the area. Until that problem gets rectified, the future of downtown doesn't look too promising. Perhaps we might get get there?
I like making random stuff for fun with things I gather, like, or know from personal studies.
I didn't study urban planning, but being a person who studied the application of trees and other plants in urban areas among other agricultural things I had the chance to focus on, I decided I would design a city just for fun.
It will feature a big central square with a historical point of interest, major streets leading to it, smaller squares somewhere else and a particular order for residential buildings (superblocks sound neat honestly).
The project is meant to be as car-free as possible of course and major streets leading to the central square are gonna have trams / trolleybuses / ecological buses only, there's gonna be bike lanes and plenty of e-bike sharing places, I also saw "bike parking lots" in some areas near my city, basically enclosed spaces where you can safely put your bike avoiding sunlight, downfalls or thieves from damaging your bike.
But a lot of focus is also put in green areas. Major streets are going to have big trees, but with regard. I often see lime trees in really small beds so they break the asphalt with their roots and they struggle growing anyways, only to have horrible pruning. So bigger trees for long streets, smaller ones (but more in quantity) for regular streets. Some parks for every neighborhood, a little playground and garden for every X number of blocks of buildings so people can meet, relax and socialise, and I'd say a centralized system that takes care of all that greens. It's usually under commission of various private companies, maybe one big company works really well so they are going to have the entire city as a customer idk. Ah yes and decentralized areas are gonna have as many roundabouts as possible instead of intersections, they're gonna have some nice decoration and some bushes - trees, let's just stop those useless cement islands I see sometimes.
A lot of green areas = more carbon capture + shade + people's appreciation.
I hope it doesn't sound naive or utopistic but I don't think it does. Cars won't be completely banned for example in neighborhoods or to access the city from the borders. But public transportation would be capillarized to be more efficient and convenient, hence increasing the number of people using them and therefore reducing their cost.
6:26 See, the issue with showing someone a picture like this is that, on the surface, Americans and non-Americans would say it looks pretty, but the problems are unseen. A homeowner might have some yard space and a quiet place to live, but the neighbors hardly know one another in this type of suburbia, and there's nothing that unites the people here. Everyone drives, no one walks (there might be the occasional runner), and the incentive to be a part of the lives of others in the community is low, because everyone takes their car to some distant, unconnected place to work, then returns home in their separate, secluded living space. You'll only know your neighbors if you try really hard to put together some community thing, or if you make connections at work, or when your kid makes friends in school. But even that does not do a good job at uniting the neighborhood. It's amazing that so many American neighbors only meet on something like Halloween!
In the modern suburb, no one depends on another (which I guess is a part of that American-independent mindset), but the psychology of being connected in some way to your neighbors cannot be underestimated for a good, lively, livable space. Even a single local shop creates a neighborly connection because it establishes a shared space where we interact with others to get what we need, which is actually crucial for bonding with people, and seems to have been forgotten in the US. The suburb lifestyle is definitely accepted more so because people are unaware of any other way for constructing living spaces!
What really shocks me is the real hostility many Americans have towards any idea of community. 'Leave me alone' is a prevailing attitude with many in the US.
I live in Amsterdam. Iive in an apartment building with these so called community, I walk and bike a lot. I will burst your bubble. I have never made friends while commuting and I don’t know my neighbors besides the causal Hi. I have made friends at parties, school, work, the gym, dance class, restaurants, bars, but never because I am biking or walking in the neighborhood. If you wanna make friends, you can still do that while driving everywhere. I think you expect to much from getting rid of cars and not living in suburbia.
@@Churros1616 I agree that changing city infrastructure into less car dependent and isolated living spaces won't necessarily make people congregate into communities, but it does create conditions which facilitates congregation, and which are necessary for congregation, and that's important.
Suburbia does neither of these things effectively.
The Boston region has very walkable old centers because everything is more compact, dense, and was built hundreds of years before the automobile. And high use of mass transit.
The only country in the world that used to be car free was Albania, during 50 years of communism. We had only public transport, trains, buses and a few taxis. Private cars were banned by law in all the country. We used to play into the streets and run wild all around the town. No accidents, no traffic, no noises, no pollution. The country was completely virgin, full of wild flowers and fireflies. In terms of nature, we lived in Paradise, but we didn't know that....
No cars, no guns, no Jesus
Europeans: This is beautiful
Americans: This is pure madness
I live in both places .. there simply is no better concise summary about the differences of those two continents .. you really nailed it!!
What you mean with no jesus, i mean, spain Italy and Poland are like the very religious
@@nicolasortuzar336 Spain, Italy and Poland are Europe's Texas, Alabama and Lousiana. They are not the places which you'd want representing the EU.
@@OFfic3R1K then you can't generalised all europe
@@OFfic3R1K
So then why did you generalize the U.S. then?
I wish the America can adopt this plan. Its so hard when the mentality of people is so dynamic. In my city, we always talk about disadvantages of sprawl, traffic congestion and such while city councils live in their suburb home. Also I feel like my city is hard to adapt to car free because of the landscape and especially if you have kids in the winter.
Yeahhh, try walking everywhere in 105-110 degree Texas summer heat in Dallas or Houston. In many places walking or biking during certain seasons is simply not happening
I prefer biking over walking in extreme heat. Well, biking fast, on a road with little traffic or outside the city. Why? Very simple expalantion: wind. Yes, you heat up when you do exercise, but after a lifetime of experience I can tell you between the self heating of the body and the cooling of the wind when you go fast, the cooling effect is surprisingly stronger. Bare in mind this is true despite me being obese - 100kg - thus more suseptible to overheat when doing exercise, and traveling on a shitty mountain bike that I can only pedal at 20 kph. So if you have a fancy road bike and can go 40 or 50 kph, you'll start wearing warm cloths just to cycle.
Or when it’s -10 and the roads are covered in ice. 😅
Texas needs to invest in public transportation (not gonna happen but I'm just saying). Hot and humid places like Singapore, Japan, and Taiwan are able to do it so building that infrastructure in such a climate is possible but only if one wants to do it instead of going down the "one more highway lane" route.
@@ChrisPhails places like those are also a lot more densely populated than Texas lol.
@@crazymonky256 Yeah but I'm just saying it is possible in such a climate. Texas could aim to densify their cities and promote public transportation. But no, instead we decided to add more highway lanes which encourage more car use and traffic over time.
I visit Oslo fairly frequently, living an hour or so away, and the car-free streets are so nice. In so many cities, pedestrians get a meter-wide stretch of asphalt to walk on while the cars get four lanes to use, but having all that room just for pedestrians is so relaxing and makes walking through the city much easier and more effective. And if I need to get through the city quick, there are cheap scooters to rent everywhere you go and trams are cheap, frequent, and quick. Cities definitely need to start prioritizing people instead of cars.
Also I met Spider-Man on the street shown on 0:12
Pedestrian malls are great - for muggers ...
Visited Oslo recently, really walkable city.