Definitely. Cophenagen is a good example, but also people should research how Amsterdam transformed itself from car centricity to its current day people friendly form.
it's good for cold countries or countries with non-hot weather. in dubai or in india, u can't force the rich and middle class to ride bicycles or walk a few miles or hangout in open footpath. air-conditioning is a necessity for whoever can afford in these warm climates. poor people in india use ATMs as free airconditioned spaces. and thats why there are ATM guards whose sole job is to protect unnecessary gatherings of poor cold air seekers.
@@rajadhirajmaharaj Where i live rich people are happy to cycle. Also the reason cities have trees is for natural shade, plant more trees and make swales to greenify cities and keep the average temp down. Roads and buildings trap alot of heat, they kinda forgot this when building dubai i suppose..
@@ZentaBon Heck I subscribed to that channel. It's cool how he rides in his bike around and shows the dedicated bike paths/lanes and neighborhoods. Love to have that life style here where I live.
I was a mall rat growing up. I never could explain why I love just walking around malls until recently. I learned how European metropolitan are like, especially Barcelona. The entire cities are pleasant like American malls, because you can just walk around without worrying about car accidents.
@@mithikfish I don't agree with that. Yes amsterdam is great for bike traffic, but so is copenhagen. Barcelona's car traffic is mainly around diagonal and is not prioritized at all over pedestrian traffic anywhere in raval, born, gracia or any of the old neighborhoods.
@@StanleyKubick1 Eh, I lived in Gracia and there's a couple of small, nice-ish walking streets, but I felt like there were still far too many cars. And nowhere in the city can you escape the exhaust fumes, except on the beach.
I remember visiting the Netherlands for a week and being absolutely floored by just how easy it was to travel without a car. I would probably be able to live my whole life without needing to learn to drive or worry about fuel or insurance if I was born there.
I do not know where you are from but I do agree that the Netherlands is build in such a way that many do not have need for a car. Many in the big cities do not own a car. I too do not own one and I feel that by moped I can get every where I want to go. And, it cuts on costs.
Copenhagen is the stepping stone to what there is in the Netherlands. Copenhagen is so far behind the curve when you compare it to Amsterdam. But everybody look at Copenhagen as obtainable because it is so half measured done. Do not look at Copenhagen. Look at Amsterdam.
When you start pushing for infrastructure like this where I live (the midwestern US), certain people get very angry. Ask the right questions and you'll end up discovering just how much control developers have over how we build.
Maybe learn to interact with people that don't have absolute parallel thinking to you. If you can't successfully win them over with considered and careful language then that's just your shortcoming not theirs.
There are generations who come from nothing they work hard and build fortune and then comes the grandchildren spend/waste it all in partying and buying thing they don't need! Modern Westerners are the grandchildren's it will be too late when you realise the phisical Harsh reality of the world you live in. Chinese gona get you then Indians then Vietnam and brazilians. I thought you should know this because I'm kinda drunk
As someone from the Netherlands where this shift is a reality, it's honestly refreshing to see. In Eindhoven a lot of car streets went to pedestrian/bike only or streets where the car is a "guest" and can't overtake bikes. We have 6 lane roads turn into 4 lanes, with 2 lanes dedicated for (electric) buses and the remaining 2 lanes went from having a 50km/h limit to a 30km/h limit. It's so nice and quiet, despite it being a big city (for the Netherlands) and it's pleasant to walk or cycle everywhere. Infrastructure here is built with pedestrians and cyclist in mind first, public transport second and cars third. If you've never seen it you'll be in for a refreshing surprise.
This is why I want to move to the Netherlands! They put people first and not gaint metal death machines. Here in America if I were to ride a bike or even just walk, I'd either have to run across large busy roads or walk between the road and a ditch because there is no sidewalk. I can't tell you how many times cars have purposefully tried to run me over or push me into the ditch by getting uncomfortably close. I can't drive, I don't think I ever will be able to, so I really hope to move to a place that puts walking and cycling first so I'm not forced to rely on someone, or forced to have everything delivered because of the fear of being ran over when going to the store.
It only works to your benefit if your a pedestrian or a cyclist. Being someone who needs his car for everything it's actually really annoying. They made it really difficult and slow for us car users to get into the center of the city.
@@1LoveGame2 pretty sure that is the point. Though trust me without pedestrian and cyclists being prioritized, the massive amount of traffic would not make it worse to get around, and nearly impossible for the disabled.
Why use Copenhagen? Groningen in the Netherlands is what I would describe as a city that's focused on humans, not our vehicles. Copenhagen is an upgrade over American cities, but it's nowhere near Groningen.
I agree with you, and I think your last point is vital. Most people could imagine their city being transformed to something similar to Copenhagen. As the transformation of the Dutch cities happened earlier, these cities don't look anything similar to American cities anymore, so it's hard to imagine the transformation.
idk why Copenhagen has become the trendy city for bikes and stuff, dutch cities are better at this. Makes you wonder why 2 of the 3 ugliest sounding languages have the best bike systems.
@@GrandTerr Copenhagen is more popular in non-Dutch settings as an example because it's much more doable on a short term while still getting lots of people on bikes and out of cars. Where they are on level 4, general Dutch cities are on level 8 and Groningen on level 9, basically. Still, that isn't an excuse to pretend that Copenhagen is the be and end all of cycling infrastructure, for it is not.
If I would compare Copenhagen to a Dutch city, it shows the most similarities with Rotterdam. Which is the most car-oriented city in NL and one of the least pleasant cities to cycle or walk around in. Cities like Groningen, Utrecht, Leiden or even Amsterdam have far superior mobility to Copenhagen. Not only for bicycles, but all those city centers are offer enjoyable walking experiences from the moment you step foot out of the main train station. Sure, modeling American cities after Copenhagen will be an improvement. But if you want to get the best results, you don't cheat off someone that gets a B-, when you could also look at examples of straight As.
Because from the perspective of a person who’s lives in an auto centric city Copenhagen looks like a much more “balanced approach.” Of course this subjective but none the less is a step in the right direction
4:42 I loved Ewa’s point here that creating these spaces allows us to hold more space for serendipity to take place. The magic of spontaneous connectivity should take priority.
"If you value expression, you value creativity, you value cultural change. Let your public realm be a reflection of that." What a beautiful quote to land on! thank you. :)
And if you don't value expression, don't value creativity, oppose cultural change, and want to make sure there's no such thing as a "public space" where people can hang out, meet, organize, and do stuff without being expected to buy something...you build the United States.
It's frustrating how much the car and oil industry forced itself upon our North American lifestyles. I live in Halifax, Nova Scotia (Canada) and we used to have streetcars. We could easily have more public transit and cycling infrastructure to reduce the need for cars.
It’s not solely the car and oil industry. After World War Two, the entire US infrastructure was bulldozed and re-oriented to the almighty car, but more broadly in service of maximizing the efficient flow of worker to factory. This is why the US has almost entirely limited public space compared to European countries. In European states, along the Renaissance tradition governments invest in their people. In America, we invest in what is best for corporations. That’s why our schools are so poor, because below the university level they are preparing solely for soulless assembly line/retail work, with no real focused agenda to uplift and enlighten humanity. It’s truly sad and the root of our current spiral towards collapse.
It's short sighted to pretend the car was forced onto people in Northern America. Irrespective of the history involved, if you take 10 random people today you'll find all are satisfied with their idea of what car ownership means, and if you start talking about public transit and walking, 8 will laugh at you and 4 will get angry, despite all 10 complaining about traffic, pollution, and feeling tired all the time. Their solution will always be more car infrastructure. We're culturally locked into this mindset, even if you got private and government entities to u-turn overnight, they'd face an uphill public opinion battle. If we want to change, we have to do it ground up: we need the people to demand the change. That kind of groundswell only comes from the people: we need easy ways to communicate the other universe to our friends, family, and neighbors. Tempt them to want the benefits we're selling! I love the experiments outlined in this video as live demonstrations, what are ways to promote more? How does rando X somewhere in nowhere'sville North America go about making one of them happen?
@@NickPiers My point is that unless you're asking for corporations to force it the other way now, that's really just a historic curiosity. The current deeply established culture is that Americans don't want to give up their cars. At least nowhere I've lived. In order to plan for the future, assuming we want them to move away from car culture, that's the roadblock we have to tackle. I'd rather not rely on corporations to achieve that, and without a groundswell of public opinion, can't rely on governments either. This literally has to come from the people, and the only ones who'll change their minds is us, the people. I think we should focus our efforts on figuring out how to do that.
The US stands out from the rest of the world bc there is almost no public investment in the betterment of people’s lives beyond public school. Everything is geared towards maximum $$$ farming, which is why our cities are laid out the way they are and we orient infrastructure for cars. The entire suburban American dream is a post WWII invention. Everything is a giant dystopian mirage and it’s why our society has been pushed to the breaking point by the pandemic. Humans aren’t built for late stage capitalism.
@@spicychad55 capitalism is inherently anti-human. What would you rather do, pursue your creative and personal peak or sit on an assembly line putting Part A into Part B. The latter is WAY more productive. Capitalism is flawed because it favors maximum profit, specialization, and efficiency over the reality of human existence and needs. Total alienation of labor. Ofc that’s not true for everyone but is true for most people, and the least alienated jobs often are looked down upon or underpaid, and the most important jobs are underpaid simply bc the supply of labor is too high to increase demand. It’s soulless
You have to improve public transportation first. It's much easier taking away that street space in New York because they already have subways and decent infrastructure for getting around. meanwhile, even in places like Vegas it's just way faster getting around via driving than taking the public bus.
I live in NYC and have been here since 1987. public transit is DANGEROUS, you cannot lug bags of heavy food or other items, and you will FREEZE waiting on subway platforms outside or the bus. just last week at 10:30 pm on Saturday night, I waited over an hour for the b1 bus. it's insane. it was below freezing as water was frozen on the floor. there are no bus interior shelters. you just stand there or sit in the cold on the floor (this stop has no seating at all). it was awful. mass transit is real bad. ditto the BAART in frisco which is RIFE with violent crime
@@bollywood-item-girl our public transit systems are a crime against nature and humanity. And Pigs still tow cars at every opportunity Bec "yOu CaN StIlL uSe ThE BuS" We need change by god.
The one street my city did this too was completed in such a way that it makes driving AND walking easier, turns out you don't need 4 lanes when you rip out the stop-lights and lower the speed limit.
Population of Los Angeles 18 million people, Population of Copenhagen 799,000 people, huge difference. We need more roads for cars in los angeles to get around traffic, not less. In downtown they've limited the road to allow bicycle lanes and all ive seen it do is create more traffic because you can't get anywhere on a bicycle in LA.
Just letting you know that you are comparing an area that encompasses 5 counties near Los Angeles, and not just the Los Angeles population. The population of Los Angeles is only 4 million. The rest of the numbers not only come from cities around Los Angeles such as Beverly Hills, Burbank, and Hollywood, but from cities in counties such as Orange, Riverside, Ventura, and San Bernardino.
@@avabrackett7159 Its actually bigger. People drive from from other counties to work in LA. People live in the suburbs and drive into downtown LA. People drive across the from the Inland to the Westside, or from the Valley to the Southside. LA is all of it. There's 18 million people here and you can tell. People are always in the way.
I simply cannot fathom why every time a larger company makes a video about urbanism and cycling, they always go to Copenhagen! Sure, Copenhagen is great, but it does not hold a candle to even the tiniest little village in the Netherlands! Seriously, Denmark and the Netherlands are not in the same league. Come on guys. Show us the GOOD stuff.
As a Copenhagener I can only agree. It doesn't help our authorities are car brains, even amongst the social democrats, and that the only ones really pushing for good urbanism and public transit at all are the far left.
Why would you use rules that work for a tiny village and apply it to the rest of the world? Where I live I have to travel 60km just to get to highschool, then 60km back. Cars and roads are still extremely nessecary. That would make it very hard for anyone who doesn't live in the city to travel to the city, which happens enormously.
@@ferdtheterd3897 do you… not have any logical comprehension whatsoever? It’s not like videos like these and people that agree are saying cars should stop existing. For a situation like you described they are very much needed. The objective is to have more human cities, not to ban cars. I don’t think cars will ever stop existing, some people prefer them. The issue here is that as of now, there is no choice (in a lot of places in America, I live in a walkable city in Europe); some may prefer cars, some may prefer bikes, walks, public transportation. But no, they can’t have that, because suburbs are made only for cars.
@@tess6909 The distance between american cities is like the distance between european countries. Everyone here needs a car. Even if you live in the city you need a car to get anywhere out of town. There's a reason most of us have cars by 16 years old
@@ferdtheterd3897 where in the video mentioned about travel between cities?. Clearly it talks about travel within a city and the effort for the benefit of people living inside a city. If surbarbunites find it hard to get into the city, why live so far away in the first place?
Nobody in this film came with any solution for the people that live in that area with no parking spaces. How are you supose to carry your groceries if you park a mile away. Or buiding materials if you remodel. Or furniture. It's easy to come up with an idea of change without thinking about the negatives. At all
There are several solutions to these kinds of problems. You can, for example, allow residential parking or short-term parking only, or you can make a car-free street accessible to certain vehicles such as service vehicles and delivery vehicles, or you can have mixed-use streets where all cars are allowed, but they must give way to the pedestrians and cyclists using the street (so drivers choose other routes if they don't have to access something on that street). All of these solutions are already being used in European cities.
@@emmamemma4162 you can make the life a tad nicer in that area but you make it inconvenient for other people. Again, i belive that the film could concentrate more on making life easier for everyone, not just for cyclists. I love riding my bike to work but i would't deliver your new refrigerator on it.. Or a few cases of wine and food that you enjoy at the restaurants that extended into the street.
Here's a thing. In cities like Copenhagen, and even more so Dutch cities (their urban design is way better than ours) You never need to use a car to buy groceries. You'll always have a supermarket within walking or biking distance of your home. Temporary things like carpenters, delivery vehicles or ambulances of course should still be allowed to make their way around and be able to park, but not private automobiles. Are uou seriously unable to comprehend walking to the grocery store for your shopping needs?
Totally agree, I winced watching that cargo bike alongside the truck. The Dutch have shown how to keep cyclists safe from drivers and everyone should just copy what they do. They're decades ahead of anyone else.
Why would you use rules that work for a tiny village and apply it to the rest of the world? Where I live I have to travel 60km just to get to highschool, then 60km back. Cars and roads are still extremely nessecary. That would make it very hard for anyone who doesn't live in the city to travel to the city, which happens enormously.
CARs are for free and independent people. life is not about sitting on the lawn outside the house and sitting in a cafe. when you grow up you will understand that it is more complicated.
Watching from Mumbai, India... Where public transportation is relatively sparse and majority of the roads are in bad shape. Major business districts like BKC is not yet have public transportation service (two local Train stations nearby which are 6km apart on two different edge of this area) and public car paling is very limited. There are high rises with pigeonhole type homes (not as functional like Tokyo) with sky high property prices compared to cost of living. I hope we have Copenhagen or Barcelona type cities in future.
I live in Mumbai. If you're not living in the suburbs, Mumbai already functions like any European city. Don't we have cheap buses, trains, autos and hawkers and street markets literally everywhere? It's the car owners that have a problem, not pedestrians. And of late, wherever you live, you have a park nearby, all kinds of shops - pharmacies, eateries, street food, barbers, electricals, everything. Yes, the commute to your office is a problem but that is because Indian bosses are assholes about WFH. If you want to live like an American car owner, you have a serious problem with the roads. Also, we will never have the low population density of European cities. None of the big Asian cities have low population densities. As far as environment footprint goes, Asian cities are way better than Western cities. Per capita metrics are really, really low in Asian cities.
" I am looking at you Los Angeles" indeed that is a city that needs to be look at. When I was there I could not believe that there is not a tram, subway or large bus system, the buses take you to few places so if you don't have a car you are really limited.
in my hometown in germany, about 60 years ago, the car streets that led right through the corner with the shops disappeared again. the first street was for outdoor gastronomy. no one objected because that was how you could sit down. the second street was for playgrounds and no one complained because it's for the kids. the next roads weren't that important anymore, but after learning to keep walking for the important things, it wasn't a problem anymore. so the city center gradually expanded, more shops were added and the economy also improved because the square was nicer and people preferred to stay there longer. in the age of online shopping, it's time to take more roads away from cars to give the city center new charm. unfortunately, the open spaces have to be built on with schools today. the old ones can't be demolished and rebuilt at the same time in the same place... but the children will definitely be able to go to the schools on the edge of city center safely.
And here I am living in the middle of a small german town, where shop owners become furious when people suggest to keep out most of the traffic. It's so noisy and uninviting right now to go shopping around the main roads, yet they claim the moment the roads become silenced they'd suffer from huge losses, since less people would be driving by and stop spontaniously. The funny part is, there are almost no parking spaces directly by the streets and when I drive home I see all the other cars just passing by and leaving town, cause it's the fastest path even though there already is a secondary road around town. There are several other smaller and bigger towns nearby which already have improved tremendously, some have always kept cars away from central areas completely, others made a 20 km/h limit so ppl would rather use the secondary roads and all of them are thriving! But too many people aren't willing to see the benefits.
nice that in your city it happens to work, but many German cities lose space for cars and lose customers :) And it is not only one city. My city with over 200k inhabitants loses shop after shop, since they destroy parking lots. + people which need cars move more and more out of the city so they don't go there often anymore aswell. :) congrats for hmm nothing
@@Aconspiracyofravens1 It's neither patriotism nor tribalism. Care for yourself before others, care for your state before your country, care for your country before the rest of the world, care for humanity before the ecosystem, etc etc Fix the things you can fix before you go telling other people how to fix themselves. I'll admit, though, that the timing was a little off relative to the OP
As a person with recurring mobility issues who has a father who has persistent mobility issues, living in Vancouver, Canada, one of the problems I’ve noticed with this approach is how much more inaccessible things become. We like to think of the world in terms of how great things would work out in the best of scenarios but that’s not the full story. To be clear, not every mobility issue is long-term either so the solution isn’t just to handout permits. For example - getting dropped off by a taxi or a friend in front of a cafe or even work when you’ve recently broken your leg; or even pregnant women who are recommended to limit their walking; or elderly people; or people with bone/joint issues; or even people who have to move furniture or carry big items. All this is to say, I think that considering what “user-friendly” streets look like has to consider the needs to users for whom cars may be the only reasonable choice as well. How do we build cities that suit the needs of everyone and not just shift who we design them for to another incomplete portion of the population?
These are very important issues, and it's nice to see people confront them. Thankfully, many places have implemented features that solve these (at least in part) while also cutting down on car use. For example, getting rid of strict zoning would mean houses, shops, and entertainment can be built next to one another or even right on top of each other (this is common elsewhere, but has been illegal in many US cities for decades). This would obviously mean people would have to walk way less to get places, once buildings are built or modified. Expanding public transit also helps this: basically all modern buses are built to be wheelchair accessible, and at least where I live, drivers are trained to assist people with mobility impairments. Trains and their stations are also designed with these things in mind. Additionally, a good transit network means people might only have to walk to the end of their block to be driven anywhere they want. My city also has a public service specifically for disabled and mobility-impaired people who can't take normal buses. Finally, moving companies are good options for the average person looking to move large objects. The money can be a little prohibitive, but most people only move furniture maybe once or twice a year, and there's the bonus of them actually handling the heavy objects. A public option could even be proposed for this service. Of course these are just a few ideas - there's always more thinking to be done on how to best meet everybody's needs :)
To expand on what Gibson said, there are also other modes of transportation out there that work well for disabled and mobility-limited people that become a lot more viable when cities are designed less around cars, such as mini-cars that can easily use bicycle lanes if they're built well enough. Certainly they're not good for longer distances, but it should be rare that you need to go far enough within a city if you introduce mixed-use development for it to even begin to matter. It's also quite easy to design streets so that cars are limited, but still allowed. Even if a city decides to close off a street entirely to normal traffic, which they don't necessarily need to do to gain a lot of the benefits of making more properly public space, they can still allow things like deliveries, or potentially even people with a permit that they could give to those who need shorter and easier routes, like the disabled. The world is full of different already-tried solutions for any number of problems, and if we start looking outside ourselves we'll find we don't need to do so much trial-and-error, and can make things better for everyone without spending as much time stumbling on questions already answered.
Do you think we will tell disabled people 'oi, no cars! Be like everyone else!'? What kind of society forces the same rules on the able and disabled? You think cars don't exist in bicycle-paradise Netherlands?
Exactly, but no one wants to think about that they want the selfish desire of feeling a little bit safer in their bubble. People don't realise not everyone lives in a small netherlandean town where you can bike to school.
One of the best things about all the "work from home", is the reduction of people who need to move from the neighborhoods where they live, to where they work. This means they spend more time in their home neighborhood and have commute time back, so they actually have time to walk to near by businesses. Unfortunately, most US neighborhoods aren't well designed for that and they still have to drive, but at least with fewer commuters, there is less traffic and less demand for street parking in many places.
I remember back in 2010 when they started to do a no cars day using the parking lots into mini-parks. I really enjoy this urbanism rethinking. It would be interesting to consider implementation in different countries to see the pros/cons and evaluate the why of success and failure.
Or just buy a car and the whole world is within your driving distance. Seriously why do people under these videos want to give up that kind of freedom, that is just beyond me. Even the worst EV is still better than the best bicyclce
@@robertjunior8086 People want other options than living somewhere where you NEED to own a car to get around. Living somewhere walkable that has great public transit is life changing and positively beneficial for many. Owning a car and going where you want is great but expensive and people should have easy access to multiple transit options where they live.
Look at the comments. People are arguing AGAINST this! It's baffling. I'm in Canada and in my city, we sit in car traffic for a good 2 or 3 hours every day. It's ridiculous. Invest in public transport for god's sake.
@@cardiacmyxoma4073 tell people about the Downs-Thompson paradox. "car traffic cab only move as fast as the fastest car alternatives during peak traffic.
George Street in Sydney is a great example of urbanism. It used to be the most traffic laden street in Sydney, full of cars and buses. Now it’s been completely pedestrianised, no cars just two lanes of light rail and the rest is trees, footpath and public benches for pedestrians right in the middle of the city. IMO it is now one of the the best streets in the world.
Yes, George St is full of shops and restaurants. Only drivers who are delivering to loading docks on George St are permitted to enter to deliver goods. However this is done during non peak times so you hardly see them during the day. Also another option is to just deliver goods on the other side of the shops as this street is not closed off to cars.
I love how most Americans have no idea we are way behind other developed countries and our infrastructure/public policy is entirely driven by corporate interests.
@@jonathandeeter The immigrants that "built" America were also from Northwestern Europe which is an average eye queue of 100. The current wave of immigrants are NOT that and will permanently fvck up the U.S.
I totally agree. I’ve moved 69 times in my 54 years and have lived in many city’s around the world. Every city where I’ve found the happiest most productive people, come from places that adopt a “focus on slowing the movement thru a space.
0:11 y'all seem to forget that people and dogs are also in those CARS!! Or so called dead metal. I live in Amsterdam which means we bike a lot! Yet Imma tell you if the distance is too far or if it rains a lot guess what the majority of people in Amsterdam take their car or an Uber or Taxi from another company. The problem is that there is not a good replacement for cars. Public transport for example does not even go 24/7.
I love that the conversation around "car-centricity" is becoming more mainstream! I lived in the Los Angeles area for about 9 years, and it severely affected my mental health. Happy to be in Philly, where there's more public transit and better walkability, but it's still nowhere near the success of many European cities.
European cities had it naturally, that's how they developed. Now, if you take huge American cities, like LA, and start forcibly changing transportation flow by closing off street to cars, etc., i think, this will create more problems than the good it may bring.
@@_Diana_S I recommend the book "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" by Jane Jacobs! It's been a while since I read it back in college, but still a good take on this topic
What is described as the future for US from 5:59 to 6:34 has been existing here in France (and probably most of Europe) for quite some time. And i still believe that there are far too many cars in our cities.
@@draculakickyourass I agree with you when it comes to a more human urbanism (and France if quite behind other European countries like the Netherlands). But on many other things, US is indeed a leader. I am for example an admirer of the resilience of Americans who don't expect their government to act as a safety net for almost everything as we do here. I believe that all these differences, urbanism or self resilience, have a lot to do with how the country was built and its size.
@@draculakickyourass You can always expect the US to do the right thing, after they've exhausted every other option. I mean just look at their measuring system
A decent amount of people I met IRL, different from the commenters here, unfortunately, still favors a kind of suburban living that requires cars. It's not about just changing cities but also changing minds.
It's not just "a decent amount". In Germany, where I live, car numbers are still growing, I doubt they would if people didn't actually want cars. It's just that under videos like these, the "anti-car community" comes together to dream about a dystopia without cars (like you do). I don't want to change my mind. And both types of people will have to live together for quite some time.
To be honest, if a were to choose if I want to live in a city centre sqeezed in a small flat or in a decent size suburban house, I take the house without thinking twice. Yes, it has it's disadvantages (having to use car to drive everywhere) but it can be improved by developing public transport.
Yeah, I'm excited for this change it always annoyed me here in America if you want to go anywhere its lots and lots of driving or trying not to get run over. But every time I've been to a European country I love it I could walk to anywhere things were close and the traffic wasn't as bad.
America just needs a decent train system. that way people can keep their cars and pay the rego. otherwise you start getting taxed more for not using the roads. Covid is a great example of governments wanting to tax extra because you work at home.
@@MixieMew well that won't help - since city structures in Europe are grown over times mostly. How to build a city - people can look at Zamosc. Inner circle no cars, around parkinglots (many) and then parks and housing
They're starting this off in Sydney, but it's not an idea that should be taken out of nothing. It needs a big plan, because the people need to reach further places where only using bikes or walking is not feasible. In Sydney they're creating a mixed environment, with cars, rail trams, trains and subway walk roads that make the travel attainable as possible. A over surface train is on the plans too.
Stockholm around the 50s and 60s tried to become really car friendly city because the big increase in people owning their own car. But they soon noticed that making a car centric city was pretty dumb. And changed a lot of it back. As someone who lives in Stockholm. The concept of driving around the city of Stockholm to get anywhere just seems so inconvenient, and like a really weird concept. Cars is a incredibly inefficient way of transporting large amounts of people. Or having as the main mode of transportation for your cities population. Instead they put a huge focus on developing good and efficient public transport. From the late 60s onwards. The majority of people who live in Stockholm’s suburbs that work in the city or at the other side of the city, own at least one car, many have two. But most will not drive it to work. But instead use the trains, subway or bikes. Because it’s quicker to take the train than be stuck in traffic at rush hours. And you don’t need fo find or worry about parking in the middle of a city. And since most people take the train or subway, the need for roads and parking is a lot smaller.
@@IQzminus2 True but it fucking sucks having to ride public transportation everywhere in Sweden when there are so many loud motherfuckers in this country now, playing their fucking music on the speakers and talking so fucking loudly. Public transportation to and from work is depressing and a huge fucking annoyance.
In the US, cars are seen as the natural progression forward via a superior technology. The thinking is, "Why walk when you can drive?" But ironically, cars reduce those two things that Blaine Merker said people crave: connections and time 3:42. Surveys have shown that car-dependent lifestyles have reduced connections; and why would you voluntarily choose to spend 1-2 hours of every day just traveling to work with no chance of anything new, interesting, or serendipitous happening? That's so much dead time.
If you have a 1-2 hour car commute then walking isn’t an option. You would also have to use public transportation which, frankly, isn’t a great experience compared to the flexibility, privacy, and comfort you get from a car. I tried both and found that no matter how I commuted it always felt like “dead time,” simply because I was trying to get somewhere and didn’t have time for serendipitous experiences along the way.
@@puff2848 Yeah, I'm questioning why a society would construct itself so that about a minimum 30 min. one-way drive would be required each day. If the US made walkable cities, then citizens could have 15 min. walk/bike ride to work (or less), and then the return home would be full of choice for an endless number of tasks or leisure (because they'd already be in their neighborhood, where they live, work, and play.)
@@Brindlebrother I think people prefer a 30-minute drive in a comfortable car to a 15-minute walk where you could get to your destination drenched in a pool of your own sweat or freezing cold and drenched from the rain.
Don't you think that using public transportation will take even more hours every day, but, in addition, you will be subjected to such serendipitous occasions like someone stealing your wallet or a cell phone, or sneezing on the handle the other people then touch, or preaching to you about one thing or another, begging for money, playing their loud music, or simply smelling in an offensive way. Forget about pissed on seats and garbage or waiting in the cold, wind and rain at the stops. You, people who dream of public transportation, must have not really taken it enough.
The freedom my car gives me is worth 100x. I dont want to be in need of a public transportation system, especially in times like rona. But the thumnail looks great!
I'm really surprised Freethink focused soo heavily on Copenhagen, Denmark than on the much more historically de-automobile'd Amsterdam, Nederlands. The Netherlands started its transition close to 50 years ago. Copenhagen & Denmark not so much.
Maybe because the founder of the gehl company is from Copenhagen. The channel not just bikes also made an interesting video with theory why Copenhagen is often used as example instead of the Netherlands
It is illegal to ride a bicycle in my city. I once had my bicycle seized by police just because I was riding it. The city does exist, and it is in Azerbaijan, Nakhchivan.
Horrible. Azerbaijan, Middle East? Is iti illegal because you are a woman? Well, then it makes sense, since cycling reveals the shape of the body a little bit. That's why in Muslim countries, it is best that men cycle and women ride the bus.
@@موسى_7 Don't be ridiculous. 1) Azerbaijan is not in the Middle East 2) There is nothing wrong with cycling, for men or for women 3) The original comment mentioned nothing about Islam or about being a woman. 4) Cycling does not reveal the shape of the body any more than walking does, in fact there are bikes which are able to be used by people in long skirts, the ones that were developed originally back when European women dressed like that. Those are the bikes that are common in the Netherlands. 5) Buses are often more dangerous places for women, and far less useful for them since they rarely accommodate the kinds of trips that women are more likely to make.
@@user-ed7et3pb4o 1. Yes it is. 2. No, there's nothing wrong with it, but the religion of Islam despises women. 3. The original comment mentioned the place. An Islamic country. 4. Women riding bikes and animals has long been a point of contention and illegal in Muslim countries. Or at least illegal for women. 5. Yes, public transit is pretty dangerous, but that's not what they were talking about.
@@3dApe we don't despise women. We are just a society of men who don't like strangers to see their women, and women who don't want to be seen by strangers. Also, the buses are not necessarily dangerous if segregation is practiced, where the women sit in the back, just as the pray behind the men.
I've been thinking about this ever since I found out about Not Just Bikes. I really want to know what we can do to make suburbs better. They're full of terrible, dangerous stroads.
That have a simple answer,only your government have other interests, the politicians there are not interested in making your life better,they are the hunting dogs of those who payed their campaigns. The answer is universal education for free. You will never see a doctor,engineer or an arquitect to point you with a gun to take your wallet.
I think they are great and don't need to be changed. I would love to live in an american suburb, but German small cities are great for cars too. And bicycling in my city is also pretty good, so we can have both if we want
@@robertjunior8086 American suburbs are not that great, you *have* to use a car to just about anywhere. You're honestly lucky to find sidewalks, let alone a bike lane. Amsterdam has done it way better, especially recently. Separated bike paths, better designed roads, better public transport. Using a car is only an option, not necessity, and it's not always the quickest route!
The Copenhagen shots were really unconvincing because of the slapped on painted cycling lanes, the part where a man is riding his bike with a baby right next to a huge trailer is actually terrible & scary.
I can imagine that if you don’t live here in Copenhagen like i do, that it looks scary. However there is a mindfulness of bicyclists and pedestrians having the right-of-way which makes it much safer than it looks. We have remarkable low traffic fatalities here.
@@user-be1jx7ty7n pedestrian crossings are abstract, usually just paint slapped on the ground. Red lights are not physical boundries either, yet you dont panic everytime you drive through a green light in a crossing either. "Terrible and scary" is a subjective opinion, based on what? a few images in a video, or actual stats on accidents in a comparison between dutch cities and Cph?
@@user-be1jx7ty7n I think is actually the complete opposite. The only way you can really achieve piece of mind is having the abstract feeling that the ones that surround you are considerate and abide to the rules. If this is not the case, no matter how many speed bumps you install, how high walls you build or how long is your gun, you will never have much piece of mind.
There's a factor that unfortunately no one takes into consideration when rethinking city design, temperature. Some countries, such as mine, the temperature reaches a scorching 35-40 Celsius in the summer, so if a person wanted to walk/bike around, they'd literally faint or get a heat stroke. How could we combat that? Could you possibly make a video specifically about rethinking cities in hot countries?
Less cars and more trees will make a space cooler as it is, so that would be part of it. But also between buildings there is usually some shade, so it could just be a matter of building more awnings to allow shade and shelter during rain etc.
People show a big hatred towards bicycles whenever an accident happens, but accept the thousandfold more common car accidents as normal, and it irritates me.
@@martinn.6082 In my opinion not nearly enough. There is a huge lack of trams in the whole west part of the city. And ti is therefore so incredibly crowded by cars! There hasn't beed a new tram line in 20 years, and the whole that time people have been commuting from the airport to the city by overcrowded busses and taxis. It took 10 years to build a new goldola line from the city to the mountain peak (where the skiing track is) and that whole time people commuted there by car. Now that it has been built it is the most expensive gondola per kilometer in the whole world and it's still not working 2 years after completion. Two parts of the city are connected by 2 tram lines, 3 car bridges and one pedestrian bridge. You can cross the river on foot on the car bridges bu there is so many car lanes it's really scary. They have been talking about adding another car bridge for 20 years and It's still not happening! It's not the wurst but it could be doing so much more!
I’m 1 minute in but this actually makes a lot of sense. There genuinely are some cities where you know you have to drive to get to places and other cities, where you can walk everywhere. I feel like in Europe you have a lot more of those types of cities where you can walk around. I explored a whole lot of Madrid by walking everywhere because there are so many squares and plazas and cute streets that just lead into different places. It was fantastic. Then you have cities which are not so much like that, and you require a car to get to places as it makes more sense. But if the space for people to walk and explore grew, we’d definitely have less cars around.
life is not about sitting on the front lawn and drinking lattes in a cafe. when you grow up you will understand that it is more complicated. cars are made to keep people free and independent. So that they can move freely without the need to ask someone for permission or a timetable. Why do young people want to be slaves? I do not understand this.
@@nnnnnn3647 why do you think people want to completely get rid of cars? What people want is an option to use an alternative. Public transport and other forms of commuting can be far more healthy for a city and its population and can make commuting safer and faster. That isn't to say cars are useless or would be made redundant. Cars and utility vehicles will always have a place whether it be to travel to and from work over a considerable distance or for work which requires a car such as a tradie, to travel for a holiday or to transport large amounts of goods.
@@guskohu2093 you give cars too much credit. They're for rural people, policemen, and disabled people. That's it, in an ideal world at least, but not even the Netherlands is that great.
@@موسى_7 I totally agree although I'd add utility vehicles on the list as well as other emergency services. Even still there are plenty of other cases where cars are necessary and the goal shouldn't just be removing them completely rather the reliance and dependency we have on them. Because as much as I would like to carry heavy equipment or furniture on my push bike this isn't always going to be possible or convenient.
I'm down for it! Most people don't mind wandering around on foot a little, and the cities and universities that have spaces only for pedestrians, or walkable urban areas are really dynamic. I'd love to see more parking garages and pedestrian/cycling only areas in urban centers.
Cities are for people. We should absolutely take back that valuable space. Side note, 0:25 the person behind the wheel of a rolling 2-ton death machine is responsible for these accidents, but the jogger and the cyclist were not looking when crossing the street.
I would have liked to hear more of the methods to developing such a place and the effects (and not just that people like it- other effects like where do the cars go? What about long travel? Are traffic jams more or less frequent or the same? etc). This is really fascinating
Driving through Boston/Cambridge a few months back I LOVED how much curbside cozy structures were put together for people to gather. Many were makeshift and not professionally built so the look was a bit haphazard but I saw the potential for everything this upload speaks of. It brought a smile to my face at the time for the determination to gather but wouldn't it be wonderful to have more of this on a permanent basis.
Implement proper public transit infrastructure + an autonomous taxi service so that car ownership for most is rendered obsolete. that is the groundwork that needs to be laid to reclaim city spaces for the human organism rather than for boxes of metal.
Autonomous car would be worse than normal cars for road usage, because they would have to drive from the depot to you, do the trip and the drive back to the depot outside the city until they are called again
@@willy4170 no, that's a silly idea. the service provider has real time demand data an deploys the vehicles based on that. they keep patrolling as long as demand is there. only when demand drops will they drive themselves back into the depot. since there is a regular pattern to demand, deployment can generally be in anticipation, so waiting times remain minimal. furthermore they require significantly less parking space throughout the city as they just drop off people and immediately continue their service. all of those streets having their sidewalks lined with parked cars would be a thing of the past. finally they are networked - aware about the state of traffic throughout the city, and can calculate the most efficient route in real time. this makes for shorter travel times which of course also translates into less vehicles required on the roads.
@@holleey yes, like you said having cars that continue patrolling the streets completely empty is really inefficient and a waste of space, and you may think than they are going to became cheaper since don’t require drivers, but allow them to function they would require massive control centers, infrastructures, extremely precise mapping, and more people working on them rather than the actual drivers that would be needed to drive them manually. Idk why some people think the solution to problem should be hyper convoluted solutions at astronomically high price tags sold as “the future” by tech bros that most of the time are just snake oil sellers. Instead than simple, efficient and cheap solutions by just looking at what we already have and polishing current technology, ad example car sharing would much better solution, simple and efficient, but the problem in cities are car themselves, independently how they are powered or who is driving them because they are always going to take up the same amount of space on the roads hindering the mobility of public transport, pedestrians and cyclists. I think the best solution would be inside cities to use the local mass transit other than walking and biking (if you want automation, automated subways would be a better bet) For long trips and commuting to other cities use trains, and lastly you can take a car in car in car sharing to move between small settlements in the same local area or to go on vacations on more isolated places like a mountain or at the beach, where a autonomous couldn’t go. (If you are interested i could recommend a bunch of videos on the topic)
@@willy4170 again, the patrolling is fine as it's tuned to demand. there's no time when a majority of vehicles is empty. furthermore, with a demand based service like that, when making the order people would be able to specify what kind of trip they are planning and how many passengers they are, so the vehicles can be optimized for that particular task; no empty seats or cargo space. camera + radar based implementations do not require mapping. once established at scale, I highly doubt it would require more people operating it than the number of vehicles deployed at a time. we could downscale infrastructure. instead of massive car parks scattered throughout the city, only a couple depots at city outskirts are required that can be much more compact as they aren't traversed by end-users. this would also be where the vehicles charge themselves, so less charging infrastructure is required within the city. in a system of exclusively networked autonomous cars, even traffic lights and signs would be obsolete. there is no point in bringing up public transit as an alternative because these modes of transportation are for different applications. for anything where public transit is adequate; yes absolutely - it should be the first choice, but for anything that requires last-mile i.e. door-to-door travel, it's just not an option, so it's not about cars VS. public transit. you could make an argument about cars VS. walking our cycling, but here, too, countless of situations and conditions exist where only cars are a viable option - even in cities that are designed with walking & cycling in mind. so cars aren't going to go away, but what can potentially go away is the dependence on car ownership. every household owning one or several cars that need to be parked close by the driver at all times, need to accommodate trips with the whole family even though the vast majority of trips has them occupied by only one person, these things sit at the root of the problem and can be solved with cars as service.
@@robertjunior8086 It is absolutely wasted. The more space is given to cars, the worse it is to drive, walk, or do anything else. People shouldn't be forced into driving when they don't want to, which is what car-centric design does. But with better use of space, nobody drives unless they have to or they really want to, which means that the driving experience is also better. The only solution to traffic, after all, is providing viable alternatives to driving.
@@user-ed7et3pb4o Forced into driving??? People were forced into driving cuz they had to find jobs far away from them to sustain their family. If you remove driving people will instead be forced to starve
@@ferdtheterd3897 Nobody is saying to remove driving altogether where it is essential. They're saying that there need to be viable alternatives for people who can't or don't want to drive. Because if there are no alternatives then yes, you are being forced.
theres are intersection near a bus stop that i go to everyday. ive seen 3 people on scooters get hit by a car near this merging lane because they were riding their scooter in the opposite direction of traffic. something needs to be done about that. its so dangerous.
in a city like Dhaka, where neither the roads are enough for the high but stagnant flow of traffic nor are the footpaths for the general public, how do you implement such an idea?
First ask Why car and foot traffic are so crowded. Are they too narrow? Not enough? What kind of organization is in place to keep people on their paths and cars on theirs?
roads are not a viable way to transport people in a city. the reason Dhaka has such crowded streets is a lack of public transport. you physically could not add enough roads to the city to handle the traffic. only a more efficient metro system can solve the problem
I second Adam Fraser's statement. In a city as dense of Dhaka, there simply is not the space to waste on cars. Even with a small, multi-passenger vehicle that's carrying as many people as it can, a car takes up more space than a person on foot or bicycle; even a moped or motorcycle is relatively less space-efficient because of the space required to allow something that can travel at higher speeds to speed up and slow down. And so, that is all that should be designed for in a city: pedestrians and cyclists, with a metro system (which I know Dhaka is building) to take people longer distances in the city. The only motorized vehicles permissible ought to be for cargo.
3:40 what is the thing what make people happy: Having connection and time with his new own car 🚗 ! good luck by cycling, walking to work or eating outside in deep snow and 0° Fahrenheit. In car you are sitting in a warm, nothing rains over your head and your feet are dry. Nothing can replace the comfort of your own car.
I practice as an architect in Abuja, Nigeria. Abuja is a super car-friendly city. What breaks my heart the most is that roads here are still being designed without pedestrians/cyclists in mind, AT ALL. Walking or cycling around Abuja can be extremely dangerous. I loved the ideas here. I just hope that such innovative solutions are adopted by the Nigerian government as the barest minimum design criteria for prospective road developments. I believe that up and coming countries should adopt these kinds of creative and strategic best practices. Great stuff!
I dont find this to be a very good excuse for why suburbs suck at all. Because just 13-17years ago when I was a teenager and Video games became what we know them as now. We still played outside, hung out with neighbor friends and went over to other friends houses in other subdivisions. As well as going to the parks around town or we just wondered the streets around our town. Occasionally seeing other groups of people we knew. This was how everyone live until very recently in the suburbs. What Changed, is kids chose electronics over socializing, parents basically never allowing kids out of the house because something might happen to little Timmy or Sally. It became very common for other adults to call police on kids(even as old as 10) for playing outside, even their backyard. And then you have the noticeably lower amount of kids on any given street in a town, and it isnt surprising to go a street or 2 before you see a family with kids on it. And many times, its the only kid on that street. But I will also concede and agree that how Suburbia is built, is awful. And could actually be built in a way that encourages walking, Biking, Skateboarding and being more pedestrian friendly and overall more livable than being being car dependant.
@@JoseAntonio-qe5hy Very much so. Weak parenting and kids being to dependent on electronics for stimulation is largely why kids dont get out much anymore. And I'd even throw in the very noticeable lack of families with children in most neighborhoods now. just 13-17 years ago, My town had tons of teenagers walking around, hanging out at parks and doing things all over our town. Now my Town has hardly any kids walking around even though I know they exist. The Local Pool is full of them all summer. Though compared to me growing up, there is an obvious decrease in the amount compared the late 2000s when I was still young.
Every time I'm walking my neighbourhood and have to stop for a car I wonder: why do I have to watch out for cars? Shouldn't the cars stop for me, the pedestrian instead? We're so used to "car is king" that we completely ignore the possible change of perspective and just accept the status quo.
Before cars, streets were for pedestrians. The occasional horse-drawn carriage was responsible for avoiding the pedestrians. Once cars became popular enough to be causing accidents, car and petrol companies "lobbied" (bribed) to make jaywalking a crime so pedestrians were responsible for avoiding cars. The common public space of the street was taken from pedestrians and given to the car companies. Its called "oligarchy", where corporations, and even individuals who are rich enough, buy politicians who let them dictate the laws we all are forced to live by.
The reason you have to watch out for cars is because a car can kill you. You cant kill a car by running into it while walking / running. People driving still have to watch for pedestrians because it is still illegal for them to hit you but we can only protect people form their own idiocy so much.
Only if there are alternatives such as trams and buses which are also adapted for the elderly and handicap, less mobile. If there are no alternative transport except bikes and walking then don't do it. Some of these examples also look very messy..
lovely idea but I'd say it needs more thought, while it's easy to think this is heavily improving life for pedestrians at the cost of slightly inconveniencing motor vehicle users who already have too much space, you didn't account for movers, construction vehicles, delivery services and all other vehicles that require close proximity to residences and businesses, I live in Jerusalem and move furniture but the central areas of town are incredibly restricted in terms of driving and parking, whilst it's nice to have a wide space to walk it's also not fun carrying couches half a kilometer down the street only to find I've been slapped with a heavy fine. there needs to be a well designed balance of space.
@@kestekrafts1580 I don't think anyone's suggesting you should eradicate driving. There are also electric cargo bikes that are pretty capable when it comes to city deliveries, which frees up even more space for things like furniture which needs bigger vehicles.
@@user-ed7et3pb4o sure but just narrowing roads and removing parking accessibility only increases congestion and makes it a nightmare for work vehicles, it needs to be done smartly, for example we have a road here only for pedestrians but it's open to vehicles from 5-8am allowing all work vehicles to easily work within that bracket
@@user-ed7et3pb4o bikes...? Really... You'll have huge fucking problems if now suddenly every motherfucker rides around on bikes, people are even more fucking stupid on their bikes. Had way more issues with people on bikes than I ever had with cars.
A better longer term question could be do we even need cities anymore? With many people pushing to work from home why would they still want to live in a city? Many will (imo) move out of cities to more rural areas for remote working, better quality of life and cheaper property prices.
The high cost of living in cities today is very artificial, as shown if you go to Tokyo where you can get an apartment for $500/month (albeit a very small one, but at least they are actually building apartments), and as shown on the Louis Rossmann TH-cam channel where there are massive numbers of unleased properties that could easily fit all of their homeless people, and otherwise be used to reduce the cost of rent using the supply/demand competition if only the free market could just be allowed to work properly. Cities exist because you can get massive increases in efficiency of commerce by centralizing businesses and housing in the same area. The massive efficiencies are such as to allow for the existence of government bureaucracy and standing armies (such as the NYPD being one of the largest standing armies in the world if New York were to be considered as its own country) that rural areas would quickly collapse under the costs of.
Okay, this all makes a lot of sense. But I can´t picture a city that already has problems with not having enough parking spaces to suddenly cut them even more. Many cities around the world aren´t built to use mostly public transport & the overall environmental differnece whether the people use their car or 3buses is not that different. But it would still mean enhancing the public transport schedule, in order to allow people who live further away from the city they work in to be able to arrive home at a reasonable time via public transport.
That’s the problem: USA cities are built for cars. Of course, as everything is, this is a complicated matter. Bue enhancing public transport and spreading this ideas about more human like cities is a start!
@@tess6909 What prevents these architects to create or even build a smaller (up to 27K population) cities from scratch? Is there any example of such new human-scale development anywhere in the world?
When explaining their point, I noticed a more positive scenario. When opposing, the producer showed shots that are negative. I would really like to see how many people would use the space during bad weather or even during the winter. In our city, they've put in so many bike lanes that are barely used, the emergency services now take an extra 2 to 10 minutes to arrive at their destination.
Why would you use rules that work for a tiny village and apply it to the rest of the world? Where I live I have to travel 60km just to get to highschool, then 60km back. Cars and roads are still extremely nessecary. That would make it very hard for anyone who doesn't live in the city to travel to the city, which happens enormously.
@@ferdtheterd3897 You wouldn’t need those cars if we got rid of the zoning laws requiring the separation of commercial real estate and housing, and allowed arbitrary building heights. Once those allowances are in place, the free market will dictate that the places where people want to be will build more housing to fit those people.
A lot of European cities are pushing cars out of their city centers, making it more foot traffic and public transport. Might be a good idea for the US too
As someone who has lived in Europe a while I can say that this should be approached with caution. European cities can do the "no cars" thing because people are packed into their cities. Most American cities have a small dwelling population. We live in suburbs. Architects and city planners dislike this but that's the way it is. American cities are unlike European cities in two ways - squares developed naturally form old political, financial or religious centers and European cities are far older, designed before the car. This has made a huge differenc.
Many American cities were like European cities if you go a bit back in time, before the auto industry and the American dream of a white picket fence in the suburbs took over and bulldozed parts of them (mostly the poorer parts) to make space for highways to suburban heave/hell. Yes, the damage is done, but it's not like it's not reversible, it's just going to take a bit longer and people and politicians have to be willing to do it, which I don't think most Americans are. The car has come to symbolize freedom, which in many places in America is true because you simply can't get anywhere without your car, and people don't want to give up or limit their freedom.
@@onesob13 Why would I want to do that? I like the openness, the insistence on 1 acre minimum size. I don't want someone from London or Holland or Germany telling me how our cities should look and operate.
@@smb123211 it's fine if you want that, I just don't think it should be codified into law. Cities should be free to develop more naturally, not boxed into a certain archetype
in order to make people use lesss cars, u have to make the accessibility to the city cheap and easy. by deleting streets for cars, you might risk overflowing the few remaining ones. these are factors you should take into consideration. but designing a city for humans is key
That looks great but so far, from what I've seen of the attempts to change the car culture in Malaysia, the weather is a huge deterrent. Just being outside in the heat and humidity makes one tired and lethargic much less to ride a bicycle. Cars have air conditioning, nobody wants to walk or cycle in the heat when you can sit in an air conditioned vehicle instead. Cycling looks all well and good in the Copenhagen shots but I just picture it in Malaysia where everyone is hot and sweaty and dying of heat stroke. Or when it's not hot, drenched in rain instead. I wonder what kind of urban design would work for our climate?
We have trains. But also, how to get to train stations? Driving your car. But then you have to look for parking at there. And then when you get off the train, you still have to *walk* to your destination. Most people here figure, let's skip the hassle and just drive everywhere.
Air conditioned buses. I am from India. Kolkata has got sweltering summers and Bangalore doesn't. But Kolkata has a fantastic local transport system with frequent and affordable ac buses. In my 4 yrs of living there, I never felt the need for a private vehicle. In case of absolute need, cabs like Uber and the others were always there. Bangalore, on the other hand, has pleasant weather all the year round. But horrible public transport connectivity has pushed everyone to own a private vehicle. Traffic is a huge problem there.
Not only trains but metro as well. A metro station can be allocated to the center of the city and hubs for work, for fun, parks etc. Theyre fast and its not hot. A train and metro system well made would make travels from small distances and long distances faster and possibly not hot and sweaty. So that space that is used by cars can be cut down by a good amount and planted trees that will help cool down where people walk. Trees alone can lower up to 5ºCelsius on the ground level and that alone can make a HUGE difference
Traffic needs to be underground or in the air. I know it costs alot more money to make a road underground then on the surface but im sure we wasting alot more money and time on eveyday traffic jams.
"actually you are wrong, that sht happened" made my laugh so hard xD I just found you guys and i really like your channel so far. Many good thoughts that could really get us humans forwards. Keep it up! ;) Cheers.
I live in Maastricht NL and although it is very bike friendly, public transportation is lacking. Getting to places is very difficult if can’t/don’t ride a bike (I couldn’t use my bike for a long time after back surgery). If you want less cars in the road and more public spaces you need better public transportation. Just replacing cars with bikes is ablelist, ageist and not viable for everyone.
This is an important aspect! Not all trips can be done by bike, and not everyone can ride a bike, so a robust transit system is needed in every medium-sized or big city. Some amount of car traffic is also OK, but it shouldn't be the priority in city planning.
Vancouver BC, tried this with the intention of detering drivers in cars to reduce overall carbon emissions. How is it going right now? Record high congestions, substantially more overall carbon output from idling cars because people who drive are not going to pick up a bike or take transit. Don't get me wrong, this is a excellent idea, but just does not work in this day and age. Especially in places like Los Angles, San Francisco, Toronto, Vancouver BC.
You know what all those cities have in common? Extremely restrictive zoning laws that prohibit homeowners from building extra housing units to sell. That is the source of the congestion, a forced de-densification of the city.
We don't need the 'car lobby's' permission: The People are vastly more powerful than any corporate lobby. We need to join with as many people as possible across the 'political spectrum' and DEMAND and CREATE non-exploitative, equitable, and sustainable societies.
We live outside of LA. I'm scared to walk across some intersections especially with my kids. I have the safest way to walk to different areas mapped. Some sidewalks are too narrow for a single stroller, so it's another obstacle to avoid. Others don't have ramp curbs at the corners. Adds to the difficulty of getting around.
The real challenge is figuring out how to get people to their destination. A lot would arrive at the city in a car. How do they get where they need to go? This is the question.
Why do they have to arrive by car? Why not by tram or bus? Why not have suburbs with a frequent reliable buses? Wouldn't that be more pleasurable if you could hop on a bus that comes reliably every 10 minutes, and then use your commute watching TH-cam videos or napping or whatever? Plus rapid reliable buses are already backwards compatible with the roads we built
Drive car to mass transit, sit on train, sit on bus, change bus, still have to walk to destination in 100 degree heat or 10 degree cold or rain, snow and ice. Add having to do this with disabled parent in wheel chair. Young people biking everywhere is a very narrow minded ideal.
@@juliemulie1805 This shift away from car-centric development is about having options; it’s not about forcing everybody out of their cars. If you have to drive, you can still drive. But if you don’t have to drive, you have modes of getting to where you want to go.
My favorite touristy moments involved tramming or bussing to the city center outskirts (or underground city section stop), and then being able to walk freely in a major chunk of Munich, Florence, London, and Venice. I was walking everywhere, once I arrived at centralized destinations, and it was great...way more exercise and more convenient than spending more time in an auto, fighting traffic, and being challenged to find a parking space. Many cities in the United States could go far by improving transportation infrastructures and taking back city centers.
life is not about sitting on the front lawn and drinking lattes in a cafe. when you grow up you will understand that it is more complicated. cars are made to keep people free and independent. So that they can move freely without the need to ask someone for permission or a timetable. Why do young people want to be slaves? I do not understand this.
I greatly disagree with this video. They asked all the right questions and came up with all the wrong answers. We need transportation to get to places, and for large cities, it's putting your head in the cloud if you expect people to get from one end of the city to the other with a bike. The real solution to this problem is clearly public transportation, and that needs to be sufficient before any mention of trees and bike lanes. You can beautify the city once you've provided an alternative mode of transportation. But get rid of the roads before that happens and you make a disaster.
I agree with you. The street allocation is based on volume not count. A car is bigger and needs more space. Reducing street space for car is forcing to reduce number of cars (or causing traffic jams) and could introduce problems to people’s basic transportation needs, especially in a large city. The real question is how to reduce number of cars on the street and public transportation is a solution.
@@dfcmichael7590 Ban private cars, only rent them for vast amount of money, or just for the "chosen", so less people use them and automatically will switch to alternatives like bikes, electric bikes because they'll not have any other choice - also artificially rise prices of petrol and diesel, put more restrictions on roads to discourage ppl from driving. Long story short, you will own nothing and be happy, build back better comrade ;)
This doesnt work for following reasons: 1. No robust Public transport option that is cheap and good quality. 2. Cities are way bigger in US than in Denmark and people are more spread out. I can see it kind of working in smaller and denser cities but not in most cities. 3. People love their cars and big Bikes. People want their comfort. 4. Most of these spaces will attract homeless people. I for one, wont mind that but alot of people will. 5. Builders will fight hard to never allowfor this.
"10% was space for people and 90% was space for cars, but when you looked at who used the space we have like 90% of the users, they were pedestrians and 10% was cars. How come people are accepting to be crowding on a tiny sidewalk...?" This is EXACTLY how I feel about our Economy. How come 99% of people accept fighting over 1% of the entire economic pie? We have to redesign our economy just as they redesigned these city spaces. Reply if you agree - maybe we can start something!
Imagine trying to get from McKinney to Dallas on a bike... hardly seems like a workable plan. All this anti car talk is only relevant in small crowded places, and even then it only works when the weather is nice.
I would suggest looking up pictures of Dallas in the 1900's and noting that there are people on the street. These cities were bulldozed and shaped FOR the car. They weren't originally sprawled like that.
@@meijiishin5650 Yes, bulldozed because people didn't want to be walking around Dallas in 100°F weather. The only reason they did it back in the 1900s is because they had no alternative.
Do you think we should shift streets away from cars?
Definitely. Cophenagen is a good example, but also people should research how Amsterdam transformed itself from car centricity to its current day people friendly form.
it's good for cold countries or countries with non-hot weather. in dubai or in india, u can't force the rich and middle class to ride bicycles or walk a few miles or hangout in open footpath. air-conditioning is a necessity for whoever can afford in these warm climates. poor people in india use ATMs as free airconditioned spaces. and thats why there are ATM guards whose sole job is to protect unnecessary gatherings of poor cold air seekers.
@@rajadhirajmaharaj Where i live rich people are happy to cycle. Also the reason cities have trees is for natural shade, plant more trees and make swales to greenify cities and keep the average temp down. Roads and buildings trap alot of heat, they kinda forgot this when building dubai i suppose..
*Flying cars*
@@ZentaBon Heck I subscribed to that channel. It's cool how he rides in his bike around and shows the dedicated bike paths/lanes and neighborhoods. Love to have that life style here where I live.
I was a mall rat growing up. I never could explain why I love just walking around malls until recently. I learned how European metropolitan are like, especially Barcelona. The entire cities are pleasant like American malls, because you can just walk around without worrying about car accidents.
It's really amazing how we shifted our neighborhoods away from being walkable...then built malls so we could drive to a walkable neighborhood!
Barcelona is mostly a city of cars :( Amsterdam is where it's at
@@mithikfish I don't agree with that. Yes amsterdam is great for bike traffic, but so is copenhagen. Barcelona's car traffic is mainly around diagonal and is not prioritized at all over pedestrian traffic anywhere in raval, born, gracia or any of the old neighborhoods.
@@StanleyKubick1 Eh, I lived in Gracia and there's a couple of small, nice-ish walking streets, but I felt like there were still far too many cars. And nowhere in the city can you escape the exhaust fumes, except on the beach.
I only mentioned Barcelona because that's the only European city I have been to, I don't intend to belittle any other cities.
I remember visiting the Netherlands for a week and being absolutely floored by just how easy it was to travel without a car. I would probably be able to live my whole life without needing to learn to drive or worry about fuel or insurance if I was born there.
I do not know where you are from but I do agree that the Netherlands is build in such a way that many do not have need for a car. Many in the big cities do not own a car. I too do not own one and I feel that by moped I can get every where I want to go. And, it cuts on costs.
Copenhagen is the stepping stone to what there is in the Netherlands. Copenhagen is so far behind the curve when you compare it to Amsterdam. But everybody look at Copenhagen as obtainable because it is so half measured done. Do not look at Copenhagen. Look at Amsterdam.
@@Belchdragoni was a touch confused until you mentioned attainable
When you start pushing for infrastructure like this where I live (the midwestern US), certain people get very angry. Ask the right questions and you'll end up discovering just how much control developers have over how we build.
Maybe learn to interact with people that don't have absolute parallel thinking to you. If you can't successfully win them over with considered and careful language then that's just your shortcoming not theirs.
Certain people are able to imagine what it would be like if they were forced to bike in 0F January temps.
Thank God for them.
@@thevoxdeus bus
@@kapilk1644 Yes, a bus. It's like a much less safe and convenient car, and it still requires those same roads (but you can park further away).
There are generations who come from nothing they work hard and build fortune and then comes the grandchildren spend/waste it all in partying and buying thing they don't need!
Modern Westerners are the grandchildren's it will be too late when you realise the phisical Harsh reality of the world you live in. Chinese gona get you then Indians then Vietnam and brazilians. I thought you should know this because I'm kinda drunk
As someone from the Netherlands where this shift is a reality, it's honestly refreshing to see. In Eindhoven a lot of car streets went to pedestrian/bike only or streets where the car is a "guest" and can't overtake bikes. We have 6 lane roads turn into 4 lanes, with 2 lanes dedicated for (electric) buses and the remaining 2 lanes went from having a 50km/h limit to a 30km/h limit. It's so nice and quiet, despite it being a big city (for the Netherlands) and it's pleasant to walk or cycle everywhere. Infrastructure here is built with pedestrians and cyclist in mind first, public transport second and cars third. If you've never seen it you'll be in for a refreshing surprise.
This is why I want to move to the Netherlands! They put people first and not gaint metal death machines. Here in America if I were to ride a bike or even just walk, I'd either have to run across large busy roads or walk between the road and a ditch because there is no sidewalk. I can't tell you how many times cars have purposefully tried to run me over or push me into the ditch by getting uncomfortably close.
I can't drive, I don't think I ever will be able to, so I really hope to move to a place that puts walking and cycling first so I'm not forced to rely on someone, or forced to have everything delivered because of the fear of being ran over when going to the store.
It only works to your benefit if your a pedestrian or a cyclist. Being someone who needs his car for everything it's actually really annoying. They made it really difficult and slow for us car users to get into the center of the city.
What are your immigration rules? I am ready for the change.
@@1LoveGame2 pretty sure that is the point. Though trust me without pedestrian and cyclists being prioritized, the massive amount of traffic would not make it worse to get around, and nearly impossible for the disabled.
Wow you live in a lucky Place.in not from India but India is the worst to be honest it is hell for u if u ever go there.
You may be interested in a great channel about people-friendly urban planning - Not Just Bikes
👌 top notch channel
seconded!
May or May not convince you to leave for Netherlands
100% agree. And if you are really into it look at the progress in South America, starting with Bogota
And if you want a lecture about the subject, look up Jan Gehl.
Why use Copenhagen? Groningen in the Netherlands is what I would describe as a city that's focused on humans, not our vehicles. Copenhagen is an upgrade over American cities, but it's nowhere near Groningen.
I agree with you, and I think your last point is vital. Most people could imagine their city being transformed to something similar to Copenhagen. As the transformation of the Dutch cities happened earlier, these cities don't look anything similar to American cities anymore, so it's hard to imagine the transformation.
idk why Copenhagen has become the trendy city for bikes and stuff, dutch cities are better at this. Makes you wonder why 2 of the 3 ugliest sounding languages have the best bike systems.
@@GrandTerr Copenhagen is more popular in non-Dutch settings as an example because it's much more doable on a short term while still getting lots of people on bikes and out of cars. Where they are on level 4, general Dutch cities are on level 8 and Groningen on level 9, basically. Still, that isn't an excuse to pretend that Copenhagen is the be and end all of cycling infrastructure, for it is not.
If I would compare Copenhagen to a Dutch city, it shows the most similarities with Rotterdam. Which is the most car-oriented city in NL and one of the least pleasant cities to cycle or walk around in.
Cities like Groningen, Utrecht, Leiden or even Amsterdam have far superior mobility to Copenhagen. Not only for bicycles, but all those city centers are offer enjoyable walking experiences from the moment you step foot out of the main train station.
Sure, modeling American cities after Copenhagen will be an improvement. But if you want to get the best results, you don't cheat off someone that gets a B-, when you could also look at examples of straight As.
Because from the perspective of a person who’s lives in an auto centric city Copenhagen looks like a much more “balanced approach.” Of course this subjective but none the less is a step in the right direction
4:42 I loved Ewa’s point here that creating these spaces allows us to hold more space for serendipity to take place. The magic of spontaneous connectivity should take priority.
Yes! And her clever, charming, ironic phrase, "Serendipity doesn't happen by chance." Don't tell her, but I'm stealing that one!
"If you value expression, you value creativity, you value cultural change. Let your public realm be a reflection of that." What a beautiful quote to land on! thank you. :)
And if you don't value expression, don't value creativity, oppose cultural change, and want to make sure there's no such thing as a "public space" where people can hang out, meet, organize, and do stuff without being expected to buy something...you build the United States.
yeah beautiful quote
Agreed
From the same guy that starts the video with dead metal. Technically it’s not dead, because it wasn’t alive. All this isn’t really that brilliant.
Also, look at videos of NY now, in a full state of urban decay, and no one can blame cars for that.
It's frustrating how much the car and oil industry forced itself upon our North American lifestyles. I live in Halifax, Nova Scotia (Canada) and we used to have streetcars. We could easily have more public transit and cycling infrastructure to reduce the need for cars.
It’s not solely the car and oil industry. After World War Two, the entire US infrastructure was bulldozed and re-oriented to the almighty car, but more broadly in service of maximizing the efficient flow of worker to factory. This is why the US has almost entirely limited public space compared to European countries. In European states, along the Renaissance tradition governments invest in their people. In America, we invest in what is best for corporations. That’s why our schools are so poor, because below the university level they are preparing solely for soulless assembly line/retail work, with no real focused agenda to uplift and enlighten humanity. It’s truly sad and the root of our current spiral towards collapse.
@@jonathandeeter yes because of the car and oil industry. capital runs the government in america
It's short sighted to pretend the car was forced onto people in Northern America. Irrespective of the history involved, if you take 10 random people today you'll find all are satisfied with their idea of what car ownership means, and if you start talking about public transit and walking, 8 will laugh at you and 4 will get angry, despite all 10 complaining about traffic, pollution, and feeling tired all the time. Their solution will always be more car infrastructure. We're culturally locked into this mindset, even if you got private and government entities to u-turn overnight, they'd face an uphill public opinion battle. If we want to change, we have to do it ground up: we need the people to demand the change. That kind of groundswell only comes from the people: we need easy ways to communicate the other universe to our friends, family, and neighbors. Tempt them to want the benefits we're selling! I love the experiments outlined in this video as live demonstrations, what are ways to promote more? How does rando X somewhere in nowhere'sville North America go about making one of them happen?
@@Draidzeven Do you think car culture happened out of the ether? No.
th-cam.com/video/-AFn7MiJz_s/w-d-xo.html&ab_channel=truTV
@@NickPiers My point is that unless you're asking for corporations to force it the other way now, that's really just a historic curiosity. The current deeply established culture is that Americans don't want to give up their cars. At least nowhere I've lived.
In order to plan for the future, assuming we want them to move away from car culture, that's the roadblock we have to tackle. I'd rather not rely on corporations to achieve that, and without a groundswell of public opinion, can't rely on governments either. This literally has to come from the people, and the only ones who'll change their minds is us, the people. I think we should focus our efforts on figuring out how to do that.
So this is not the future, but the catching up of the USA?
Ooh burn
🔥🔥🔥
The US stands out from the rest of the world bc there is almost no public investment in the betterment of people’s lives beyond public school. Everything is geared towards maximum $$$ farming, which is why our cities are laid out the way they are and we orient infrastructure for cars. The entire suburban American dream is a post WWII invention. Everything is a giant dystopian mirage and it’s why our society has been pushed to the breaking point by the pandemic. Humans aren’t built for late stage capitalism.
@@jonathandeeter it's not really capitalism when you can bribe the govt to stifle your competition with biased laws.
@@spicychad55 capitalism is inherently anti-human. What would you rather do, pursue your creative and personal peak or sit on an assembly line putting Part A into Part B. The latter is WAY more productive. Capitalism is flawed because it favors maximum profit, specialization, and efficiency over the reality of human existence and needs. Total alienation of labor. Ofc that’s not true for everyone but is true for most people, and the least alienated jobs often are looked down upon or underpaid, and the most important jobs are underpaid simply bc the supply of labor is too high to increase demand. It’s soulless
You have to improve public transportation first. It's much easier taking away that street space in New York because they already have subways and decent infrastructure for getting around. meanwhile, even in places like Vegas it's just way faster getting around via driving than taking the public bus.
Probably because the bus shares the forever congested roads. That's why trains are reliable.
I live in NYC and have been here since 1987. public transit is DANGEROUS, you cannot lug bags of heavy food or other items, and you will FREEZE waiting on subway platforms outside or the bus. just last week at 10:30 pm on Saturday night, I waited over an hour for the b1 bus. it's insane. it was below freezing as water was frozen on the floor. there are no bus interior shelters. you just stand there or sit in the cold on the floor (this stop has no seating at all). it was awful. mass transit is real bad. ditto the BAART in frisco which is RIFE with violent crime
@@bollywood-item-girl our public transit systems are a crime against nature and humanity. And Pigs still tow cars at every opportunity Bec "yOu CaN StIlL uSe ThE BuS"
We need change by god.
@@bollywood-item-girl not to mention the not thar infrequent cop murder- that means murder BY cops, not to the cops. On the BAART I mean.
The one street my city did this too was completed in such a way that it makes driving AND walking easier, turns out you don't need 4 lanes when you rip out the stop-lights and lower the speed limit.
Population of Los Angeles 18 million people, Population of Copenhagen 799,000 people, huge difference. We need more roads for cars in los angeles to get around traffic, not less. In downtown they've limited the road to allow bicycle lanes and all ive seen it do is create more traffic because you can't get anywhere on a bicycle in LA.
Just letting you know that you are comparing an area that encompasses 5 counties near Los Angeles, and not just the Los Angeles population. The population of Los Angeles is only 4 million. The rest of the numbers not only come from cities around Los Angeles such as Beverly Hills, Burbank, and Hollywood, but from cities in counties such as Orange, Riverside, Ventura, and San Bernardino.
@@avabrackett7159 Its actually bigger. People drive from from other counties to work in LA. People live in the suburbs and drive into downtown LA. People drive across the from the Inland to the Westside, or from the Valley to the Southside. LA is all of it. There's 18 million people here and you can tell. People are always in the way.
I simply cannot fathom why every time a larger company makes a video about urbanism and cycling, they always go to Copenhagen! Sure, Copenhagen is great, but it does not hold a candle to even the tiniest little village in the Netherlands! Seriously, Denmark and the Netherlands are not in the same league.
Come on guys. Show us the GOOD stuff.
As a Copenhagener I can only agree. It doesn't help our authorities are car brains, even amongst the social democrats, and that the only ones really pushing for good urbanism and public transit at all are the far left.
I guess because it looks like an easier goal
Maybe because it's about transforming cities not villages so they looked for the nearest approximation of that type of environment?
@@fastertrackcreative Think deeply about what you just said, then google any Dutch city.
Easier to achieve for an American city
Wow, now people eat, sleep, and crap in the streets in San Francisco. These guys were really on to something!
Portland too
Lots of architect and urbanist TH-camrs been pushing this for a few years now. It is nice to see some big channels start to pick this up.
It's great to see an organic new urbanist movement rise up to push us towards better cities. And thanks for calling us a big channel 😉
Why would you use rules that work for a tiny village and apply it to the rest of the world? Where I live I have to travel 60km just to get to highschool, then 60km back. Cars and roads are still extremely nessecary. That would make it very hard for anyone who doesn't live in the city to travel to the city, which happens enormously.
@@ferdtheterd3897 do you… not have any logical comprehension whatsoever? It’s not like videos like these and people that agree are saying cars should stop existing. For a situation like you described they are very much needed. The objective is to have more human cities, not to ban cars. I don’t think cars will ever stop existing, some people prefer them. The issue here is that as of now, there is no choice (in a lot of places in America, I live in a walkable city in Europe); some may prefer cars, some may prefer bikes, walks, public transportation. But no, they can’t have that, because suburbs are made only for cars.
@@tess6909 The distance between american cities is like the distance between european countries. Everyone here needs a car. Even if you live in the city you need a car to get anywhere out of town. There's a reason most of us have cars by 16 years old
@@ferdtheterd3897 where in the video mentioned about travel between cities?. Clearly it talks about travel within a city and the effort for the benefit of people living inside a city. If surbarbunites find it hard to get into the city, why live so far away in the first place?
Nobody in this film came with any solution for the people that live in that area with no parking spaces. How are you supose to carry your groceries if you park a mile away. Or buiding materials if you remodel. Or furniture. It's easy to come up with an idea of change without thinking about the negatives. At all
Exactly . Well said .
There are several solutions to these kinds of problems. You can, for example, allow residential parking or short-term parking only, or you can make a car-free street accessible to certain vehicles such as service vehicles and delivery vehicles, or you can have mixed-use streets where all cars are allowed, but they must give way to the pedestrians and cyclists using the street (so drivers choose other routes if they don't have to access something on that street). All of these solutions are already being used in European cities.
@@emmamemma4162 for a delivery guy/crew, a place like that could mean hell. And deliveries happen more often than you think.
@@emmamemma4162 you can make the life a tad nicer in that area but you make it inconvenient for other people. Again, i belive that the film could concentrate more on making life easier for everyone, not just for cyclists. I love riding my bike to work but i would't deliver your new refrigerator on it.. Or a few cases of wine and food that you enjoy at the restaurants that extended into the street.
Here's a thing. In cities like Copenhagen, and even more so Dutch cities (their urban design is way better than ours) You never need to use a car to buy groceries. You'll always have a supermarket within walking or biking distance of your home. Temporary things like carpenters, delivery vehicles or ambulances of course should still be allowed to make their way around and be able to park, but not private automobiles.
Are uou seriously unable to comprehend walking to the grocery store for your shopping needs?
Copenhagen is a great example,but i think most of the cities in The Netherlands have a far more developed bicycle infrastructure
Totally agree, I winced watching that cargo bike alongside the truck. The Dutch have shown how to keep cyclists safe from drivers and everyone should just copy what they do. They're decades ahead of anyone else.
Yes, but the video comes from Gehl Architects, which is based in Denmark, so it isn't in their interests to rep the superior Dutch infrastructure
Why would you use rules that work for a tiny village and apply it to the rest of the world? Where I live I have to travel 60km just to get to highschool, then 60km back. Cars and roads are still extremely nessecary. That would make it very hard for anyone who doesn't live in the city to travel to the city, which happens enormously.
CARs are for free and independent people. life is not about sitting on the lawn outside the house and sitting in a cafe. when you grow up you will understand that it is more complicated.
@@nnnnnn3647 lmao have fun being free and independent with your car insurance, fuel costs, maintenance, and depreciation
Watching from Mumbai, India... Where public transportation is relatively sparse and majority of the roads are in bad shape. Major business districts like BKC is not yet have public transportation service (two local Train stations nearby which are 6km apart on two different edge of this area) and public car paling is very limited. There are high rises with pigeonhole type homes (not as functional like Tokyo) with sky high property prices compared to cost of living. I hope we have Copenhagen or Barcelona type cities in future.
Good luck. You know most mumbaikars are vehemently opposed to cycle and bus lanes.
Mumbai is building a great metro, though.
Aah wish I can see clean and develop india before I die ....but I know it's impossible cause people don't take responsibility
I live in Mumbai. If you're not living in the suburbs, Mumbai already functions like any European city. Don't we have cheap buses, trains, autos and hawkers and street markets literally everywhere? It's the car owners that have a problem, not pedestrians. And of late, wherever you live, you have a park nearby, all kinds of shops - pharmacies, eateries, street food, barbers, electricals, everything. Yes, the commute to your office is a problem but that is because Indian bosses are assholes about WFH. If you want to live like an American car owner, you have a serious problem with the roads. Also, we will never have the low population density of European cities. None of the big Asian cities have low population densities. As far as environment footprint goes, Asian cities are way better than Western cities. Per capita metrics are really, really low in Asian cities.
@@anandsharma7430 High density is actually better than low density.
" I am looking at you Los Angeles" indeed that is a city that needs to be look at. When I was there I could not believe that there is not a tram, subway or large bus system, the buses take you to few places so if you don't have a car you are really limited.
in my hometown in germany, about 60 years ago, the car streets that led right through the corner with the shops disappeared again. the first street was for outdoor gastronomy. no one objected because that was how you could sit down. the second street was for playgrounds and no one complained because it's for the kids. the next roads weren't that important anymore, but after learning to keep walking for the important things, it wasn't a problem anymore. so the city center gradually expanded, more shops were added and the economy also improved because the square was nicer and people preferred to stay there longer. in the age of online shopping, it's time to take more roads away from cars to give the city center new charm. unfortunately, the open spaces have to be built on with schools today. the old ones can't be demolished and rebuilt at the same time in the same place... but the children will definitely be able to go to the schools on the edge of city center safely.
And here I am living in the middle of a small german town, where shop owners become furious when people suggest to keep out most of the traffic. It's so noisy and uninviting right now to go shopping around the main roads, yet they claim the moment the roads become silenced they'd suffer from huge losses, since less people would be driving by and stop spontaniously. The funny part is, there are almost no parking spaces directly by the streets and when I drive home I see all the other cars just passing by and leaving town, cause it's the fastest path even though there already is a secondary road around town.
There are several other smaller and bigger towns nearby which already have improved tremendously, some have always kept cars away from central areas completely, others made a 20 km/h limit so ppl would rather use the secondary roads and all of them are thriving! But too many people aren't willing to see the benefits.
nice that in your city it happens to work, but many German cities lose space for cars and lose customers :) And it is not only one city. My city with over 200k inhabitants loses shop after shop, since they destroy parking lots. + people which need cars move more and more out of the city so they don't go there often anymore aswell. :) congrats for hmm nothing
Man wait until this guy finds out about the entire rest of the world outside america
That and suburbs lol
Why should he give a sh!t about the rest of the world? He wants to make America better because he is AMERICAN.
@@lucasgrey9794 bit of a weird time to be patriotic and tribalistic but ok
@@Aconspiracyofravens1 It's neither patriotism nor tribalism.
Care for yourself before others, care for your state before your country, care for your country before the rest of the world, care for humanity before the ecosystem, etc etc
Fix the things you can fix before you go telling other people how to fix themselves.
I'll admit, though, that the timing was a little off relative to the OP
@@benjiusofficial I can see that but you can't say that as a dismissal
This is a future I look forward to, this is a future I wish to be a part of.
As a person with recurring mobility issues who has a father who has persistent mobility issues, living in Vancouver, Canada, one of the problems I’ve noticed with this approach is how much more inaccessible things become. We like to think of the world in terms of how great things would work out in the best of scenarios but that’s not the full story. To be clear, not every mobility issue is long-term either so the solution isn’t just to handout permits. For example - getting dropped off by a taxi or a friend in front of a cafe or even work when you’ve recently broken your leg; or even pregnant women who are recommended to limit their walking; or elderly people; or people with bone/joint issues; or even people who have to move furniture or carry big items. All this is to say, I think that considering what “user-friendly” streets look like has to consider the needs to users for whom cars may be the only reasonable choice as well. How do we build cities that suit the needs of everyone and not just shift who we design them for to another incomplete portion of the population?
These are very important issues, and it's nice to see people confront them. Thankfully, many places have implemented features that solve these (at least in part) while also cutting down on car use. For example, getting rid of strict zoning would mean houses, shops, and entertainment can be built next to one another or even right on top of each other (this is common elsewhere, but has been illegal in many US cities for decades). This would obviously mean people would have to walk way less to get places, once buildings are built or modified. Expanding public transit also helps this: basically all modern buses are built to be wheelchair accessible, and at least where I live, drivers are trained to assist people with mobility impairments. Trains and their stations are also designed with these things in mind. Additionally, a good transit network means people might only have to walk to the end of their block to be driven anywhere they want. My city also has a public service specifically for disabled and mobility-impaired people who can't take normal buses. Finally, moving companies are good options for the average person looking to move large objects. The money can be a little prohibitive, but most people only move furniture maybe once or twice a year, and there's the bonus of them actually handling the heavy objects. A public option could even be proposed for this service. Of course these are just a few ideas - there's always more thinking to be done on how to best meet everybody's needs :)
To expand on what Gibson said, there are also other modes of transportation out there that work well for disabled and mobility-limited people that become a lot more viable when cities are designed less around cars, such as mini-cars that can easily use bicycle lanes if they're built well enough. Certainly they're not good for longer distances, but it should be rare that you need to go far enough within a city if you introduce mixed-use development for it to even begin to matter.
It's also quite easy to design streets so that cars are limited, but still allowed. Even if a city decides to close off a street entirely to normal traffic, which they don't necessarily need to do to gain a lot of the benefits of making more properly public space, they can still allow things like deliveries, or potentially even people with a permit that they could give to those who need shorter and easier routes, like the disabled.
The world is full of different already-tried solutions for any number of problems, and if we start looking outside ourselves we'll find we don't need to do so much trial-and-error, and can make things better for everyone without spending as much time stumbling on questions already answered.
Construction workers, equipment, and materials. For the issue of mobility: golf carts.
Do you think we will tell disabled people 'oi, no cars! Be like everyone else!'?
What kind of society forces the same rules on the able and disabled? You think cars don't exist in bicycle-paradise Netherlands?
Exactly, but no one wants to think about that they want the selfish desire of feeling a little bit safer in their bubble. People don't realise not everyone lives in a small netherlandean town where you can bike to school.
One of the best things about all the "work from home", is the reduction of people who need to move from the neighborhoods where they live, to where they work. This means they spend more time in their home neighborhood and have commute time back, so they actually have time to walk to near by businesses. Unfortunately, most US neighborhoods aren't well designed for that and they still have to drive, but at least with fewer commuters, there is less traffic and less demand for street parking in many places.
auto companies HATE this and will make sure it does not stay reality
Neighborhoods with no where to go
I remember back in 2010 when they started to do a no cars day using the parking lots into mini-parks. I really enjoy this urbanism rethinking. It would be interesting to consider implementation in different countries to see the pros/cons and evaluate the why of success and failure.
The dutch already do this netherlands is ahead of US by far in that regard
Is it possible to do anything in a parking space as long as I fill the parking meter?
This is all interesting as long as everything you want to work, live and entertain is within bicycle or walking distance.
Link with transit options. Light rail is a big investment for cities but well worth it when implemented sensibly.
Or just buy a car and the whole world is within your driving distance. Seriously why do people under these videos want to give up that kind of freedom, that is just beyond me. Even the worst EV is still better than the best bicyclce
Mixed use
@@robertjunior8086 They have a utopian ideology, which must trump any individual's freedom. Think Doctor Cocteau from Demolition Man.
@@robertjunior8086 People want other options than living somewhere where you NEED to own a car to get around. Living somewhere walkable that has great public transit is life changing and positively beneficial for many. Owning a car and going where you want is great but expensive and people should have easy access to multiple transit options where they live.
Shouldn't this be the bare minimum in every city
you'd think, but a lot of people don't think.
Look at the comments. People are arguing AGAINST this! It's baffling. I'm in Canada and in my city, we sit in car traffic for a good 2 or 3 hours every day. It's ridiculous. Invest in public transport for god's sake.
@@cardiacmyxoma4073 tell people about the Downs-Thompson paradox. "car traffic cab only move as fast as the fastest car alternatives during peak traffic.
@@cardiacmyxoma4073 I'd rather sit in car traffic for 2 hours than 20 minutes in a bus or train. And I am not joking.
George Street in Sydney is a great example of urbanism. It used to be the most traffic laden street in Sydney, full of cars and buses. Now it’s been completely pedestrianised, no cars just two lanes of light rail and the rest is trees, footpath and public benches for pedestrians right in the middle of the city.
IMO it is now one of the the best streets in the world.
Are there any stores on this street? If yes, then how goods are being delivered to those stores?
Yes, George St is full of shops and restaurants. Only drivers who are delivering to loading docks on George St are permitted to enter to deliver goods. However this is done during non peak times so you hardly see them during the day. Also another option is to just deliver goods on the other side of the shops as this street is not closed off to cars.
I love how most Americans have no idea we are way behind other developed countries and our infrastructure/public policy is entirely driven by corporate interests.
@@lucasgrey9794 America was built by immigrants bestieeee.
@@jonathandeeter It was built by COLONISTS which is a far cry from what immigrants are.
@@lucasgrey9794 uhhhh the thirteen colonies yes LMFAO idk if you know but there are 37 other states
@@jonathandeeter The immigrants that "built" America were also from Northwestern Europe which is an average eye queue of 100. The current wave of immigrants are NOT that and will permanently fvck up the U.S.
@@lucasgrey9794 I wouldn’t be talking about “eye queue” lmfao. It’s IQ my poor child.
I totally agree. I’ve moved 69 times in my 54 years and have lived in many city’s around the world. Every city where I’ve found the happiest most productive people, come from places that adopt a “focus on slowing the movement thru a space.
0:11 y'all seem to forget that people and dogs are also in those CARS!! Or so called dead metal. I live in Amsterdam which means we bike a lot! Yet Imma tell you if the distance is too far or if it rains a lot guess what the majority of people in Amsterdam take their car or an Uber or Taxi from another company. The problem is that there is not a good replacement for cars. Public transport for example does not even go 24/7.
We need this to become more and more prominent especially in big cities.
I love that the conversation around "car-centricity" is becoming more mainstream! I lived in the Los Angeles area for about 9 years, and it severely affected my mental health. Happy to be in Philly, where there's more public transit and better walkability, but it's still nowhere near the success of many European cities.
European cities had it naturally, that's how they developed. Now, if you take huge American cities, like LA, and start forcibly changing transportation flow by closing off street to cars, etc., i think, this will create more problems than the good it may bring.
@@_Diana_S I recommend the book "The Death and Life of Great American Cities" by Jane Jacobs! It's been a while since I read it back in college, but still a good take on this topic
I can't help but notice a similarity among all the happy people in Copenhagen
What is described as the future for US from 5:59 to 6:34 has been existing here in France (and probably most of Europe) for quite some time. And i still believe that there are far too many cars in our cities.
It's tipical american,the old stuff from Europe is new stuff for them,also claiming they ,,invented'' it LOL
@@draculakickyourass I agree with you when it comes to a more human urbanism (and France if quite behind other European countries like the Netherlands). But on many other things, US is indeed a leader. I am for example an admirer of the resilience of Americans who don't expect their government to act as a safety net for almost everything as we do here.
I believe that all these differences, urbanism or self resilience, have a lot to do with how the country was built and its size.
@@draculakickyourass You can always expect the US to do the right thing, after they've exhausted every other option. I mean just look at their measuring system
@@mr.p215 Yeah,the poor USA and british engineers are the target of the jokes at the reunions because their imperial system.
@@draculakickyourass after learning the metric system in science class, i really wish it was more common in everyday use in the US😔
A decent amount of people I met IRL, different from the commenters here, unfortunately, still favors a kind of suburban living that requires cars. It's not about just changing cities but also changing minds.
It's not just "a decent amount". In Germany, where I live, car numbers are still growing, I doubt they would if people didn't actually want cars. It's just that under videos like these, the "anti-car community" comes together to dream about a dystopia without cars (like you do). I don't want to change my mind. And both types of people will have to live together for quite some time.
To be honest, if a were to choose if I want to live in a city centre sqeezed in a small flat or in a decent size suburban house, I take the house without thinking twice. Yes, it has it's disadvantages (having to use car to drive everywhere) but it can be improved by developing public transport.
Yeah, I'm excited for this change it always annoyed me here in America if you want to go anywhere its lots and lots of driving or trying not to get run over. But every time I've been to a European country I love it I could walk to anywhere things were close and the traffic wasn't as bad.
America just needs a decent train system. that way people can keep their cars and pay the rego. otherwise you start getting taxed more for not using the roads. Covid is a great example of governments wanting to tax extra because you work at home.
@@MixieMew well that won't help - since city structures in Europe are grown over times mostly.
How to build a city - people can look at Zamosc. Inner circle no cars, around parkinglots (many) and then parks and housing
Esben Bjerre looking sharp at 5:30
They're starting this off in Sydney, but it's not an idea that should be taken out of nothing. It needs a big plan, because the people need to reach further places where only using bikes or walking is not feasible. In Sydney they're creating a mixed environment, with cars, rail trams, trains and subway walk roads that make the travel attainable as possible. A over surface train is on the plans too.
Stockholm around the 50s and 60s tried to become really car friendly city because the big increase in people owning their own car.
But they soon noticed that making a car centric city was pretty dumb.
And changed a lot of it back.
As someone who lives in Stockholm.
The concept of driving around the city of Stockholm to get anywhere just seems so inconvenient, and like a really weird concept.
Cars is a incredibly inefficient way of transporting large amounts of people.
Or having as the main mode of transportation for your cities population.
Instead they put a huge focus on developing good and efficient public transport. From the late 60s onwards.
The majority of people who live in Stockholm’s suburbs that work in the city or at the other side of the city, own at least one car, many have two. But most will not drive it to work.
But instead use the trains, subway or bikes.
Because it’s quicker to take the train than be stuck in traffic at rush hours.
And you don’t need fo find or worry about parking in the middle of a city.
And since most people take the train or subway, the need for roads and parking is a lot smaller.
@@IQzminus2 True but it fucking sucks having to ride public transportation everywhere in Sweden when there are so many loud motherfuckers in this country now, playing their fucking music on the speakers and talking so fucking loudly. Public transportation to and from work is depressing and a huge fucking annoyance.
Great video but use Amsterdam rather than Copenhagen. Denmark is still behind compared to the Netherlands
you mean slightly less distopian
In the US, cars are seen as the natural progression forward via a superior technology. The thinking is, "Why walk when you can drive?" But ironically, cars reduce those two things that Blaine Merker said people crave: connections and time 3:42. Surveys have shown that car-dependent lifestyles have reduced connections; and why would you voluntarily choose to spend 1-2 hours of every day just traveling to work with no chance of anything new, interesting, or serendipitous happening? That's so much dead time.
People in US don't even know what Public transport is,for them is slow method of moving around because government doesn't invest money in to it.
If you have a 1-2 hour car commute then walking isn’t an option. You would also have to use public transportation which, frankly, isn’t a great experience compared to the flexibility, privacy, and comfort you get from a car. I tried both and found that no matter how I commuted it always felt like “dead time,” simply because I was trying to get somewhere and didn’t have time for serendipitous experiences along the way.
@@puff2848 Yeah, I'm questioning why a society would construct itself so that about a minimum 30 min. one-way drive would be required each day. If the US made walkable cities, then citizens could have 15 min. walk/bike ride to work (or less), and then the return home would be full of choice for an endless number of tasks or leisure (because they'd already be in their neighborhood, where they live, work, and play.)
@@Brindlebrother I think people prefer a 30-minute drive in a comfortable car to a 15-minute walk where you could get to your destination drenched in a pool of your own sweat or freezing cold and drenched from the rain.
Don't you think that using public transportation will take even more hours every day, but, in addition, you will be subjected to such serendipitous occasions like someone stealing your wallet or a cell phone, or sneezing on the handle the other people then touch, or preaching to you about one thing or another, begging for money, playing their loud music, or simply smelling in an offensive way. Forget about pissed on seats and garbage or waiting in the cold, wind and rain at the stops. You, people who dream of public transportation, must have not really taken it enough.
The freedom my car gives me is worth 100x. I dont want to be in need of a public transportation system, especially in times like rona. But the thumnail looks great!
I'm really surprised Freethink focused soo heavily on Copenhagen, Denmark than on the much more historically de-automobile'd Amsterdam, Nederlands. The Netherlands started its transition close to 50 years ago. Copenhagen & Denmark not so much.
Maybe because the founder of the gehl company is from Copenhagen. The channel not just bikes also made an interesting video with theory why Copenhagen is often used as example instead of the Netherlands
It is illegal to ride a bicycle in my city. I once had my bicycle seized by police just because I was riding it. The city does exist, and it is in Azerbaijan, Nakhchivan.
Horrible. Azerbaijan, Middle East?
Is iti illegal because you are a woman? Well, then it makes sense, since cycling reveals the shape of the body a little bit. That's why in Muslim countries, it is best that men cycle and women ride the bus.
@@موسى_7 how tf does it make sense
@@موسى_7 Don't be ridiculous.
1) Azerbaijan is not in the Middle East
2) There is nothing wrong with cycling, for men or for women
3) The original comment mentioned nothing about Islam or about being a woman.
4) Cycling does not reveal the shape of the body any more than walking does, in fact there are bikes which are able to be used by people in long skirts, the ones that were developed originally back when European women dressed like that. Those are the bikes that are common in the Netherlands.
5) Buses are often more dangerous places for women, and far less useful for them since they rarely accommodate the kinds of trips that women are more likely to make.
@@user-ed7et3pb4o
1. Yes it is.
2. No, there's nothing wrong with it, but the religion of Islam despises women.
3. The original comment mentioned the place. An Islamic country.
4. Women riding bikes and animals has long been a point of contention and illegal in Muslim countries. Or at least illegal for women.
5. Yes, public transit is pretty dangerous, but that's not what they were talking about.
@@3dApe we don't despise women. We are just a society of men who don't like strangers to see their women, and women who don't want to be seen by strangers.
Also, the buses are not necessarily dangerous if segregation is practiced, where the women sit in the back, just as the pray behind the men.
I've been thinking about this ever since I found out about Not Just Bikes. I really want to know what we can do to make suburbs better. They're full of terrible, dangerous stroads.
That have a simple answer,only your government have other interests, the politicians there are not interested in making your life better,they are the hunting dogs of those who payed their campaigns. The answer is universal education for free. You will never see a doctor,engineer or an arquitect to point you with a gun to take your wallet.
I think they are great and don't need to be changed. I would love to live in an american suburb, but German small cities are great for cars too. And bicycling in my city is also pretty good, so we can have both if we want
@@robertjunior8086 American suburbs are not that great, you *have* to use a car to just about anywhere. You're honestly lucky to find sidewalks, let alone a bike lane.
Amsterdam has done it way better, especially recently. Separated bike paths, better designed roads, better public transport. Using a car is only an option, not necessity, and it's not always the quickest route!
There are no places in America like this. Single Family zoning has ruined everything.
The Copenhagen shots were really unconvincing because of the slapped on painted cycling lanes, the part where a man is riding his bike with a baby right next to a huge trailer is actually terrible & scary.
I can imagine that if you don’t live here in Copenhagen like i do, that it looks scary. However there is a mindfulness of bicyclists and pedestrians having the right-of-way which makes it much safer than it looks. We have remarkable low traffic fatalities here.
Exactly, they should have used The Netherlands as an example
@@user-be1jx7ty7n hi, i'm on the internet so I state my opinion as fact without having any pertinent information. oh wait, that's you.
@@user-be1jx7ty7n pedestrian crossings are abstract, usually just paint slapped on the ground. Red lights are not physical boundries either, yet you dont panic everytime you drive through a green light in a crossing either. "Terrible and scary" is a subjective opinion, based on what? a few images in a video, or actual stats on accidents in a comparison between dutch cities and Cph?
@@user-be1jx7ty7n I think is actually the complete opposite. The only way you can really achieve piece of mind is having the abstract feeling that the ones that surround you are considerate and abide to the rules. If this is not the case, no matter how many speed bumps you install, how high walls you build or how long is your gun, you will never have much piece of mind.
I love it when people think they got all the answers for the rest of us
There's a factor that unfortunately no one takes into consideration when rethinking city design, temperature. Some countries, such as mine, the temperature reaches a scorching 35-40 Celsius in the summer, so if a person wanted to walk/bike around, they'd literally faint or get a heat stroke. How could we combat that? Could you possibly make a video specifically about rethinking cities in hot countries?
Less cars and more trees will make a space cooler as it is, so that would be part of it. But also between buildings there is usually some shade, so it could just be a matter of building more awnings to allow shade and shelter during rain etc.
People show a big hatred towards bicycles whenever an accident happens, but accept the thousandfold more common car accidents as normal, and it irritates me.
Keep crying, my car runs on your tears.
Parklets are actually super common in Europe, where I'm from(Croatia) our main city of Zagreb is full of these.
From what I've heard, Zagreb is doing great overall at reducing car dependency.
@@martinn.6082 In my opinion not nearly enough. There is a huge lack of trams in the whole west part of the city. And ti is therefore so incredibly crowded by cars! There hasn't beed a new tram line in 20 years, and the whole that time people have been commuting from the airport to the city by overcrowded busses and taxis. It took 10 years to build a new goldola line from the city to the mountain peak (where the skiing track is) and that whole time people commuted there by car. Now that it has been built it is the most expensive gondola per kilometer in the whole world and it's still not working 2 years after completion. Two parts of the city are connected by 2 tram lines, 3 car bridges and one pedestrian bridge. You can cross the river on foot on the car bridges bu there is so many car lanes it's really scary. They have been talking about adding another car bridge for 20 years and It's still not happening! It's not the wurst but it could be doing so much more!
I’m 1 minute in but this actually makes a lot of sense. There genuinely are some cities where you know you have to drive to get to places and other cities, where you can walk everywhere.
I feel like in Europe you have a lot more of those types of cities where you can walk around. I explored a whole lot of Madrid by walking everywhere because there are so many squares and plazas and cute streets that just lead into different places. It was fantastic.
Then you have cities which are not so much like that, and you require a car to get to places as it makes more sense. But if the space for people to walk and explore grew, we’d definitely have less cars around.
life is not about sitting on the front lawn and drinking lattes in a cafe. when you grow up you will understand that it is more complicated. cars are made to keep people free and independent. So that they can move freely without the need to ask someone for permission or a timetable. Why do young people want to be slaves? I do not understand this.
@@nnnnnn3647 why do you think people want to completely get rid of cars? What people want is an option to use an alternative. Public transport and other forms of commuting can be far more healthy for a city and its population and can make commuting safer and faster. That isn't to say cars are useless or would be made redundant. Cars and utility vehicles will always have a place whether it be to travel to and from work over a considerable distance or for work which requires a car such as a tradie, to travel for a holiday or to transport large amounts of goods.
@@nnnnnn3647 this guy is talking about walking... Not sitting on the front lawn, or sitting in a car.
@@guskohu2093 you give cars too much credit. They're for rural people, policemen, and disabled people. That's it, in an ideal world at least, but not even the Netherlands is that great.
@@موسى_7 I totally agree although I'd add utility vehicles on the list as well as other emergency services. Even still there are plenty of other cases where cars are necessary and the goal shouldn't just be removing them completely rather the reliance and dependency we have on them. Because as much as I would like to carry heavy equipment or furniture on my push bike this isn't always going to be possible or convenient.
I'm down for it! Most people don't mind wandering around on foot a little, and the cities and universities that have spaces only for pedestrians, or walkable urban areas are really dynamic. I'd love to see more parking garages and pedestrian/cycling only areas in urban centers.
Cities are for people. We should absolutely take back that valuable space. Side note, 0:25 the person behind the wheel of a rolling 2-ton death machine is responsible for these accidents, but the jogger and the cyclist were not looking when crossing the street.
Thanks for pointing that out.
I would have liked to hear more of the methods to developing such a place and the effects (and not just that people like it- other effects like where do the cars go? What about long travel? Are traffic jams more or less frequent or the same? etc). This is really fascinating
Driving through Boston/Cambridge a few months back I LOVED how much curbside cozy structures were put together for people to gather. Many were makeshift and not professionally built so the look was a bit haphazard but I saw the potential for everything this upload speaks of. It brought a smile to my face at the time for the determination to gather but wouldn't it be wonderful to have more of this on a permanent basis.
Implement proper public transit infrastructure + an autonomous taxi service so that car ownership for most is rendered obsolete.
that is the groundwork that needs to be laid to reclaim city spaces for the human organism rather than for boxes of metal.
Autonomous car would be worse than normal cars for road usage, because they would have to drive from the depot to you, do the trip and the drive back to the depot outside the city until they are called again
@@willy4170 no, that's a silly idea.
the service provider has real time demand data an deploys the vehicles based on that. they keep patrolling as long as demand is there. only when demand drops will they drive themselves back into the depot. since there is a regular pattern to demand, deployment can generally be in anticipation, so waiting times remain minimal.
furthermore they require significantly less parking space throughout the city as they just drop off people and immediately continue their service. all of those streets having their sidewalks lined with parked cars would be a thing of the past.
finally they are networked - aware about the state of traffic throughout the city, and can calculate the most efficient route in real time. this makes for shorter travel times which of course also translates into less vehicles required on the roads.
@@holleey yes, like you said having cars that continue patrolling the streets completely empty is really inefficient and a waste of space, and you may think than they are going to became cheaper since don’t require drivers, but allow them to function they would require massive control centers, infrastructures, extremely precise mapping, and more people working on them rather than the actual drivers that would be needed to drive them manually.
Idk why some people think the solution to problem should be hyper convoluted solutions at astronomically high price tags sold as “the future” by tech bros that most of the time are just snake oil sellers.
Instead than simple, efficient and cheap solutions by just looking at what we already have and polishing current technology, ad example car sharing would much better solution, simple and efficient, but the problem in cities are car themselves, independently how they are powered or who is driving them because they are always going to take up the same amount of space on the roads hindering the mobility of public transport, pedestrians and cyclists.
I think the best solution would be inside cities to use the local mass transit other than walking and biking (if you want automation, automated subways would be a better bet)
For long trips and commuting to other cities use trains, and lastly you can take a car in car in car sharing to move between small settlements in the same local area or to go on vacations on more isolated places like a mountain or at the beach, where a autonomous couldn’t go.
(If you are interested i could recommend a bunch of videos on the topic)
@@willy4170 again, the patrolling is fine as it's tuned to demand. there's no time when a majority of vehicles is empty. furthermore, with a demand based service like that, when making the order people would be able to specify what kind of trip they are planning and how many passengers they are, so the vehicles can be optimized for that particular task; no empty seats or cargo space.
camera + radar based implementations do not require mapping. once established at scale, I highly doubt it would require more people operating it than the number of vehicles deployed at a time.
we could downscale infrastructure. instead of massive car parks scattered throughout the city, only a couple depots at city outskirts are required that can be much more compact as they aren't traversed by end-users. this would also be where the vehicles charge themselves, so less charging infrastructure is required within the city. in a system of exclusively networked autonomous cars, even traffic lights and signs would be obsolete.
there is no point in bringing up public transit as an alternative because these modes of transportation are for different applications. for anything where public transit is adequate; yes absolutely - it should be the first choice, but for anything that requires last-mile i.e. door-to-door travel, it's just not an option, so it's not about cars VS. public transit.
you could make an argument about cars VS. walking our cycling, but here, too, countless of situations and conditions exist where only cars are a viable option - even in cities that are designed with walking & cycling in mind.
so cars aren't going to go away, but what can potentially go away is the dependence on car ownership. every household owning one or several cars that need to be parked close by the driver at all times, need to accommodate trips with the whole family even though the vast majority of trips has them occupied by only one person, these things sit at the root of the problem and can be solved with cars as service.
Can I please has rail service?
Hell yes! When you come to think of it, it's absolutely ridiculous that so much public space is wasted!
It isn't wasted, I love cars
@@robertjunior8086 It is absolutely wasted. The more space is given to cars, the worse it is to drive, walk, or do anything else. People shouldn't be forced into driving when they don't want to, which is what car-centric design does. But with better use of space, nobody drives unless they have to or they really want to, which means that the driving experience is also better. The only solution to traffic, after all, is providing viable alternatives to driving.
@@user-ed7et3pb4o Forced into driving??? People were forced into driving cuz they had to find jobs far away from them to sustain their family. If you remove driving people will instead be forced to starve
@@ferdtheterd3897 Nobody is saying to remove driving altogether where it is essential. They're saying that there need to be viable alternatives for people who can't or don't want to drive. Because if there are no alternatives then yes, you are being forced.
theres are intersection near a bus stop that i go to everyday. ive seen 3 people on scooters get hit by a car near this merging lane because they were riding their scooter in the opposite direction of traffic. something needs to be done about that. its so dangerous.
in a city like Dhaka, where neither the roads are enough for the high but stagnant flow of traffic nor are the footpaths for the general public, how do you implement such an idea?
Call thanos?
First ask Why car and foot traffic are so crowded. Are they too narrow? Not enough? What kind of organization is in place to keep people on their paths and cars on theirs?
@@nearystar6341^This
roads are not a viable way to transport people in a city. the reason Dhaka has such crowded streets is a lack of public transport. you physically could not add enough roads to the city to handle the traffic.
only a more efficient metro system can solve the problem
I second Adam Fraser's statement. In a city as dense of Dhaka, there simply is not the space to waste on cars. Even with a small, multi-passenger vehicle that's carrying as many people as it can, a car takes up more space than a person on foot or bicycle; even a moped or motorcycle is relatively less space-efficient because of the space required to allow something that can travel at higher speeds to speed up and slow down. And so, that is all that should be designed for in a city: pedestrians and cyclists, with a metro system (which I know Dhaka is building) to take people longer distances in the city. The only motorized vehicles permissible ought to be for cargo.
3:40 what is the thing what make people happy:
Having connection and time with his new own car 🚗 !
good luck by cycling, walking to work or eating outside in deep snow and 0° Fahrenheit. In car you are sitting in a warm, nothing rains over your head and your feet are dry. Nothing can replace the comfort of your own car.
Exactly. . . "What would make me happy?" Getting to town and having a parking spot to get my business done, so I can get the heck out of there.
Indeed! What a brilliant invention the motorcar was.
I practice as an architect in Abuja, Nigeria. Abuja is a super car-friendly city. What breaks my heart the most is that roads here are still being designed without pedestrians/cyclists in mind, AT ALL. Walking or cycling around Abuja can be extremely dangerous. I loved the ideas here. I just hope that such innovative solutions are adopted by the Nigerian government as the barest minimum design criteria for prospective road developments. I believe that up and coming countries should adopt these kinds of creative and strategic best practices. Great stuff!
This comes back to how kids are spending more time inside because there is literally nothing for them to do outside.
There's plenty ov things 2 do outside it just cost $ , kids have electronics that caters 2 their short attention spans
I dont find this to be a very good excuse for why suburbs suck at all. Because just 13-17years ago when I was a teenager and Video games became what we know them as now. We still played outside, hung out with neighbor friends and went over to other friends houses in other subdivisions. As well as going to the parks around town or we just wondered the streets around our town. Occasionally seeing other groups of people we knew. This was how everyone live until very recently in the suburbs.
What Changed, is kids chose electronics over socializing, parents basically never allowing kids out of the house because something might happen to little Timmy or Sally. It became very common for other adults to call police on kids(even as old as 10) for playing outside, even their backyard. And then you have the noticeably lower amount of kids on any given street in a town, and it isnt surprising to go a street or 2 before you see a family with kids on it. And many times, its the only kid on that street. But I will also concede and agree that how Suburbia is built, is awful. And could actually be built in a way that encourages walking, Biking, Skateboarding and being more pedestrian friendly and overall more livable than being being car dependant.
@@JoseAntonio-qe5hy Very much so. Weak parenting and kids being to dependent on electronics for stimulation is largely why kids dont get out much anymore. And I'd even throw in the very noticeable lack of families with children in most neighborhoods now. just 13-17 years ago, My town had tons of teenagers walking around, hanging out at parks and doing things all over our town. Now my Town has hardly any kids walking around even though I know they exist. The Local Pool is full of them all summer. Though compared to me growing up, there is an obvious decrease in the amount compared the late 2000s when I was still young.
One of the things I love the most about my country (the Netherlands) is how much space our streets give to pedestrians and cyclists.
Every time I'm walking my neighbourhood and have to stop for a car I wonder: why do I have to watch out for cars? Shouldn't the cars stop for me, the pedestrian instead? We're so used to "car is king" that we completely ignore the possible change of perspective and just accept the status quo.
Before cars, streets were for pedestrians. The occasional horse-drawn carriage was responsible for avoiding the pedestrians. Once cars became popular enough to be causing accidents, car and petrol companies "lobbied" (bribed) to make jaywalking a crime so pedestrians were responsible for avoiding cars. The common public space of the street was taken from pedestrians and given to the car companies. Its called "oligarchy", where corporations, and even individuals who are rich enough, buy politicians who let them dictate the laws we all are forced to live by.
The reason you have to watch out for cars is because a car can kill you. You cant kill a car by running into it while walking / running. People driving still have to watch for pedestrians because it is still illegal for them to hit you but we can only protect people form their own idiocy so much.
Cars can kill you, genius 😑 that's why you should watch out for them
Only if there are alternatives such as trams and buses which are also adapted for the elderly and handicap, less mobile. If there are no alternative transport except bikes and walking then don't do it. Some of these examples also look very messy..
One part of such a transformation would be to build more public transformation like trams.
I love how people are active here in Europe. Many people walk or cycle in Germany.
lovely idea but I'd say it needs more thought, while it's easy to think this is heavily improving life for pedestrians at the cost of slightly inconveniencing motor vehicle users who already have too much space, you didn't account for movers, construction vehicles, delivery services and all other vehicles that require close proximity to residences and businesses, I live in Jerusalem and move furniture but the central areas of town are incredibly restricted in terms of driving and parking, whilst it's nice to have a wide space to walk it's also not fun carrying couches half a kilometer down the street only to find I've been slapped with a heavy fine. there needs to be a well designed balance of space.
Making it easier not to drive for people who don't have to drive makes it easier to drive for the people who have to drive
@@onesob13 true but there'll always be the people who insist on driving regardless of the easier option
@@kestekrafts1580 I don't think anyone's suggesting you should eradicate driving.
There are also electric cargo bikes that are pretty capable when it comes to city deliveries, which frees up even more space for things like furniture which needs bigger vehicles.
@@user-ed7et3pb4o sure but just narrowing roads and removing parking accessibility only increases congestion and makes it a nightmare for work vehicles, it needs to be done smartly, for example we have a road here only for pedestrians but it's open to vehicles from 5-8am allowing all work vehicles to easily work within that bracket
@@user-ed7et3pb4o bikes...? Really... You'll have huge fucking problems if now suddenly every motherfucker rides around on bikes, people are even more fucking stupid on their bikes. Had way more issues with people on bikes than I ever had with cars.
The future is in the past. Hail Jane Jacobs, frick Robert Moses
A better longer term question could be do we even need cities anymore? With many people pushing to work from home why would they still want to live in a city? Many will (imo) move out of cities to more rural areas for remote working, better quality of life and cheaper property prices.
The high cost of living in cities today is very artificial, as shown if you go to Tokyo where you can get an apartment for $500/month (albeit a very small one, but at least they are actually building apartments), and as shown on the Louis Rossmann TH-cam channel where there are massive numbers of unleased properties that could easily fit all of their homeless people, and otherwise be used to reduce the cost of rent using the supply/demand competition if only the free market could just be allowed to work properly.
Cities exist because you can get massive increases in efficiency of commerce by centralizing businesses and housing in the same area. The massive efficiencies are such as to allow for the existence of government bureaucracy and standing armies (such as the NYPD being one of the largest standing armies in the world if New York were to be considered as its own country) that rural areas would quickly collapse under the costs of.
Okay, this all makes a lot of sense. But I can´t picture a city that already has problems with not having enough parking spaces to suddenly cut them even more. Many cities around the world aren´t built to use mostly public transport & the overall environmental differnece whether the people use their car or 3buses is not that different. But it would still mean enhancing the public transport schedule, in order to allow people who live further away from the city they work in to be able to arrive home at a reasonable time via public transport.
That’s the problem: USA cities are built for cars. Of course, as everything is, this is a complicated matter. Bue enhancing public transport and spreading this ideas about more human like cities is a start!
@@tess6909 What prevents these architects to create or even build a smaller (up to 27K population) cities from scratch? Is there any example of such new human-scale development anywhere in the world?
When explaining their point, I noticed a more positive scenario. When opposing, the producer showed shots that are negative. I would really like to see how many people would use the space during bad weather or even during the winter. In our city, they've put in so many bike lanes that are barely used, the emergency services now take an extra 2 to 10 minutes to arrive at their destination.
The term “reset” is a sensitive term lately. But that said, I’m all for taking back the public space.
Why would you use rules that work for a tiny village and apply it to the rest of the world? Where I live I have to travel 60km just to get to highschool, then 60km back. Cars and roads are still extremely nessecary. That would make it very hard for anyone who doesn't live in the city to travel to the city, which happens enormously.
@@ferdtheterd3897 You wouldn’t need those cars if we got rid of the zoning laws requiring the separation of commercial real estate and housing, and allowed arbitrary building heights.
Once those allowances are in place, the free market will dictate that the places where people want to be will build more housing to fit those people.
A lot of European cities are pushing cars out of their city centers, making it more foot traffic and public transport. Might be a good idea for the US too
As someone who has lived in Europe a while I can say that this should be approached with caution. European cities can do the "no cars" thing because people are packed into their cities. Most American cities have a small dwelling population. We live in suburbs. Architects and city planners dislike this but that's the way it is. American cities are unlike European cities in two ways - squares developed naturally form old political, financial or religious centers and European cities are far older, designed before the car. This has made a huge differenc.
Many American cities were like European cities if you go a bit back in time, before the auto industry and the American dream of a white picket fence in the suburbs took over and bulldozed parts of them (mostly the poorer parts) to make space for highways to suburban heave/hell.
Yes, the damage is done, but it's not like it's not reversible, it's just going to take a bit longer and people and politicians have to be willing to do it, which I don't think most Americans are. The car has come to symbolize freedom, which in many places in America is true because you simply can't get anywhere without your car, and people don't want to give up or limit their freedom.
Change your suburb's zoning laws so that it becomes more dense
@@onesob13 Why would I want to do that? I like the openness, the insistence on 1 acre minimum size. I don't want someone from London or Holland or Germany telling me how our cities should look and operate.
@@smb123211 it's fine if you want that, I just don't think it should be codified into law. Cities should be free to develop more naturally, not boxed into a certain archetype
What if you took Rotterdam as a blueprint?
in order to make people use lesss cars, u have to make the accessibility to the city cheap and easy. by deleting streets for cars, you might risk overflowing the few remaining ones. these are factors you should take into consideration. but designing a city for humans is key
This is where public transit and getting rid of zoning laws (allowing people to live in high density areas) comes into play.
That looks great but so far, from what I've seen of the attempts to change the car culture in Malaysia, the weather is a huge deterrent. Just being outside in the heat and humidity makes one tired and lethargic much less to ride a bicycle. Cars have air conditioning, nobody wants to walk or cycle in the heat when you can sit in an air conditioned vehicle instead.
Cycling looks all well and good in the Copenhagen shots but I just picture it in Malaysia where everyone is hot and sweaty and dying of heat stroke. Or when it's not hot, drenched in rain instead. I wonder what kind of urban design would work for our climate?
the same as most other climates: trains.
We have trains. But also, how to get to train stations? Driving your car. But then you have to look for parking at there. And then when you get off the train, you still have to *walk* to your destination. Most people here figure, let's skip the hassle and just drive everywhere.
@@SheliakDragon wb trams and buses
Air conditioned buses. I am from India. Kolkata has got sweltering summers and Bangalore doesn't. But Kolkata has a fantastic local transport system with frequent and affordable ac buses. In my 4 yrs of living there, I never felt the need for a private vehicle. In case of absolute need, cabs like Uber and the others were always there. Bangalore, on the other hand, has pleasant weather all the year round. But horrible public transport connectivity has pushed everyone to own a private vehicle. Traffic is a huge problem there.
Not only trains but metro as well. A metro station can be allocated to the center of the city and hubs for work, for fun, parks etc. Theyre fast and its not hot. A train and metro system well made would make travels from small distances and long distances faster and possibly not hot and sweaty. So that space that is used by cars can be cut down by a good amount and planted trees that will help cool down where people walk. Trees alone can lower up to 5ºCelsius on the ground level and that alone can make a HUGE difference
Traffic needs to be underground or in the air. I know it costs alot more money to make a road underground then on the surface but im sure we wasting alot more money and time on eveyday traffic jams.
The San Francisco guy is brilliant. Legally pay for a parking space and set up shop, way cheaper than actual rent. Haha
Keep pushing, we will take our cities back
"actually you are wrong, that sht happened" made my laugh so hard xD
I just found you guys and i really like your channel so far. Many good thoughts that could really get us humans forwards. Keep it up! ;)
Cheers.
really need to rethink the name of this series...
I live in Maastricht NL and although it is very bike friendly, public transportation is lacking. Getting to places is very difficult if can’t/don’t ride a bike (I couldn’t use my bike for a long time after back surgery). If you want less cars in the road and more public spaces you need better public transportation. Just replacing cars with bikes is ablelist, ageist and not viable for everyone.
This is an important aspect! Not all trips can be done by bike, and not everyone can ride a bike, so a robust transit system is needed in every medium-sized or big city. Some amount of car traffic is also OK, but it shouldn't be the priority in city planning.
I think the Netherlands kind of does this. we have city centre's where cars are not allowed and we have special lanes just for bikes.
When you see productions like this you need to ask, who is funding this and why?
Vancouver BC, tried this with the intention of detering drivers in cars to reduce overall carbon emissions. How is it going right now? Record high congestions, substantially more overall carbon output from idling cars because people who drive are not going to pick up a bike or take transit. Don't get me wrong, this is a excellent idea, but just does not work in this day and age. Especially in places like Los Angles, San Francisco, Toronto, Vancouver BC.
You know what all those cities have in common? Extremely restrictive zoning laws that prohibit homeowners from building extra housing units to sell. That is the source of the congestion, a forced de-densification of the city.
This is an absolute great analogy. So sad that the car lobby will never allow such a thing to be widespread.
We don't need the 'car lobby's' permission: The People are vastly more powerful than any corporate lobby. We need to join with as many people as possible across the 'political spectrum' and DEMAND and CREATE non-exploitative, equitable, and sustainable societies.
Try to walk at 35°C afternoon at the asphalt.
We live outside of LA. I'm scared to walk across some intersections especially with my kids. I have the safest way to walk to different areas mapped. Some sidewalks are too narrow for a single stroller, so it's another obstacle to avoid. Others don't have ramp curbs at the corners. Adds to the difficulty of getting around.
I wanted to see the cool plastic tents(?) from the thumbnail, are they in the video?
The real challenge is figuring out how to get people to their destination. A lot would arrive at the city in a car. How do they get where they need to go? This is the question.
Why do they have to arrive by car? Why not by tram or bus? Why not have suburbs with a frequent reliable buses? Wouldn't that be more pleasurable if you could hop on a bus that comes reliably every 10 minutes, and then use your commute watching TH-cam videos or napping or whatever? Plus rapid reliable buses are already backwards compatible with the roads we built
Drive car to mass transit, sit on train, sit on bus, change bus, still have to walk to destination in 100 degree heat or 10 degree cold or rain, snow and ice. Add having to do this with disabled parent in wheel chair. Young people biking everywhere is a very narrow minded ideal.
@@juliemulie1805 This shift away from car-centric development is about having options; it’s not about forcing everybody out of their cars. If you have to drive, you can still drive. But if you don’t have to drive, you have modes of getting to where you want to go.
Have you heard of public transit
My favorite touristy moments involved tramming or bussing to the city center outskirts (or underground city section stop), and then being able to walk freely in a major chunk of Munich, Florence, London, and Venice. I was walking everywhere, once I arrived at centralized destinations, and it was great...way more exercise and more convenient than spending more time in an auto, fighting traffic, and being challenged to find a parking space.
Many cities in the United States could go far by improving transportation infrastructures and taking back city centers.
life is not about sitting on the front lawn and drinking lattes in a cafe. when you grow up you will understand that it is more complicated. cars are made to keep people free and independent. So that they can move freely without the need to ask someone for permission or a timetable. Why do young people want to be slaves? I do not understand this.
I greatly disagree with this video. They asked all the right questions and came up with all the wrong answers. We need transportation to get to places, and for large cities, it's putting your head in the cloud if you expect people to get from one end of the city to the other with a bike. The real solution to this problem is clearly public transportation, and that needs to be sufficient before any mention of trees and bike lanes. You can beautify the city once you've provided an alternative mode of transportation. But get rid of the roads before that happens and you make a disaster.
I agree with you.
The street allocation is based on volume not count. A car is bigger and needs more space.
Reducing street space for car is forcing to reduce number of cars (or causing traffic jams) and could introduce problems to people’s basic transportation needs, especially in a large city.
The real question is how to reduce number of cars on the street and public transportation is a solution.
@@dfcmichael7590 Ban private cars, only rent them for vast amount of money, or just for the "chosen", so less people use them and automatically will switch to alternatives like bikes, electric bikes because they'll not have any other choice - also artificially rise prices of petrol and diesel, put more restrictions on roads to discourage ppl from driving. Long story short, you will own nothing and be happy, build back better comrade ;)
This doesnt work for following reasons:
1. No robust Public transport option that is cheap and good quality.
2. Cities are way bigger in US than in Denmark and people are more spread out. I can see it kind of working in smaller and denser cities but not in most cities.
3. People love their cars and big Bikes. People want their comfort.
4. Most of these spaces will attract homeless people. I for one, wont mind that but alot of people will.
5. Builders will fight hard to never allowfor this.
"10% was space for people and 90% was space for cars, but when you looked at who used the space we have like 90% of the users, they were pedestrians and 10% was cars. How come people are accepting to be crowding on a tiny sidewalk...?" This is EXACTLY how I feel about our Economy. How come 99% of people accept fighting over 1% of the entire economic pie? We have to redesign our economy just as they redesigned these city spaces. Reply if you agree - maybe we can start something!
Brilliant reframe.
How hard is the reset needed in the Netherlands.
Imagine trying to get from McKinney to Dallas on a bike... hardly seems like a workable plan. All this anti car talk is only relevant in small crowded places, and even then it only works when the weather is nice.
I would suggest looking up pictures of Dallas in the 1900's and noting that there are people on the street. These cities were bulldozed and shaped FOR the car. They weren't originally sprawled like that.
@@meijiishin5650 Yes, bulldozed because people didn't want to be walking around Dallas in 100°F weather. The only reason they did it back in the 1900s is because they had no alternative.
@@Monaleenian You ever been to Tokyo in summer? Also, cars and trains can exist at the same time, you know.