The Suburban Traffic Contradiction
Vložit
- čas přidán 28. 06. 2024
- If there’s anything we’ve learned following urban planning and city politics it’s that questioning the role of cars in cities really strikes a nerve. Policies like bike lanes, pedestrian streets, transit priority, and traffic calming are dismissed as a war waged against suburbanites and their cars by people who live downtown. In this video we question whether this view of the debate really makes sense.
Support our work/watch more:
Patreon: / ohtheurbanity
Urbanism playlist: • Housing
Subscribe for more videos: / @ohtheurbanity
More information/references:
Appeal of cul-de-sacs in suburban areas:
www.realtor.com/advice/buy/wh...
rismedia.com/2019/02/26/pros-...
www.mashvisor.com/blog/cul-de...
www.northjersey.com/story/mon...
www.maunakearealty.com/market...
link.springer.com/article/10....
Suwanee denies controversial zoning amendment after weeks of public outcry: www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news...
Los Altos Hills Town Plan: www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/179/...
Cities and suburbs fighting with Waze and other navigation apps:
www.usatoday.com/story/tech/n...
slate.com/business/2017/06/su...
www.nytimes.com/2017/12/24/ny...
www.theatlantic.com/technolog...
#suburbs #traffic #trafficcalming #waroncars
"It's not a one sided relationship, you could move here too or just admire it from over there." Unbelieveable...
Boomer narcissism.
That is actually the definition of one-sided...
@@eitkoml Anti-boomer bigotry. No one is responsible for when they were born.
@@walterburger5281 you're right. Being a piece of shit isn't limited to just one age category.
Yeah, unbelievable.
This is a great argument, its very similar to explaining to someone that *they are the traffic*...
Glad you liked it! We wrote exactly that in our brainstorming notes - that this is “you’re not stuck in traffic, you are traffic” but applied to a whole development pattern.
I remember my dad saying that he didn't want to live in a large city like Toronto or Montréal because "all the traffic makes it impossible to drive anywhere quickly and you can't park downtown". Car brain is unreal.
I agree, it's a great way of framing the discussion. I especially love the point that *nobody* likes to be near heavy car traffic -- it starts out with something we all can agree on.
@@carfreeneoliberalgeorgisty5102 My Mom who is big car brain and a Misanthropist doesn't want to take transit because "I don't want to travel on someone elses schedule" and "I don't want to travel with the great unwashed" and "It takes too long" and "Until there is a bus that will pick me up from my door step and drop me off right at work, I won't ride it"
@@coastaku1954 depending on where she lives I might actually sympathise with your mum because I happen to live in a city (fake London) where relying on public transit or other non car alternatives is a complete nightmare since public transit here is crappy and completely unreliable. If you live in a city where public transit is a very unattractive option for personal mobility (unless you're poor and/or desperate) it's hard not to see why someone would be against giving up their car in favour of public transit. If you live in a city with great public transit (such as real London or even Montréal) public transit is the most attractive option for mobility around so lots of people take it and few people are against it.
Suburban idea of fairness: "I don't want any damn car traffic in my suburban neighbourhood, but I don't want people downtown to limit car traffic JUST IN CASE I MIGHT WANT TO DRIVE THERE ONE DAY IN A MONTH!"
This is the Nimby mindset. "I understand low income people need housing; just not here." I find it really amusing that they are the car dependent ones so they, as a group, feel the traffic calming measures the most. Many of the people who actually live in the city, are biking/walking/bussing.
@@PokeMultiverse They also go into hysterics at the thought of not being able to park their car immediately in front of the door of a downtown store ---- but they have no objection to going to a suburban mall where they park in a parking lot the size of an aircraft carrier deck, and have to push a rickety shopping cart a quarter mile through a maze of moving cars on a hot day.
@@philpaine3068 Exactly, the mindset of suburbanites is crazy! Most people I know complain about “going into the city” and having to park a block or two from whatever they’re visiting, but have no problem parking at the end of a parking lot that is opposite of the store itself.
@@philpaine3068 That would be because of paranoia. They're super scared of the city and they'd rather not hang around outside too much. At least that's how it usually goes here in Montréal. Even today, suburbanites are convinced the entire island is basically New York in the '70s.
@@wonderror9546 Particularly hilarious considering that Montréal has one of the lowest crime rates in North America. Number of violent crimes annually per 100,000 people in Montréal: 2957. Number of violent crimes annually per 100,000 people in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan [basically a small town surrounded by a billion acres of wheat farms]: 5504!! I live in the downtown core of Toronto, in the middle of an immigrant neighbourhood and huge blocks of public housing, surrounded by hundreds of bars, nightclubs, pool halls, etc. Couldn't find a safer place anywhere else in Metro Toronto, where all the crime is in the dreary and boring suburbs. And btw, I LIVED in New York City during the 1970s. Even though the city was pretty grubby then, going through some tough times, it was still a fabulously fun place to be.
"You're anti-car!"
"So you're pro-traffic?"
"No, I hate traffic."
"So do I."
"Then why are you taking car lanes away?"
"Because when people take the bus instead of driving, you won't need as many lanes."
"But you're taking away parking!"
"This is a no-parking zone, there was never parking there to begin with."
"Well if people could park here you wouldn't need the bus."
"That would just increase traffic."
"Why are you so anti-car!"
- based on an actual conversation I had once, only ours was much less articulate and involved considerably more profanity.
People want the fasted way from point A to point B ,what will they use ,its depent of situation .people are alway rush. ,expecialiy wen they have to work.
you cannot ban car everywhere .
You can't ban it everywhere. Most people agree with you. But reducing it's use in crowded Urban areas is the future of Urban planning for a whole variety of reasons.
In any "war on cars," the cars were always the aggressor.
@@justinwong3521 Cars are more efficient, third world countries have bikes. All over.
Cars are more efficient for exactly one moment: when you want to go somewhere on a whim, right now.
We are all constantly paying a steep price for your mediocre convenience. Cars should be an optional luxury, not a burdensome requirement parasitizing the world.
@@snigwithasword1284 as ame goes for living in economic hubs. If you want to ride on a farm feel free but removing lane from a major road to add a dedicated bike lane so all of fifteen people can ride their bikes on it isn't a luxury?
Car owners pay additional taxes to provincial/State governments, which is what pays for the road in the first place!
@@HKashaf those 15 people on the bike lane just freed up 15 cars. Thus making traffic better. I’m sure those people actually appreciate having a mode of transportation now, especially if they are poorer. Not everyone can afford a car, but everyone is expected to drive. See the problem yet?
@@snigwithasword1284 What nonsense. Drivers are the ones subsidizing everyone else. Government generates massive revenue from drivers via fuel taxes, DMV fees and tolls. A large chunk of this money is diverted to general budgets instead of the car infrastructure it was ostensibly intended for. Cyclists especially are benefiting from this scam, they're paying zero taxes for the bike lane real estate they stole from drivers. Start contributing for your fair share, parasites.
Anti-Car in your neighborhood but pro-car in other ppl’s - very well explained
Lmao "It's not one sided, we benefit from the stores and allowance of commercial entities you have and you are allowed to look at us"
Except we're not even allowed to look at them, see the residents-only park
But do you have to allow commercial activity?
Yeah good luck with even the “look at us” part. Some Karen is gonna call the cops on the stranger wandering or driving around the neighborhood especially if your a bit darker than the average resident of a “rich” suburb.
It does make me think of a genius idea for a protest and that’s to take them at face value that your allowed to “look at them” and drive into their neighborhood en masse to “look at them”. A few hundred car traffic jam should do the trick. See how they like being a destination.
@@ireminmon no, that's the problem. You should. Limits aren't unreasonable, but not allowing a supermarket or at least small stores to even exist there inconvenience is both the residents, and the surrounding areas, not too mention the environmental cost
@@Joesolo13 But why? If supermarket makes my life worse, why would you force it on to my village?
There's plenty of industrial zones around, just put all the malls/supermarkets there, if you don't want them where you live
"We don't want people driving through our neighbourhoods!!"
But they live in car-dependent suburbs where you can't even walk to the shops... because there are no shops in walking distance.
People don't want people driving through that don't live there. That's what main roads are for
@michah7214
And as it turns out, neither do people living in cities.
If you want car accommodating infrastructure in the city you work in, be a resident of that city so you can vote in the local elections. NYC gets away with congestion tolling because this only benefits the residents who mainly, don't drive
@@Demopans5990 it really doesn't matter to me what they do in the cities. NYC is obviously crowded and I never in my life knew anyone who drove around NYC, they all took the subway because it is so crowded.
I live near Los Altos Hills! Man that place sucks, and the residents are assholes for the most part, there was a campaign to make it illegal for non-residents to even use their parks at one point, and I think it succeeded actually. One thing you didn't mention that I think is particularly ridiculous, is that both Los Altos and Los Altos Hills are so car dependent that they refuse to even install sidewalks! Even near the schools, 90% of the streets are dedicated entirely to cars and car parking, it's frightening to bike near there even on supposedly quiet suburban streets because of how fast and how carelessly drivers act on the wide streets. And despite having the cleanest and nicest buses in the entire bay area, they still run incredibly infrequently, and are very limited in their usability, both because they mostly only go to Foothill College, and if you want to go anywhere else you have to walk on the edge of the street with fast moving cars up steep hills.
I bet the kids who live there are MISERABLE in that they have to be driven everywhere and have no independence to do things on their own.
I remember that, they had a super nice park but was like "This is for residents only!" After this bit in the video proclaiming how pretty the area is for visitors and for those wanting to move there (yeah... if you have some Elon Musk type of money)
Sad and pathetic
@@williamhuang8309 I live on a 1/2-mile driveway, I am miserable for exactly that reason.
@@bootmii98 Isolated from everything else?
Fun fact: the place you or your home is most likely to be subject to pretty crime is a cul de sac. If the street in either direction is curved reducing sight-lines, the issue is compounded. In the 90s planners in my city sought to remove some cul de sacs, and people got out in the street and PROTESTED. Some of the plans got through, and they were turned into one way entry/exit slip roads from the main roads, or had chicanes to limit through traffic. Residents proceeded to complain about the one way direction and traffic calming. You cannot win with suburbanites. They don't know what they want, they just don't want you to have it.
In your city? Then it's not a suburb.
@@kilobyte8321 use some intuition. 'My city' = my metropolitan region. Comparing city vs. Suburb = urban vs. Suburban.
Petty crime. Not pretty crime.
@@iamTheSnark from this point forward it’s pretty
@@Freshbott2 it's like when famous graffiti raises property value lmao
I lived in one of those residential deserts for a few years while growing up and it really sucked, even after I was able to drive, as everything was so far away, even by car. And since it was before the advent of GPS or smartphones with GPS, learning the paths through neighborhoods was a frustrating experience as you encountered dead-end after dead-end due to the principles and tactics described in this video. I kept the maps pages from the local Yellow Pages in my car to study thoroughly before heading to anyplace new to me. Mass transit was a non-starter. Even if you lived close enough to the stops, it ran only on weekends, and only to the local mall and its surrounding areas. It felt very isolating and a bit suffocating. I spent more time maintaining the yard, pool and house exterior than anything else, after school activities.
I much prefer the mixed-use grid network I lived in before this. My parents moved us out to the suburbs as an “upgrade”. It did come with a couple of perks, but I preferred living in a mixed-use environment, even if it was a little noisier. Meeting up with friends was much easier, and multiple sources of food, supplies, information and entertainment were easily accessible.
i just recently moved from my family suburban house to an apartment in the central part of the city. i enjoy the more people i encounter on the sidewalks, and having to bike less distance to interesting places, and more access to buses and trains. my gripes so far have to do with more car's, noise, pollution and less greenery. if we re-greened our city, instituted more bike lanes, switched to electric car's, and had better noise insulation and cancellation, we could make our cities much more livable, and cut down on land usage for sprawl. but then again, sprawl is more a factor of capitalism than it is NIMBYism.
A major problem with mixed-use areas is the NOISE. This noise can occur at anytime during the 24-hour cycle, especially with shopping centers nearby whose anchor store managers think they are entitled to have huge semi-trucks and/or workers loading/unloading during the "quiet hours" of 10:00 pm to 7:00 am. Stores such as these are a detriment to a community desiring a livable quality of life.
@@larryparis925 I live in a modern apartment on a residential arterial street within a large US city. My apartment has been noise proofed enough such that I hear very little of what goes on outside. So you can design buildings and streets to mitigate road noise.
@@larryparis925 But Larry, what makes a place noisy? It is almost only the traffic, isn't it? Not Just Bikes did a video on this topic, using very quiet inner city Netherlands places as a shining example:
czcams.com/video/CTV-wwszGw8/video.html
Finally! The suburb is NOT an upgrade!
We don’t necessarily want a crazy busy city, but something in between!
People don’t seem to understand driving causes traffic
Cars
Only when other people does it. If everyone else could just stay off the roads, that would be a wonderful driving experience for me. And who could possibly be against a wonderful driving experience?
@@Hannodb1961 If you have no choice but to drive because of the stupid planning other citizens chose then traffic will always suck. You have no choice but to drive everywhere because it is damn near impossible to get anywhere without a car .
@@Szcza04 In South Africa pretty much the same thing.
4:45 Except cars crashing into houses at speed (i.e. not including people slowly backing into their own home) rarely happens outside north America. High speed collisions with buildings is nationwide newsworthy in Europe because it's so rare. To crash into a house at dangerous speeds you need the house to be next to a high speed road. Ironically having 10 meters of "buffer" between the road and the house actually makes the road a high speed road because the wide open feeling makes the driver feel comfortable driving at speed.
7:52 those roads are effectively racing strips through the neighbourhood. Those roads look comfortable to drive at up to 100 km/h in if you don't care about rules. If you don't want dangerous traffic in around your house; don't build roads like that.
@@SteinGauslaaStrindhaug Yea, good luck even going 50km/h in the 30 rated road I live at here in Germany...
Yes, I can attest to that. As a driver, it just feels more allowable to drive faster in an open space. If I think people or buildings are close, I slow right down. I'm sure most people do that instinctively. It's like how it feels strange to drive 50 km/h on a suburban road for this reason.
Like always, the Netherlands does it right. People are blessed to be allowed to live there. But the rest of us can instead VOTE in council to make our own places more livable.
The speed people drive at is indeed, governed by the road itself, not by signs.
There is a "not just Bikes" video about that.
Imagine thinking that a war is being waged on your mode of transportation when your side waged a war to dominate every single road in every country around the world and won.
Sounds just like the war against communism that so many Americans are fighting.
@@Jehty_many Americans ?
Maybe just right wingers.
@@fbyi2940 and since around 50% of Americans are right wingers, I think "many" is the right word.
@@Jehty_ okay 🇺🇸 politics is right wing, Democrat just won't admit it.
@@fbyi2940 ?
NJB mentioned this in one of his videos, suburbanites who complain that city traffic is too high, while suburbanites are the ones who increase traffic in said cities
edit: thanks for the likes
I've lived in a cul-de-sac most of my life and it's definitely a love/hate relationship. It's great as a child, being able to bike and play on the street without ever really needing to worry about cars, and if they do show up it's only ever from one direction. But as I got older I started to hate them and the suburbs in general. As a teen it felt like a prison with no stores around, poor bus routes, no trains, and I couldn't drive yet. I was stuck at home, or it would be a several hours long adventure just to go to a shop and get back again. Unless you can drive, those places really suck to live in, and then it becomes an expensive necessity.
Now I still live in the suburbs but I live on the main through-way of my neighbourhood, and now it's the worst of both worlds! Lots of loud through-traffic that regularly ignores speed limits, stop signs, and cross walks, on top of being a commercial desert making it either expensive or inconvenient to get around. I would MUCH rather have narrower streets around my home to slow traffic, have dedicated bike lanes, and stores scattered around that I could walk to, but apparently that would drop the property values for some reason? Quieter roads + closer to shops + more accessibility and transportation options = Lower Property Value??? I'll never understand.
“But it will bring crime and more traffic 😱”
I don’t even like the argument that it would lower property values. So what if it even does? Who said your house has to be like investing in the stock market? If you want your property to go way up in value, and all houses in that neighborhood also to go way up in value, that means whoever is buying the house has less money. If that keeps happening, no one except the super wealthy will be able to afford homes. This hurts everyone, as when people spend more and more on a house, they have less money to spend in their city, which means less money flowing around. I wonder how much better it would be if there was no zoning, properties changed to accommodate people as cities grew, there were local business within walking distance, and cars were banned from within cities.
@@IrradioMan houses are a large investment even if you not trying to make money on them
I can completely understand the fear of your million dollar investment loseing value
@@dozergames2395 houses are there for you to live in. by calling them an investment, you intend to treat them more as an investment and less as a home. they need to be thought of as places where people live, and only that, without concern for how much you'll be able to sell them for.
@@IrradioMan that's easy to say but in practice it's still an investment
Time and money ( a lot of it) is put into your house. Sure the main thing is that you live there but if you have 200 or 300k left on your mortgage but the house drops to a value less than that then it can be a huge concern even if you discount the mortgage you have already paid off
Don't get it twisted I think houses should be for living in first
But unless the govement owns the houses than housing will always be an investment one where people who own or are trying to own them have to think of the future
In Québec, a lot of cul-de-sacs allow pedestrians and bikes to go through. I think they should always be made like that. It's really fun when exploring a city to find all the little paths and alleys that allow you to cut through neighbourhoods while avoiding a lot of car traffic!
Germany has a relatively recent new traffic sign (VZ357-50 for the sign nerds) that effectively says "cul-de-sac for cars, through traffic for bikes and pedestrians". dunno, just found it a weird little quirk to specifically put up signs for it (makes sense though, especially on foot you don't want to walk down 500m to figure out whether it's just cars that are blocked there).
@@_SpamMe I've always found it more weird to have signs stating "No through road" when there is a through road for every mode of traffic except for one.
This is Sena policy. But will it fly for boomers?
No, culdesacs should be illegal.
Yeah, i used to enjoy being quicker than people in cars by using these.
Good old logic: rules for thee but not for me. I think you failed to mention, that it's not just making life worse in other neighborhoods due to traffic, car-centric design makes it worse for everyone, including suburbanites. Long commute times, higher rates of car-related injuries, low mobility leading to health problems, higher cost of housing, higher infrastructure costs, reduced children mobility, etc. applies to everyone even if you reduce external effects for the car. It's bad to be outside *AND* inside of the car.
Edit: after re-reading, this comment may have been too negative. Great video as always, and hopefully with arguments like these more people living in suburban areas will realize a problem with the car-centric design. Although if I learned anything, don't rely too much on the sympathy of privileged and entitled groups of people.
And yet suburbanites pay a premium to live in quiet neighborhoods. Why? Because they don't want to live in filthy cities rife with crime, homelessness, corruption and communist agitators.
And let’s not forget about how stereotypical American suburbs are literally bankrupting cities, through the so called “growth Ponzi scheme”. The channel “Not just bikes “has a good video on that topic czcams.com/video/7IsMeKl-Sv0/video.html
@@anteeklund4159 Cities are bankrupting themselves with massive far-left welfare spending programs.
@@kilobyte8321 But then why does the US, among the most far-right countries in the world have so many bankrupt cities, compared to more leftist countries?
@@anteeklund4159 "Far-right" Literally ran by a socialist government that spent trillions so people could sit at home for over a year and shop on Amazon. 😂
It might have something to do with the US subsidizing foreign defense costs. Withdraw from NATO and cut foreign aid to countries like Israel.
An excellent argument. It has long struck me that the most common argument for having a car and using it to commute to work (“it lets me live out of the noise and dirt of the city”) is itself a product of cars, since cars and their pollution create so much of that urban noise and dirt in the first place.
No it's because bad urban planning.
Cities real estate is just too expensive to have room for a normal sized family.
Also the criminality in our cities have become detrimental to the kids we want to raise.
Cars are not required to connect a suburb or small town to a larger economic hub.
Trains, subways and streetcars can do that job and they do so in many european urban area's.
Another main difference is that our suburbs have their own commercial zones. Depending on size large enough for weekly or monthly needs.
Example here in the Netherlands. We have villages that have grown to big suburbs of The Hague, Rotterdam, Utrecht and Amsterdam.
Together these 4 cities with their suburbs house 8.4 million people. Half the dutch population.
2 of these major cities are now connected by a metro network. Which has stops in the sprawling suburbs that lie between them.
These metro's often have park and ride parking places and bike stands. So people that need to go to the cities for work pleasure etcetera can use whatever transport they'd want to use to the Subway.
These people do not increase traffic and pollution in the major cities. Parking in our cities goes from expensive to outrageously expensive.
Obviously if you need to pack loads of stuff you'd take the car. But if not then it's likely you'd take public transport. Since the subway is faster and cheaper if you can get to the stations efficiently.
@@1barnet1 bad urban planning aka everything the USA decided in the 60's and is now in a rut for.
I think a very good balance for american suburbs would be to have a grid and declare a street roughly every mile or so (pick the diameter of a typical small town) as a "Mainstreet" with the 3 story brick buildings and commerce and parks and everything that feels good about walkable mainstreets in small towns. The rest of the suburbs would then have continuous narrow 2-lane total through roads straight to the next Mainstreet and culdesacs perpendicular to these roads with occasional conected culdesacs. And off the end of each culdesac a mixed use path would continue to the next culdesac and also run perpendicular to the culdesacs making a parallel grid of mixed use paths to let the suburbanites reach their mainstreet without needing a car while still having decent car connectivity to let services navigate easily. (You want the police, ambulance, firetruck, and delivery guy to be able to reach everyone easily)
You can then have transit focus on connecting to these mainstreet hubs in the suburbs to eachother and the city core. (Busses and train varients mainly, both of which are easily electrified which makes them both quiter and cleaner for local air quality)
But instead we are left with the cancer that is the american suburbs will all the downsides of cities and small rural towns and none of the upsides.
@@jasonreed7522
Agreed on the bikeways connecting cup du sacs.
But the main thing is you need small commercial zones inside large rural residential area’s.
So that daily requirements can be met by walking or cycling. Also the area’s close to these commercial center needs to be small apartments or small senior houses. As these people tend to have lost access to cars and don’t need large amounts of groceries. Family homes need to be build around it.
I’d say the “suburbs” of the Netherlands are designed reasonably well. We suck at public transport though. Lately city planning in major cities has gone to shite.
@@1barnet1 a Mainstreet is a commercial zone, technically Mainstreet is the street with city hall but traditionally mainstreet is where all the shops crop up in small towns which is what the 3 story buildings are hosting, usually shops in the first and second floor and possibly the basement and sometimes apartments above the shops. Placing some apartments right behind Mainstreet would easily blend into the community. (Admittedly parking would be built behind the stores but considering it would also serve as "service access" ie deliveries it doesn't have to be walmart level parkinglots just a 1 way lane with a row of spots on either side. Also bikeracks with security cameras watching them.
I recommend placing these "Mainstreets" so that the distance to any house to Mainstreet is roughly the same as it is in any small town to walk/bike to Mainstreet. (I have walked from my school to Mainstreet plenty of times for things like icecream or a haircut and a pleasant 10min walk is nice. In the winter i would definitely have preferred to drive but plenty of kids still prefered walking in 0F to riding the bus)
The point of my proposal is give suburbs a commercial Mainstreet thats pleasant to be on and easy to access without cars and you can hide non-single family dwellings in plain sight near it because mainstream has 3 story buildings and most single family homes are 2 stories so all that good "missing middle" housing can go between the 2 and everyone benefits and nobody will notice to complain.
@@jasonreed7522 No this is stupid and not based in reality
town of mount-royal = montreal's los altos. the vast majority of residents drive, work outside their "city", and deny entry to outsiders with gates and other barriers. a war on cars is not only justified, it's necessary.
My mum grew up in Mont Royal, I had no idea that this was a thing.
TMR does have the train and the bus, but that means sharing your commute with annoying Loyola boys and Villa girls or (gasp) your house keeper! And riding a bus thru CDneiges? F-That!😛
Seeing the infamous 'wall' that separates TMR from Parc-Ex in person for the first time was a very chilling experience for me.
@@blastdamage Along with the single gate that's locked during Halloween to keep the poor kids from Parc-Ex from invading the candy-wealthy homes of TMR.
@@Milnoc Holy crap, I was not aware of this, that's just straight up sinister. Very disturbing. God forbid the wealthy white children of TMR interact with The Poors or, worse, somebody with a different skin color, am I right? /s
"Minimizing traffic in your own neighborhood while maximizing traffic for other neighborhoods." In other words, the tragedy of the commons, as applied to traffic.
"Our town offers gobs of natural beauty that people can move to or admire from afar."
Hey, what a coincidence. I was just now admiring its beauty from my house 67 miles away.
I genuinely don't know who could be against expanding and diversifying transit networks. When I lived in the suburbs the car dependence and having to commute everywhere drove me insane. Living out in a rural area now I'd still like to see rail and pedestrian connections overtake the car dependence.
It's the people who live in an area designed for cars, having traffic issues, and seeing "expanding/diversifying transit" as a poor allocation of resources as it doesn't *immediately* benefit them. They're unable to think of consequences of consequences and come up with solutions such as, "just add another lane to the road. Make a faster street."
@@PokeMultiverse if you were the ultimate car fanatic you want Amtrak to be the best train service in the world and all sorts of busses and biklanes available because: PEOPLE ON BUSSES, BIKES, AND TRAINS AREN'T IN YOUR WAY ON THE HIGHWAY.
Sorry for shouting but thats for the idiots in the back who don't realize that a good transit network makes traffic not a nightmare because most people just want quick and easy and don't care about the actual method of travel, just go from point A to B in the most convient way possible. By forcing people to drive you put them in your way and you make people who definitely shouldn't be allowed to drive drive which endangers everyone.
People who don't like Those People are against anything that might help or benefit Those People, even if they themselves would also benefit from those same things.
Imagine having to DRIVE 30 min to even get a loaf of bread..
Meanwhile I just have to walk 3min to be at the entrance of a supermarket
4:54 you have to catch up with Not Just Bikes.
Those wide suburban streets are actually a reason for speeding and buidling homes further away from the street does support speeding.
They’re aware, but they were talking about arguments from the other side
In the early 1990s, I lived in Mountain View, CA just a few blocks from Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. Being an avid bicycle rider, I was super impressed with numerous routes created just for biking, where barriers had been installed to limit the car through traffic and prioritize biking. An interesting side note. While enjoying the biking popularity in the area, I experienced the car vs. bike debate firsthand when I was given a traffic ticket for rolling, on my bike, through a stop sign. I am glad to see that California is poised to pass its first "Idaho Stop" bill which is just waiting on the governor's signature.
Oh no, why didn't you stop, did you forget about *checks notes* blind spots in your bike. You could have killed someone with this *checks notes* 20 kg piece of steel driving at 5 km/h. /s
@@SmallBeanImperialist COMEDIC GENIUS
@@SmallBeanImperialist While I think it's BS to get a ticket, to play devil's advocate, the idea of course is that it's to save the life of the cyclist who if they just run the stop sign could get hit by a car on the cross street. Still, that must have been one bored officer.
My parents lived in Los Altos in the 90's too. I escaped Toronto winters to visit and do road rides up La Honda, Skyline, loved the bakery in Woodside. Great area for recreational cycling, but you need to be a silicon valley VC these days to afford to live there! It's like the Bay Area invented NIMBY's. My dad somehow lucked into his job in accounting, and ended up working for HP for 25 years before retiring in 2004.
@@jimzecca3961 Yep, I know the stop sign has multiple uses including the one you described, and it differs between streets and even countries. In Europe, it's used in limited visibility areas to prevent pedestrian injuries, and even then rarely, preferring more effective methods like traffic calming. My joke was around that use, because cars have blind spots and limited view angles + high speeds. After looking, it seems in NA it's used instead of traffic light and to give right of way.
Coming from a Swedish suburb just outside of Stockholm the contrast is just so stark for me. I also grew up in a large single family home, with a garage and two cars. But within a 10 minute walk, there's a small town centre with a grocery store, three restaurants, an apothecary, a train/bus station, a large park and a pizzeria as well as a few small businesses (locksmith, tobacco store, barber, café etc.), a football pitch, a tennis club, as well as an elementary, middle and high school.
Within a 20 minute walk there's a nature reserve with several bathing spots around a lake, as well as a larger town centre with a church, library, even more restaurants, a swimming pool, post office, hockey rink, bank, police station and municipal buildings.
All this is connected by walking/cycling paths (except in low traffic areas where it's fine to just walk on the road). I never took the car anywhere growing up. The few times when I wanted to do something like go to the cinema or spend a day in the city with friends, Stockholm was only a 30 minute train ride away, and the trains go every 15 minutes throughout the entire day. You just walk out the door and hop on the next one, no planning neccessary.
I really believe many americans don't realize how poorly built their cities, and especially suburbs are.
Yeah, you guys did a good job with your 4000 year headstart
@@jayteegamble The entire area was built in the 60s lol
@@-DSet The reason you have a dense, walkable urban core is because the city was there for 1000 years before cars. I live in a city of 120k that was founded in 1883. There is no pre-car part of town to connect to or maintain.
@@jayteegamble No, I grew up in a suburb, not a city. 100 years ago it was all farmlands, with a small square and a railway station.
@@-DSet Right, but you understand that Stockholm has a dense core to connect to because it's a 1000 year old city.
" No matter how unfair a privilege is, when it's taken away it will always feel like an injustice for the people enjoying that privilege" *
Car drivers enjoyed the privilege of having the complete transportation infrastructure being adapted to them. Now that people that prefer to cycle or take public transport also want some space they experience this as an injust war on cars.
*I read this somewhere as a quote from Machiavelli, but could not find it in " The prince"
20' set-back lines just make people drive faster down the street. It actually *increases* the chances of a car going out of control and hitting a house. It happened just down the street from my place a few years ago. A driver went totally out of control, jumped the curb, mowed down three small choke cherry trees, went across the road, jumped that curb, plowed through an electrical transformer, and finally came to a stop when she ran into a front porch.
set back gives drivers good visibility of the street from behind their front crumple zones, allowing for safer entry onto the street. Owners may be able to convert their lawn to a semicircular driveway and turn around on their own property instead of back out onto the main road.
@@yanDeriction good visibility can be achieved by a number of means. you can have that space as a front lawn (useless vanity, waste of water), or it can be a bike path and a sidewalk (increases safety and provides tangible benefits to other road users). Setbacks are therefore quite unnecessary if the streets are designed right.
further, wide visibility is less and less necessary as speeds decrease. you will never need to back out onto a busy main road if what your driveway connects to is properly treated as a street, instead of a road. (see the Not Just Bikes video on 'stroads' for an explanation of the difference.) the short version is that the most effective way to reduce accidents is to reduce speed--nothing else comes close. so any street that has driveways, crossings, or otherwise expects a lot of complications for drivers, should be designed in a way that reduces speeds - that is, narrow and traffic-calmed.
@@tortoise-chan The problem with traffic calming,
1) experienced drivers (eg. commuters) see past the illusion and speed anyway, or
2) you scare drivers into slowing down by making things genuinely less safe, which defeats the purpose.
3) many "streets" are also through roads with no bypass because towns don't want to lose business from travelers. A wide road with speed bumps and cameras allows safely passing stopped garbage or delivery trucks without entering the oncoming lane.
The only benefit of traffic calming is it is maybe more politically feasible than the mindblowing legal barriers to camera enforcement in the USA
I lived in apartment buildings with 0 setback and narrow alleys for access for years and I saw no accidents except maybe a moped taking out someone's mirrors. Started renting a family friend's house and pretty much that exact thing happened to my neighbors as well, except the car completely wiped out their brand-new fence and t-boned their parked car, pushing it into a telephone pole.
@@gearandalthefirst7027 that's the thing about fender benders - depending on the severity of the crash they may decide not to call the cops and everyone drives off after 2 minutes, so very few people get to witness it. city crashes are higher in frequency and lower in severity.
Whenever I see clips of some American suburbs it amazes me, a Brit, that there isn't any pavement/sidewalk between the road and the vast tract of land the houses have for their front lawn.
These homes are just so far away from any shopping spaces that sidewalks would be a wasted expense as nobody would actually use them. I lived in England for over 7 years, I only drove for 1 year the entire time.
I have always contributed it too cultural differences and the amount of land available.
American homeowner: But if we had sidewalks, pedestrians might show up and rob us!!!!!!!!
Fact checker: It would likely take an olympic athlete to drag a TV from your house to somewhere else on foot without the police catching him.
This is actually how people think.
As I hope was made clear in this video, Canada's suburbs suffer from the same issues.
Not all suburbs are like that. I live in a suburb of Chicago and I walk everywhere, places without sidewalks baffle me.
I lived in an upper-middle class neighborhood in St. Louis, Missouri and we did have sidewalks everywhere (and so did all the surrounding neighborhoods). It was mostly used by kids to bike/skate/rollerblade etc. Nobody used them to go shopping because the closest shops were 3-4 miles away.
This is, without a doubt, the single best explanation of the irony of “suburbanism’s” effect on cars that I have ever seen. Well done!
I love that you cover this topic without snarking on Los Altos too much (even though it's soooo tempting!). Makes your video a lot more sharable to those who aren't already on the urbanism train.
I feel the same way, my biggest problem with these kinds of videos is that they generally preach to the crowds that already buy into this way of thinking.
I can't even imagine a town of 23 square kilometers with 8500 inhabitants with virtually no retail.
I grew up in a village of 8500 inhabitants. It has a village center with several supermarkets, restaurants, drug stores, and a bank. Also several bus lines and a train station.
In perspective I now live in a city of 250,000 inhabitants and the nearest supermarket is a 10 minute walk from here.
Love this channel! for a future video, I think it would be very cool to see a discussion about how suburbs limit social mobility and reduce access to transportation and jobs (without a car). As we see masses of middle-class people who want to move back into our city centres, the negative and perhaps even dangerous effects of displacing poor populations into the suburbs could become a serious problem. Thanks again for the amazing content, cheers from Car-Centric-Calgary!
When walking and cycling are encouraged, there are fewer cars on the road. Fewer cars means less congestion. Making it safer to walk and ride is not, therefore, anti-car, it benefits everyone.
Except when "encouragement" fails and people choose cars over slower bikes or walking, then the anti-car measures start. Don't deny it.
@@kilobyte8321 if bikes, walking, mass transit are all faster than driving, then cars will be less favourable. Increasing the safe movement of people isn't a war on cars.
@@hrford But cars are faster. The only way they wouldn't be is if you artificially made driving inefficient with excessive speed limits, restricting road access and other "traffic calming" measures.
@@kilobyte8321 your statement is false, cars are not always faster, and can be slower for at least two reasons other than artificial speed restrictions. 1) So many cars, they induce a traffic jam 2) more efficient routing for people using other transport. There are literally examples of this in the real world.
@@hrford No, cars are faster the majority of the time. Cars do not run on a set schedule, cars can travel great distances at high speed, cars take you directly where you need to go.
Its so wierd to see these problems these things create that we just take for granted. I live in the Netherlands, I cycle to work every Saturday and go to school by bus (it's 30 km away) and we complain when the bus leaves 1 min late.
That's hoe much we take it for granted that there even is a HOV bus connection
Here's a funny comparison. My work is 1km from a train station but the trains are so infrequent and timed only for rush hour commuters that there's no way for me to get back from work after I finish (I often work till 9) so I'm forced to take my car to work, 30km away. I really love what I do, but I'm starting to confront that I am a contributor to traffic in my city.
@@LouisPerronmusic Don't beat yourself up, it's not your fault the train sucks. I bike to work now but I have a coworker who has to drive because he gets there 3 hours before everyone else and the train is infrequent at that hour.
Ppl complain about their "freedom to drive" but overlook the real freedom of not HAVing to drive (yes, I stole that from Only Just Bikes ;p)
The thing about cul-de-sacs, circuit routes, single-use (residential) zoning, and density restrictions (single family homes, usually): they limit access regardless of the vehicle type. If it's only homes, then you have no reason to be there except if you live or visit someone you know. If it's only detached single-family homes, then low income and multigenerational families are less likely to be there. These areas only want their own residents to be there. No visitors, no lower income families, no businesses with strangers coming through.
These areas are meant for cars, but I feel that, more strongly, they are meant for a certain class who can afford a car, a detached home, children, and a far trip for essentials. Residential areas like this could very well also have more transit and bike lanes, but those invite people to still travel through. Even just adding bike routes would have people biking across the neighbourhood, and even though the noise isn't the same as a car, there must be a reason why these places still generally do not have areas for bikes and pedestrians--other than car priority. (Of course, many do, but they feel like an afterthought or a means to get kids to schools and parks, and not for general leisure or even adding walkability because of the single-use zoning.)
Loving your channel, by the way! Hello from Ottawa
This is a very underrated point and it's supported by the historical record (e.g. "white flight"). Even improvement to non car infrastructure in residential areas of cities suffer from this type of pushback from NIMBYs
When you see the rampant crime in high density urban areas can you really blame suburban people from building in soft measures to prevent it happening to them?
@@ausaskar crime rates have been consistently dropping since the seventees. Yet people's feelings of unsafety have increased, probably has to do with the rise of certain media types.
Why should industrious people with money not have access to a more private place to live? What right do poor people have to them and their children?
@@drewmandan .
The right not to suffer the consequences of those people who have their nice quiet place to live.
I live on a cul-de-sac and love this. I just want to be able to safely walk to the basic needs that are near my house, but they have a big wall up, so it makes my walk 5-10 longer and not that pleasant. My point is that you can have cul-de-sacs that are walkable. Now to convince my neighbors…
That's the point, to keep traffic (including pedestrians) out. The nerve of you to complain about being inconvenienced by the same measures you support to inconvenience drivers.
@@kilobyte8321 I was just talking about a wall that should have a pedestrian gate in my specific neighborhood. Currently it impedes pedestrians, and wouldn’t at all impede traffic whatsoever. It just makes everyone drive more which is silly because the drive is a half mile.
@@saxmanb777 don't listen to Kilo he is a dishonest nincompoop.
Your videos just keep getting better! I can tell you guys put a lot of work into these, as always looking forward to more.
Very much appreciated, thanks for all the encouraging words and for watching!
I love love love this channel ! Thank you for doing this stuff. I've been a long time fan of Jay Foreman's "Unfinished London" series where he talks about urban planning, but it's all in a european context. So happy to see that there's a channel that does that, but that is based in Montreal.
Glad you like our videos, and we're happy to be compared to the "Unfinished London" series, which we really enjoyed too. We actually live in Ottawa now (moved for a job opportunity), but we also get back to Montreal when we can!
What an incredibly elegantly stated comparison. Your videos are consistently great. Thank you.
Outstanding video. I've never seen this case presented in this way before. Brilliant!
Suburbanites: They want to take er kers!
Also Suburbanites: Why are so many people driving through my neighborhood?
The curbed roads, typical of the suburbia, instead of the traditional orthogonal layout was chosen to limit heavy vehicules, considered too dangerous for children, thus limiting the deployment of bus even more. Everything in the suburbs is built for cars with a special idea of safety and calm.
This is why I am against traffic calming. It is anti bus, anti truck. All of our most efficient vehicles. I prefer speed cameras
Grid layouts are ugly, institutionalized and depressing. And I'm all for keeping buses as far from the suburbs as possible. Move to the city if you don't want to drive.
@@kilobyte8321 how is a suburban layout less depressing when distances are longer and the roads are often way too large for their purpose, which contributes to speeding.
@@wavearts3279 I think the best street layout is a grid overlayed with a few radials.
@@yanDeriction I don't really think it's anti-truck, and it's fine for it to be anti-bus because the city bus should be good enough that children don't need a school bus. Most trucks can still do the same things as cars, and larger ones just need to take squeezes slowly. I especially don't see the issue with a street that traffic calms by putting a bunch of random shit all over the car space, as a truck can fit between that no problem and the traffic calming comes from the need to dodge all of that stuff
So basically traffic NIMBYism
NIMFYism, if you want to get technical.
A cul-de-sac is a private driveway that is publicly paid for.
Bike lanes are stolen real estate from the drivers who pay fuel taxes, DMV fees and tolls to build and maintain the road network.
@@kilobyte8321
That would be true if states paid for roads only with the funding sources you mention, but they don't. I own a house and pay property taxes. They siphon off some of that for road repair too. Furthermore, I own two cars, AND ride a bike. I pay as much of those taxes as you do. And, finally, you have to be a nitwit if you'd rather have thousands of extra cars clogging up the road rather than bicycles.
@@deezynar But fuel taxes, DMV fees and tolls are also siphoned off to fund mass transit and general budgets unrelated to car infrastructure. Contribute to fewer cars on the road by giving up yours first. Idiot.
@@kilobyte8321
I never told anyone to give up their car.
My comment was that cul-de-sacs are publicly funded driveways that don't serve the public.
You responded to that with a left field comment about bike riders not paying their share.
I get the feeling that you are not even on the right page.
@@deezynar Don't bother; fairly sure this person is trolling. In other replies, they stated to believe that people go live in the suburbs to avoid "communist" cities.
It would be interesting to see a video that showed which cities in Canada and the US that still had neighborhood, mom & pop, stores, like the old days. I loved being able to bike or walk to the neighborhood stores when I was a kid. I wish they still had them. Thanks
Montreal still has many neighbourhoods with easy to reach shops and convenience stores. Even though I left to pursue new opportunities, living in those neighbourhoods was wonderful! You could stop by the neighbourhood grocery store and pick up whatever you needed for dinner including the wine!
@@Milnoc And that's what every community needs. It also let's people come together meet on the streets.
“I want lots of car traffic…just not in my backyard!”
I've never understood why the cul de sacs in the suburbs just don't have a pedestrian path in between two houses leading to the other side. It wouldn't achieve that much, but it would solve some issues without being expensive and it has no real downside.
You've really hit the nail on the head. I'm so tired of people turning this into a fight. My city was designed generations ago to ensure car dependency. I would love it if I could easily walk or bike to work but I can't. A 15 minute drive down our roads would take 3 hours of walking, and biking in most areas is downright dangerous especially during the winter.
I have at times lived in parts of the city with LRT access but I've never been able to get to work by using them. They're more of a convenience for things like sports games or going to the bar without the need to leave my car somewhere overnight.
Seriously, bring back trolly cars. But the solution to this problem will take many years to implement. My city is working on it though.
Such a well-edited video! Thanks for explaining the issue at hand in such a succinct way that is easy to comprehend!
Very nice of you to use 'contradiction' instead of 'hypocrisy'. I don't think I could have been so polite...
I’m so happy you guys are making these videos. They are perfect. I hope more people see them.
Excellent presentation. The car has created a mess. And it’s amazing how some people who can’t afford it try to get away from it. There’s a suburban area I believe in New Jersey where are the front of the houses face a park setting with a bike and walking trail. In the back of the houses are the garages and the street. Where the street crosses the bike and walking trail there is a bridge so there is no interaction between cars, pedestrians and bikes. The bike and pedestrian trails leads to the shopping center and a train station. So you can let your kids out and they can play in front of your house in the park and it’s an easy commute to the shopping center and train station. The view out of your living room window is without cars add streets. A Great place to live. Instead of owning a car that sits most of the time it would be great if it could be shared among a number of people.
The concern that I always have the hardest time responding to is that the opposition wants to live in a quiet neighborhood. My parents or other people respond with "well I don't want to live in a hustle and bustle neighborhood, I want to live in a quiet neighborhood where I have my own space, not a concrete jungle."
So far my best answer is that the higher density, walkable neighborhoods don't have to be like downtown Manhattan. They can be quiet and enjoyable and provide even more greenspace than a suburban neighborhood, while bringing essentials closer to within walking/biking distance. But I still don't feel like I'm getting it across best. So many americans are scared of people at this point, and don't want to have to interact with other people.
A friend of mine sent me a tweet that essentially described car-dependency as a reaction to rising crime from liberal policies in the 70s, and my friend said that he thinks walkable neighborhoods can only be universally accepted if crime is brought to a very very low level. I feel like the car-dependency resulting from crime is likely not true, but I'm curious if anyone has any insight on this, as well as maybe some data to backup the theory that walkable neighborhoods might actually reduce crime? The bystander effect essentially?
I feel like I'm reliving my old apologetics class from christian high school as I seek help with my rebuttals lol
I think they call it "the 15 minute city", where all your basic needs, like schools, shops, healthcare etc. is reachable within 15 minutes. This was brought into the discussion not regarding cars or no cars but CO2 reduction. I walk in the morning 5 minutes to the bakery to get fresh buns, 10 minutes to my dentist appointment, 4 minutes to the next bus station, 7 minutes to the next supermarket, 12 minutes to the next drugstore, 9 minutes to the playground with connection to forest. Be it car or no car, CO2 or no CO2, it for sure is a healthier lifestyle. Sadly I need 17 minutes to the next mailbox.
Well put, as usual. Good work.
This is really insightful. Thanks so much!
Another very informative video. Don't understand how this channel isn't bigger
Although there is a pretty good contradiction of mixed use in most US cities. Build apartments that only the wealthy could every afford to live in and then fill the first level with commercial space that provides low income employment. So now you get the residential traffic that needs to go to the other side of town to work and the commercial traffic from another side of town that needs to get to work and the general commercial traffic all rolled into one. The other issue is many of these projects raise property value and the rising rents and pricing drive out the very people whom they were meant to help. This is largely causes by apartments being seen as the way to provide lower income housing; however, without ownership people are left with a rent that will go up every year while their income may not. Condos or other options need to be made available to lower incomes so that people can get more control over their finances.
You are completely correct that the real war is a war of zoning. Without commercial locations at reasonable walking distance from homes your not actually making a walkable community your just adding recreation, which is great but it is not going to do anything for traffic.
You didn't even touched the most common argument that those that are speeding and driving in your neighborhood are actually your neighbors and yourself.
I don't know how I didn't find this channel before. Amazing content. Thanks for that.
Great video! Really glad to see more channels dedicated to this these topics! Keep it up!
The only problem w/ "The War on Cars" is that the Cars keep winning
I don't know how you found all this info but thanks so much for sharing it! I heard of people moving into new subdivisions where the new owners insist on no sidewalks (let alone bike lanes or walking trails). I couldn't understand how they formed their ideas and opinions but this shows there is an active car culture among some people. That doesn't mean I understand it. But at least I can nail it down by knowing it definitely exists.
That was such an elegant explanation of this issue. I feel like I could now summarize it to a friend in one sentence. This channel keeps putting out really well thought-out insights
Another incredible video and fresh take, keep it up!
This channel deserves mores subscribers. Great content, thank you.
Appreciated!
This one a banger, excellent and well composed points
Great video essay. Nice surprising shift in perspective, clear step by step progression, tying the end to the beginning, bringing it all together. 👍
Great message and well done. Thank you!
Car free neighborhoods is an awesome idea! You can use escooter, bicycles, walking, and mobility chairs to get to the parking garage on the edge of the neighborhood.
Excellent video!
So well put!
Your videos are so wholesome and well reasoned. I love it. These really would be the best arguments to show people defending car centric infrastructure
I like what my city has in the inner suburbs closer to the city: cul-de-sacs but with pedestrian/bike paths connecting the cul-de-sacs together so that pedestrians and bikes can go through, but cars can't. People aren't angry about it because they were built in from the start. We chose to live in our neighbourhood because of this. Even though I technically live in the suburbs, it's pretty easy for me to get to everything I need on a bike or by foot.
This is really good! It shows how cal de sacs and modal filtering are really trying to achieve the same thing: creating a safe and usable "street" (as opposed to "road") for the people who live on it.
I’ve just discovered this channel today and watched quite a few videos; I definitely do like your videos about how many of the arguments against bike lanes are just an excuse! Subscribed to you!
I really liked how yall presented multiple sides of the discussion. I'd never thought about this issue from the perspective of someone living in Suburbia before.
Brilliant. Thanks for the new perspective on sprawl suburbanism design choices.
So American when they are bragging "we dont have a commercial or industrial zone. We have no post office or library. And there is only one book store" wtf!
You guys do such a good job comparing relevant examples
Excellent points! I am so tired of the speeding, load, rudely driven dangerous cars in my town. If you’re not travelling in a car it’s dangerous to even walk anywhere where you have to cross the road…
I have seen culs-des-sacs with pedestrian and bicycle through ways, and here in Cheyenne, the newer suburban developments have passthroughs to the mixed traffic cyclepaths from the car streets at regular intervals.
This was so well put, kinda surprised you got through the whole video without saying NIMBY, but it might have been better for it. Seems to me that the fundamental fact of the suburban mindset is entitlement, without a real understanding of or regard for effluence.
Genuinely beautiful work. Great example of taking the high road, or elevated bike path, on discourse.
Very insightful video, Thankyou
This video is way too nice and diplomatic for the car-addicted suburbanites. Their attitude is to minimize all downside of car traffic for them selves while causing and maximizing all car nuisances for others. And protesting, yelling and screaming when these other try to protect their neighborhoods. Blocking all solutions that would profit everybody, inclusing themselves.
Spoiled, egoistical brats. That's what they are.
I don't even get why, what they want takes all the fun of driving a car.
My goodness, I never appreciated this before. People move to the suburbs because they are "anti-car". Amazing.
I know! I love it! I don't know if it true for everyone but it certainly is true for me. Prior to the quiet street I live now, I lived in a busy street with the door and window only 4 feet from the street. It was noisy and SO stressful. Noise is stressful. I think that many poeple who don't know this fact can still feel it unconsciously.
@@Coccinelf Do you also "love" the traffic problems that your suburban lifestyle creates for other people?
@@LisaBeergutHolst Why are you attacking me? I only moved here because the stress caused by the noise where I lived before was making me sick. I'm not defending suburbs, I hate car dependency and I hate cars everywhere, not just in my street.
@@Coccinelf So what do you "love" exactly lol
This is such a great video essay!
I'd never thought of it this way.
Here in Pullman WA we actually have a number of cul-de-sacs that have walking paths between the houses at the end, and schools in the middle. Not perfect, but a decent step forward.
wait really? I only found one, on thomas st. on google maps
As a Dutch person this is so weird to me. In my country we take all this for granted, we cycle everywhere and we complain if the bus or train is 2 minutes late
This is so well done, and so true. You see this mindset in proposals for cycle routes through quiet streets, even if there's very little change to the street function itself, just formalising access to it for cyclists from adjacent major roads. "You'll bring more traffic through our streets!" they cry, while also being unhappy that it'll make it harder for them to drive through the next neighbourhood (perception anyway). I did a video about this particular proposal last week.
Thank you for this amazing video!
It's my first time living in an urban area, in a non-dedatched building (so right next to the street). Car traffic here really sucks but especially at night, even just one car every one or two minutes really annoys me. It makes me wish there was a lower speed limit at night within urban areas to limit road noise. I'm thankfull of all who take their bicycle because I can't even hear those pass by. Cars really make cities unattractive. They should be banished to park+rides on the fringes of our urban areas and only be allowed in with a propper reason and a discouraging fee.
>Lives in a city
>Complains about city noise
You communists are truly insufferable.
@@kilobyte8321 in the words of Not Just Bikes: "cities aren't loud; cars are loud"
@@bluegreenmagenta What horseshiit. People are loud, elevated subways are loud, dogs are loud, planes are loud, busses are loud, parties are loud, bars are loud.
@@kilobyte8321 All those things are quiet in comparison to the noise generated by cars. You'd know if you had ever lived in a large city. I live right in a downtown area with many bars, restaurants, tram lines, bus stops, museums and universities, lots of tourists, students and people with dogs, occassional rallies, and an airport nearby. 90% of the noise comes from cars. Even the buses are quieter, as they are electric. Considering that a large portions of car journeys are less than 2km, if most of those were done by bike, noise would be reduced drastically.
@@erlkoenig90 I do live in a large city. Cars are white noise that rarely disturbs me. People, dogs and music are far more irritating. Most of my journeys are over 2mi so no, I absolutely need a car as do many people with families and a variety of other reasons.
Love this video! This new perspective really shows yet another reason why suburbs are a failed urban experiment. As a Dutch urbanism student it really surprises me how north American cities are so inefficiënt, polluting and egocentric. Cities are not perfect in Europe but I think north American cities need a more thinking about each other and a bit less thinking about themselves and their cars.
Amazing narrative, set up, and punchline of the argument. This would be a 10/10 paper!
Wow this may be your best video yet! Excellent argument