Видео

I think the success of the Dutch transportation system can be summarized as follows: Incentives, responsibility, democracy, and science. The legal framework forces responsibility, and thus incentivizes good outcomes. The Polderpolitiek is basically a more democratic approach, involving as many voices as possible. And those then lead to decision-making based on evidence and science. And those are basically the principles of all good policy if you want good outcomes. Not just for transportation, but literally all policy. Responsibility, the right incentives, democracy (diverse voices and input), and evidence.

Funny, i find the keizer karelplein one of the more enjoying roundabouts. I drive around the country for my work and find this one quite exciting. But i would understand it's not as safe as the standard roundabouts.

Smart dutch lights are so great! I go to Belgium weekly, and there you wait endlessly at every light for nothing. Here you can really see how well they react to traffic.

And if you replace a big intersection with a roundabout, you save even more money, right?

Why is it so hard to find any road safety statistics where the Netherlands are leading? Especially, if they are working so hard for safe road infrastructure and for so long? And what are the metrics they use themselves to measure their progress? I mean, I really love the dutch infrastructure but I find it so hard to understand, that they are almost always behind Germany in any statistic (I'm german). I suspect it's a combination of more people using vulnerable types of transportation (pedestrians, bike vs car) and almost nobody wearing helmets. But damn! It is just so unintuitive!

there are times when you will see even in the Netherlands lanes that stretch up; to 10 at a time but those are usually reserved for freeways and interstate highways in places that are meant for them. And even when they do have those rare occasions for 10 lane highways they conveniently place them in areas that are away from city street such as building them to go under rivers or tunels so that people don't have to hear the noise or see the cars 24/7

7:37 huh, just looked up the definition of being orange-pilled, it shares a striking number of similarities and language of becoming woke 😅.

Thanks for a terrific vid. Footage suggests you work in 's-Hertogenbosch, my cycling paradise. What are your thoughts about the city's worst section of bike path: the Emmaplein?

10:57 And wheter it rains or not

Quality of life? Ya how much will that cost? And how long will it take me to drive there if you add a bike lane?

I was thinking this was going to be another bike lane rant but you laid out a good argument. Very interesting. Thanks.

6:20 Don't extra lanes help more cars get through the light in a shorter amount of time? A single lane at rush hour in a lot of places would mean the guy at the back hasn't even started moving before the lights red again

ROSEVILLE MENTION??

those stroads look fucking terrifying

I grew up in Rotterdam.Metro trams and good bus services.Plus it is easy to drive with a car.I live in the UK but the Dutch are mlies ahead of so many countries.In the UK some of the new round abouts where I live are downright dangerous.Cars changing lanes due to the lay out.I love to know who thought this out.Traffic engineers? Are you having a laugh.

Single lanes are disgusting. Wider is better.

I did time myself on trips and yea, I spend 90% of the time at an intersection.

Wider paths make cycling more comfortable because the capacity increases.

6:32 oh yes, Fulton Ave. Perfect example of too many traffic signals. Can confirm, walking would be faster during rush hour.

The point about intersection capacity nullifying lane capacity is a good one. It's also applicable to urban freeways. Often the bottleneck is not the lack of lanes but the merging ramps (aka suicide lanes). You could have a 100 lane freeway in LA but there would still be traffic jams because the ramps would be bottlenecks. This is why freeways just don't work in urban environments. During slow times they are under-utilized and a waste of space. During rush hour the merging system fails and chaotic jams result. Best would be to replace urban freeways with one-way roads with synced lights. Those are the most efficient ways to move cars though cities.

Fantastic video! I almost didn't click because I assumed (from the name) that you were a transit hater.

i don't understand what the problem is, just delete pedestrians by making faster e bikes

2:19 merges like this only work in theory sadly cause people are asshole and don’t let eachother in

*laughs in uk at the part about lining up utilities and resurfacing* *jumps, bumps, jostles, and trips over every patch in the tarmac*

Roundabouts are only more efficient up to 1000 total vehicles per hour (1700 for dual lane, 2200 for triple lane). After that, they cause congestion and queuing (which may also help regulate speed). When there is a large volume of traffic conflicting for right of way, signals provide more efficiency to manage the dynamic traffic flow.

6:25 i would assume that "cars are guests" means that the cars shouldn't be entitled to overtaking the biker unless it is safe, and not necessarily that they are not allowed to overtake! 6:25

fixing traffic requires zooming out. further than your initial thought

this video has been in my to watch list for so long and I decided to finally give it a watch and in the first 3 minutes, I already want to comment something which is how genuinely amazing dutch infrastructure is. I live in a town at the east side and we have a train stopping in our town with roughly 10K people. We have busses to places that do not have a station and we recently upgraded the cycling lane across the 80s road so that the only high school in our area is easier accessible for students. My nearest hospital is multiple cities away and it is accessible by bus. Dutch accessibility and infrastructure extends outside of the suburbs even

All this would be great if Trumpistan had any interest in facts 😂

Critical thinking should be required for all engineers!! Thank you for this wonderful video!

Our culture is retarded beyond belief, especially when it comes to driving and anything to do with driving. Unhealthy obese entitled over consuming nature deficit disorder having busy dummies with no vision for the future

I enjoyed your lecture you did where you showed an example of a project you worked on in Netherlands, but I think it would be interesting to see you apply that framework to a North American example, just to show how that change could incrementally improve the stroad networks.

Reaction time is a biggy.

Isn't the "real issue" with US urban freeways that they have an entrance/exit every mile (or less)? The Interstate System was originally intended exactly as you described - for longer distance trips - with limited entrance/exit points several miles apart. Somewhat like the more rural Interstate Highways operate. However, everywhere they approved an entrance/exit became highly valuable land that the local jurisdictions wanted to see developed to increase their tax base (revenue stream). Then every area of the metropolitan region wanted to share in the perceived benefits. How could politicians, who survive by bringing home the goodies, resist expanding access to the communities they represent? Add to that a lack of regional land use planning control and the result is the congestion we have today.

Completely agree with the intersection problem, however, I am much more skeptical about reducing lanes making no difference. Your ideas about reducing lanes makes sense for efficiency however, ask a mathematician and they will tell you that 100% efficiency = collapse. Every time. A real life example would be in California they reduced to one lane in an area and many people ended up dying because they could not get out of that area when a fire came through.

7:11 roundabouts every 250 metres? Welcome to Milton Keynes, UK

In Toronto we just spent millions turning a 2 lane road into a one lane with lanes for turning, and nice bikes lane. But now we’re ripping those bike lanes out and going back to the 2 lane road lined with parked cars so still effectively 1 lane. And it’s only going to cost 50 more million 🙃

Build infrastructure to the needs of the city rather than theoretical capacity or something. idk I'm just a guy.

Nice thumb nail how u mean no license needed on the frikin high way naaah u do need one

I think it's the difference between calming and intensity. Calming is a matter of safety. Calmer traffic is slower speed and safer. It does not concerns the volume of traffic. Traffic intensity on the other hand is primarily concerned about volume of traffic. More intense traffic is traffic that carries more vehicles, no matter the speed. They might sound related, but they're not. They're two different metrics.

Nice video. I am working for an organisation that designs transport systems in the are of logistics (warehouse, production facilities, supply chains). The capacity of a system is always determined by its bottlenecks. Adding capacity to a non-bottleneck part of the systems just means that you get quicker to the bottleneck so that you can wait longer there. This is very old knowledge which is applied when, for instance, the transport system of warehouse is designed. Papers how to this have been published before the 1970ies. Sadly, the lack of system thinking when making transport system design choices is substantial. If you want to know how it is done you just have to look around (Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan come to mind first).