It's important to build roads by using more sustainable materials, but the most important thing is to plan better cities and communities with an emphasis on less car dependency and more on public transportation. Then you don't have to use as much material for road building and maintenance.
A lot of people don't want to live in cities though, cars will always be a necessary thing to plan infrastructure for in all but the most densely populated areas
@@TheWolfXCIX cars are very important in some situations and for some people, but most of people don't need cars, even if they live in smaller communities. Those small communities can be connected to the larger city by train or buss. But urban sprawl is not a good idea neither for people or for the environment!
@@TheWolfXCIX you can build a city where most most people in the city aren't literally forced to own a car. Look at Dutch cities, which three decades were about as awful more car depndent/centric places (as much as a dense European city can be), when today most people there in cities like to bike due to superb infrastructure having been built for it. Even the suburbs don't force you to own a car outside of living really far away from any city. Also cities can be just as great or even better places than suburbs, as they have easier to form community (a lot of suburbs isolate people by having everything so far away), better offering for activities (what is there to do in suburbia outside malls, schools and perhaps a park that is often empty?).
@@alehaim I know, I don't want to live in a city though. I want to live in a semi-rural location and I don't want to have to rely on public transport for my freedom, especially in a world of lockdowns and government restrictions
It's like that all over the world. I think it has a lot to do with the visibility of the road-building (makes it looks like they're doing things) and the number of temporary jobs it creates (nevermind the long-term jobs will be less). Might even be some trucking lobbies involved.
Abortions are only allowed if the baby is dead, if the woman is going to die, or if the woman was raqed (applies only if the child isn't still grown full size).
An important thing to add is that how cities are designed is an essential part in reducing road construction emmissions, because by building denser you can reduce the amount of roads you need in the first place and also how many trips are actually taken on said roads by less efficient privately owned cars. If you keep building suburbs, then you are causing exponentially more emmissions through basically forcing people to drive everywhere and having more infrastructure for less people.
Cities are not designed. Unless they are preplanned, they grow organically. Suburbs grow not by force but through economic demand, as long as there are buyers there will be suburban development.
@@starventure that demand is by design, because the only thing allowed to be legally built in most of American cities is suburbs. Also doesn't hurt that piblic transportation is left with little funding, while the federal government extremely generously just throws money for car infrastructure which makes the real costs of suburban living really hidden. If you had to properly pay for the extra costs that come from building fewer houses in a larger area, a lot of people might start seeking to live closer to the city due to the simple fact, that in a non subsidized system it's more expensive to upkeep a neighborhood that has less people(tax income) and more infrastructure (maintenance costs), while denser areas have more people and less infrastructure (four suburban houses need more pipes and road than a single quadplex house that is four houses in a single plot). Please check NotJustBikes for a better summary of everything I mean
@@alehaim I get what you are saying, but my statement still stands true. Municipalities do no regulate development beyond zoning or taxation. If the demand is there, it will get built. The simple fact of the matter is that people will pay more to live more remotely away from urban areas and in spite of your hopes, will stay there because it’s what they want. To say that they should live in cities against their will is social engineering at its worst.
@@starventure This is completely wrong. Every city in the western world has some kind of zoning regulations and every suburb constructed in the past 50 or so years was preplanned. The demand for suburbs is enforced by regulations, because it's literally forbidden to build midsize residentual buildings in almost any major city in the US. It was the car manufacturing lobby who came up with this plan, in order to force people to buy cars in order to get anywhere.
@@lonestarr1490 Yes, they are planned by the developers. The municipality grants approval for a development to go ahead, but does not design it. Some modifications might occur on occasion (easements, etc) but it is rare for one to get put on hold. So no, you are incorrect.
@@arv7539 300 * 2 for departure and arrival, + 300 * 2 for departure and arrival at your destination station = 1200 meters. many people cannot do that due to health, old age, or any other situation involving baggage or urgency. even if the train infrastructure would be amazing, it could still not replace the need for a large number of people to own a car.
Shift to electric cars is just a lame excuse to not let go of car culture. Its good to implement these new solutions but the reliance on cars should also be reduced and replaced with high speed electric rail networks especially when it comes to intercity or interstate travel.
Garbage.. let go of legs and feet culture too but getting your kids , furniture and shopping to and from the railway station safely to your home in all weathers ? Ridiculous notion.
I get the disire to move away from car culture, and I'm all for it but how dose family life fit in to that reality like have 2+ kids and transporting groceries for a family of 4+. I get it for singles and couples and people who work at the same location every day, but for me all my work tools are in my car and I work in different locations every day. Just asking?
@@PRESSPLAYRADIO Of course you can get your kids and furniture from the railway station to your home. You just need a sufficient amount of biking infrastructure and other public transport like busses. Also, kids don't need to be driven everywhere. In developed Asian and European countries, most kids go themselves to school or to their friends by bike, bus or by train. There isn't a need to do shopping for two weeks by your car. The key is providing grocery stores in walking distance, thus you can just quickly grab the things you need by your bike on your commute back home - or your children can grab it coming back from school. If there really is a need for bigger grocery shopping, you can use cargo bikes with electric motors. How often do you go furniture shopping? I can't imagine more than a few times a year. Furniture stores can offer delivery service and you could just rent a delivery van. Although more expensive at one point, it ist vastly cheaper than owning a car given better alternatives are provided. The goal isn't to get rid of cars completely - mostly not even in cities. The goal is to enhance better alternatives than cars to make people switch to alternative modes of transportation that have a lower carbon impact, lower noise and - most importantly in cities - don't take as much space away.
@@lucy9196 The foundation is the zoning plan of cities. If there is sprawled single family housing exclusively, then people in that area really are car-dependent since distances to other amenities are simply too long. They key is mixed-use-zoning. Thus, you can have things like grocery stores in walking distance. Hence, you don't need to drive there and can just walk there after a commute. Also, with grocery stores being in walking distance and using alternative modes of transportation (public transport and bikes), you or your children can just grab the things you need for the day or the next one while commuting back home. Most people don't talk about getting rid of every motorized vehicle but individual passenger cars in urban areas. If you are a craftsman and it is impossible to carry the tools bike a cargo bike or something, then of course you should still use something like a delivery van.
The best way to reduce emissions from highways is to shrink the amount of highways and their size and instead use high speed rail. It's faster, more efficient, far cleaner and spurs development. Then have smaller roads and highways with these fancy new materials. But that all leads to less cars which is less emissions.
Shame really, that one tends to think this when sponsors details come up. They clearly helped pay for the video. But in all the time I have subscribed to B1M l have never assumed that they would be influenced. They just present the facts!
@@jamesjohnmoss8130 you're probably right. It just seemed like such an obvious potential for conflict of interest. Are they a frequent sponsor, or unique to this topic?
I don't see it is a bad thing? Better innovations should have a way to advertise as well and why should B1M do it free either? I wouldn't have heard of it had they not made this content
As discussed below in the comments they are not the only company doing this. Roads have been being made with recycled materials in Victoria, Australia since at least 2018 starting with an experimental footpath are now using them on major freeway and highway upgrades. They are using a different mix of materials though: recycled glass fines, plastic bags, recycled asphalt and toner from printer cartridges. The roads have been performing well, resist cracking in heavy traffic and have no leaching of micro plastics. Which is why the program is constantly expanding in Victoria and in other States in Australia as well. It was the Indian State of Tamil Nadu that first began building roads from shredded plastic waste and asphalt in 2002. Polymer mix roads are also popular in the Middle East and rural Canada as they resist cracking in heat and cold.
People don't realize that there's such thing s *too much* infrastructure; here in the US, municipalities are bankrupted by the costs of maintaining so many paved surfaces, because of our immense sprawl. Without infill, we're going to continue becoming *poorer* as a country, because of our overbuilt road system.
Sure we need to figure out new methods of building, but we also must rethink what we're building for and how much we're building. There is never a conversation on how building for cars as they are is incredibly wasteful in space and resources. Not to mention electric cars are heavier and tear up the roads faster. We never talk about reducing size and weight of vehicles or encouraging alternatives in transportation. It's always trying to figure things out as they are now.
Sounds like a good idea and we must start somewhere but the only problem I see is that governments don’t care if it’s not cheaper than bitumen then they won’t use it.
In Finland, there's a company aiming to build a bioethanol + lignin plant (BioEnergo is the company). They aim to make bioethanol from sawdust coming from timber mills and they have proposed to extract first the lignin out of sawdust to be used as a binder in roads. :)
Sustainable materials or even circular economy are an important part on the path to a sustainable future. But even recycling consumes energy. Thus, the first question that has to be answered by (local) governments and administrations is, how a sustainable mobility system is implemented. Car-dependend cities can never be sustainable, no matter if the cars are electric or fuel-powered. Public transit, bicycles, car-sharing and other modes need to be supported. In the end there will still be a share of traffic that will rely on private cars. And for this share, you can and need to use sustainable materials. So this video presents only a minor aspect of the answer, but this is clearly not "how we fix it".
This 8+ minute video contains about 2 minutes on how we can build more sustainable roads, and the rest is all about climate change, which we’ve all heard about a million times by now.
I don't know the regional differences, but I think in Germany 80% of the asphalt is being reused. That's a pretty good quota. Does anyone know how it is in their countries?
unfortunately though there's nothing with the potential to replace cars in the foreseeable future, as the list of issues as to why conventional public transit is inadequate for a large number of people is just as long if not longer as the list of issues with cars. - rigid schedules and waiting on stations is not compatible with many situations. - delays are way too common, making it a no go for any kind of important appointment. and even if delays are brought down to an absolute minimum - there'll still always be chance for them to occur, meaning that people still need to own a car for appointments where they simply cannot compromise. - not everybody is a youngster who commutes with nothing more than a briefcase or backpack to school or office. have some more baggage? be elderly? conventional transit methods are often out of the question. - many people cannot just leave it up to chance whether or not they get a seat or not. - there's no way around the massive efficiency loss of the vehicles having to come to full stop every couple of kilometers. - and now probably the biggest issue: conventional public transit does not do last mile. cars are covering many situations that trains, buses, etc. simply won't be able to adequately handle. we won't get rid of cars anytime soon. luckily though, ultimately, the real problem does not lie with cars themselves, but with the fact that every household needs own one or two of them. this can be solved with cars as a service, which could also be a public service. of course, the improvement of infrastructure for conventional public transit is still an important piece to the solution, but again, it's not going to replace cars.
@@holleey really it’s the design of cities and suburbs that make it difficult. Zoning also plays a role. Making housing and shopping miles apart is a terrible idea.
@@AppleseedVending They have to be apart. The whole point of suburbs is to not have everything piled up close. If things are close like you want, it’s no longer a suburb but a city, and residents will start moving further out to get away.
@@starventure I would disagree. Allowing for a variety of zoning within a suburban community makes walking much more feasible. I’m not talking about higher density and high rise buildings. I’m saying there should be restaurants and shops within walking distance mixed throughout the suburbs. That and some two-story office suites that blend into the community
Still happening in Victoria Australia. Using a mix of recycled glass, plastic bags, reused asphalt and toner from printer cartridges- using on the Hume Highway and Great Ocean Red.
I love that this channel, and B1M, talk about action on climate change with real enthusiasm. I don't get the sense this is tokenism on your part. I really appreciate that.
Today I m proud of my Indian Government ! As our Government is building roads with recycled plastics , Rubber tyres and also implementing rules for Electric Vehicles and Solar shades ! ❤️❤️❤️
It would be good to explain why asphalt is a greenhouse gas emitter. (On the face of it asphalt appears to be a recyclable carbon sequestration.) Is it because the production of asphalt is energy intensive and results in the emission organic volatiles which are GHGs?
Reduce the surface area and reduce heat given off. Brick walls, asphalt streets, concrete highways all put out huge amounts of heat, even after the sun goes down. The weather people on TV call it the heat island effect. It's a real thing. Trees might can help offset the radiating of surfaces to some degree such as parking lots, but you have to get more cars off the roads. Light rail in urban or similar can help too, but there is no 1 silver bullet cure. All the tricks need to be put to work. Same goes for energy, all the tricks in the bag are required. ALL OF THEM.
I can't believe how not even once was it mentioned that we desperately need to rely a lot less on cars. This would automatically mean less roads built and much less maintenance and replacement costs.
Bitumen is the by-product of petroleum production. Less petroleum for vehicles, means less bitumen. So obviously an alternative binder is needed. However, sulphur burns, producing noxious sulphur oxides.
Only problem is scalability of roads made from recycled materials like plastic. Recycling is not widespread because the supply chain to get the waste from homes to factories recycling to making roads doesn't exist and hence it's even more energy consuming more energy than making roads from scratch.
Can you tell me how I can convince my local mayor to endorse this? My city has potholes and the political jargon is fix the potholes!!! Then 2 years later, they say. Fix the potholes!!! So I think this can kill that jargon off at the knees
BEVs are the answer especially as their batteries are getting ever better. We could go to the "Boring Company" option for underground roadways and then they could be fast, direct and ultimately efficient without bespoiling our planet's surface.
I hope they implement the use of recycled plastics in all roads using those prefabricated sections, as well as introducing solar power into roads as well.
Could you do a few videos on bikes and cycling infrastructure please? Perhaps a meetup with "Not just bikes" channel? I grew up in the Netherlands 30 years ago and they have the best cycling infrastructure on the planet, the happiest kids, the lowest traffic congestion etc etc The single most important thing to do regarding transport is proper cycling infrastructure, it makes life in a town or city so much more pleasurable and sustainable.
Have we crossed the point of no return in terms of damaging the planet? There is no such point. We need to trust that our thought, which is our greatest quality, can change nature. We only need to understand the direction to which we should aim our thoughts. What should we think about? What condition or state should we aspire to and ask for? In order to save our planet, we should think about positive human connections. That is, how can we, in our connections, keep nature safe? How can we all together protect our world? If we truly wish to better our planet, then we should see people holding a concern for how to positively connect everywhere that we look. It has nothing to do with recycling or other activities that we commonly associate with as being sustainable. If we come closer to and consider each other, that we will reach an entirely organic, perfectly connected and round state, then the negative forces will disappear from the world. We need to understand that if we start thinking better about each other, then the planet will recover from all harm, because our thoughts are the strongest force in nature. Likewise, our negative thoughts about each other are entirely to blame for damaging the planet. That is why the more we recycle and invest in energies and activities that we commonly think of as being sustainable, the worse our planet becomes. Nothing will work to benefit us until we reach a state where our attitude changes toward each other for the better to protect and improve our planet.
India is using natural Jute fiber & plastic waste from Cities in road building. Recently Our minister said about using Some processed wood & bamboo for roads. Low cost, higher quality.
This video misses so much. Such as the fact that roads are already some of the most recycled materials on the planet. Is it bad to improve them by introducing recycled material from the start? No, but to make a video suggesting that the roads are, as Dr. Fina claims, "done the same way because they don't want to change" is extremely misinformative. Engineers and scientists are continually working to improve roadways to both increase durability (and therefore sustainability) and reduce cost; this isn't some sector "unchanged from Roman times".
I would say he have made a lot of progress. Considering how people started talking about global warming in the 1970s. Most of the progress happened in the past few years.
Why not start adding as much white pigment to the new eco asphalt as possible, lightening it to where it would absorb a lot less heat and help with the planets warming. Asphalt roofs should be legislated white or pastels colors as well. This is a massive amount of area that would be reflecting heat back to space instead of creating an even greater oven effect. It could make over a degree of difference. Thoughts any one?
I hate to break this to you, but the driving factor is and always will be COST. Transportation dollars are always in short supply. When you can demonstrate a material that will lower total costs (construction plus maintenance) and performs adequately, then you'll see a switchover. Not before. You can yell "but the climate" until you're blue in the face, but money makes the world go round. It always has and it always will. Demonstrate lower overall costs and the world will follow.
Not really. You can have economic growth while still saving the planet, you just need to sustainable grow the economy. For example, developing nations should not be designing cities the way North America stubbornly refused to let go of, but instead like how Europe has transitioned to; walkable and person-oriented. That way, they can have 10x the economic growth in the same land a Walmart uses in the US and still have room for greenery. Additionally, small businesses would do far better since it's been proven that car-centric design benefits massive corporations at the expense of local businesses.
I would have liked to know more about the solutions. It's good to hear about the problems, but it gets to be just way too much. What is Uberbinder? Why is it better? How is it so revolutionary? Is it cheaper? Is it more durable? Why would we use it, if not for political pressure? These questions need to be answered before I'm convinced.
What about covering the roads so that roads don't disect animal habitat? This is a huge problem that nobody is addressing. I'd love to see a video on this and make it more talked about topic.
This is still so much noise, with nothing more than perceived solution of shuffling around the same problems without really reducing those problems. Like sweeping the problems under the carpet. I don't think we as a self professed cognitive species is yet ready to recognise this fact, let alone affect the changes needed to steer away from the wrong path we are still on.
Electric and autonomous cars aren't going to save us. The best thing we can do is drastically reduce the amount of cars on the road. Public & active transport have much lower emissions, significantly less road space needed & has a much lower impact on the road, meaning less maintenance.
I like your videos but this one is, I won't say full of shit but rather incomplete and one-sided only. As I cought your attention listen: - You can enhance performance of asphalt by adding shredded used car tires, which enhances its fatigue resistance and flexibilty at low temperatures, hence less cracking = less penetration of water = less damage. - You can use cold-mixed asphalt for pavement renewal, in one go you mill off top 4cm, mix it with new cold asphalt binder and pave it in one machine - no new material except binder added. - You can use hot-mixed asphalt for pavement renewal, just as above but with heating up the mix so less added binder is added. - Used tarmac is the most recycled construction material, just mill it up, heat up and lay again. You can even store it for longer time and reheat it. Try doing the same with concrete ! It would be useful only as underlayers as "weak concrete". Its not the asphalt that is a problem, its cement that inherently makes material unusable. - You can use resins to pave roads, such things are used mostly at pedestrian bridges and indoor parking lots. Some bridge renewals were conducted using this technology as test subjects. - During rafination process you HAVE TO produce asphalt as a BYPRODUCT of rafination. You can either crack longer hydrocarbon chains into shorter ones to obtain gasoline, which requires lots of energy; you burn it in ship engines or use it to make roads. I suggest the latter. If you want not to use asphalt then either no more petrol based products or retrofiting all refineries with cracking equipment. - Road embankments are usally made with waste material like fly ash, rest material from mining, output from tunneling, destroyed concrete and other as sand is a prime comodity. So embankments are our way of reusing the wastes already. And as someone mentioned already, the best road would be one replaced with mass transit.
@@SimonNotPublic Verbally state it at the start. Or ideally not sell out at all and make actual useful and trustworthy content. On mobile I did not see the notices you refer to, only heard him mention the sponsorship at the end.
YES!!!! In the South (Georgia) there's a lot of rain. Many roads are now being converted to brick roads instead of asphalt because Brick roads are better for drainage.
@@SimonNotPublic Oh wow, free content, I guess it doesn't have to be morally obligated content, then. No, it doesn't meet my standards, if you want to produce an unbiased report on something, you better make sure you're shilling for somethign completely unrelated, like Brilliant of some VPN that's not going to bias the content of your report. Good for you if you like being fed one-sided stories just because you think the conflict of interest is made obvious enough, lol.
It’s going to take more than 9 years for those UN member countries to meet the set climate goals. I’d even say it’s more like 10 to 20 years away from being a reality in most of them. This video was extremely one sided and didn’t provide any information on other ways we could build our roads. Road construction isn’t causing an as big of a problem as coal fired power plants and even cars themselves.
I’m sorry but you’re not exactly being honest with your reporting on what the ipcc said and there modelling. N let’s be honest if the modelling is anything like the covid modelling which was at best 469% wrong at worst over 800% wrong then……. Saying that great video as usual
Why is it always that the new material is way better, more available and less expensive but never gets used? Are they really making it seem like it’s just these mean concrete workers and road builders that don’t want to use this magic material that would save the world? Doubt it
Where is the resistance? you want to build a road with some magical material whatever that is be my guest! As long as we can drive on it that is all it matters.
Where is this 6:37 that peoplework topless, in an environment that is usually heavily "policed" for safety purposes? Don't get me wrong, I'm not disgusted or complaining, just pleasantly suprised.
great topic I am really interested to learn about the alternative it's just that I can hardly even hear how it's pronounced in the video could you maybe do a more informative presentation on it specifically? Thank you
@@TheBombson You should also take a look at Ferrock - concrete mainly consisting out of sand and iron which actually absorbs CO2. And iron can be much easier made carbon neutral than cement since you "just" need an carbon neutral source of energy - like Hydrogen.
@@TheBombson You should also read about bamboo and it's application in construction. Taking the fibers from bamboo and gluing it together gives impressive tensile strength. And I don't know if it has been done before, but technically, you should be able to cross laminate those. Thus, you could create an enhanced version auf CLT. Also, Bamboo grows much quicker than trees and can grow in a rate of up to 3 feet a day. Thus, using cross laminated bamboo could have a much higher strength, be much more economical than traditional CLT while being carbon negative. Cool, right? What do you think about that? You can also tell me about promising materials you've discovered, I'm also curious about that.
Always bringing class videos ❤️
ءریریرءرءڑءٹءئ
The narrator's voice of this channel and 'The B1M' is immensely soothing
Haha, thanks! (said in that soothing voice)
@@TomorrowsBuild hey Fred 👋
They’re one in the same
@@kmyers808 no way
Maybe they are lost twins
It's important to build roads by using more sustainable materials, but the most important thing is to plan better cities and communities with an emphasis on less car dependency and more on public transportation. Then you don't have to use as much material for road building and maintenance.
'Not just bikes' anyone?
A lot of people don't want to live in cities though, cars will always be a necessary thing to plan infrastructure for in all but the most densely populated areas
@@TheWolfXCIX cars are very important in some situations and for some people, but most of people don't need cars, even if they live in smaller communities. Those small communities can be connected to the larger city by train or buss. But urban sprawl is not a good idea neither for people or for the environment!
@@TheWolfXCIX you can build a city where most most people in the city aren't literally forced to own a car. Look at Dutch cities, which three decades were about as awful more car depndent/centric places (as much as a dense European city can be), when today most people there in cities like to bike due to superb infrastructure having been built for it. Even the suburbs don't force you to own a car outside of living really far away from any city.
Also cities can be just as great or even better places than suburbs, as they have easier to form community (a lot of suburbs isolate people by having everything so far away), better offering for activities (what is there to do in suburbia outside malls, schools and perhaps a park that is often empty?).
@@alehaim I know, I don't want to live in a city though. I want to live in a semi-rural location and I don't want to have to rely on public transport for my freedom, especially in a world of lockdowns and government restrictions
American state governments:
$150 million for trains? Um how are we gonna pay for it????
$15 billion for freeways? Hell yeah take all my money!
It's like that all over the world. I think it has a lot to do with the visibility of the road-building (makes it looks like they're doing things) and the number of temporary jobs it creates (nevermind the long-term jobs will be less). Might even be some trucking lobbies involved.
It do be like that tho
Abortions are only allowed if the baby is dead, if the woman is going to die, or if the woman was raqed (applies only if the child isn't still grown full size).
@@PinataOblongata Not so much trucking lobbies, but definitely car manufacturing lobbies.
Except that California is spending $100 000 000 000,00 on an useless high speed rail.
First we have to design cities to NOT BUILD so many roads in the first place!
And when we do build roads, we need to make them last longer.
An important thing to add is that how cities are designed is an essential part in reducing road construction emmissions, because by building denser you can reduce the amount of roads you need in the first place and also how many trips are actually taken on said roads by less efficient privately owned cars.
If you keep building suburbs, then you are causing exponentially more emmissions through basically forcing people to drive everywhere and having more infrastructure for less people.
Cities are not designed. Unless they are preplanned, they grow organically. Suburbs grow not by force but through economic demand, as long as there are buyers there will be suburban development.
@@starventure that demand is by design, because the only thing allowed to be legally built in most of American cities is suburbs. Also doesn't hurt that piblic transportation is left with little funding, while the federal government extremely generously just throws money for car infrastructure which makes the real costs of suburban living really hidden. If you had to properly pay for the extra costs that come from building fewer houses in a larger area, a lot of people might start seeking to live closer to the city due to the simple fact, that in a non subsidized system it's more expensive to upkeep a neighborhood that has less people(tax income) and more infrastructure (maintenance costs), while denser areas have more people and less infrastructure (four suburban houses need more pipes and road than a single quadplex house that is four houses in a single plot).
Please check NotJustBikes for a better summary of everything I mean
@@alehaim I get what you are saying, but my statement still stands true. Municipalities do no regulate development beyond zoning or taxation. If the demand is there, it will get built. The simple fact of the matter is that people will pay more to live more remotely away from urban areas and in spite of your hopes, will stay there because it’s what they want. To say that they should live in cities against their will is social engineering at its worst.
@@starventure This is completely wrong. Every city in the western world has some kind of zoning regulations and every suburb constructed in the past 50 or so years was preplanned. The demand for suburbs is enforced by regulations, because it's literally forbidden to build midsize residentual buildings in almost any major city in the US. It was the car manufacturing lobby who came up with this plan, in order to force people to buy cars in order to get anywhere.
@@lonestarr1490 Yes, they are planned by the developers. The municipality grants approval for a development to go ahead, but does not design it. Some modifications might occur on occasion (easements, etc) but it is rare for one to get put on hold. So no, you are incorrect.
The most climate friendly road is the road replaced by train tracks
And the most accident friendly.
...or unfriendly? You know what I'm trying to say :D
100%
@Brad Grove what do you mean? In my country even the smallest town has a train station
@Brad Grove God created legs not for us to hunt but for us to go to that village 300 meters away from the station
@@arv7539 300 * 2 for departure and arrival, + 300 * 2 for departure and arrival at your destination station = 1200 meters. many people cannot do that due to health, old age, or any other situation involving baggage or urgency.
even if the train infrastructure would be amazing, it could still not replace the need for a large number of people to own a car.
Shift to electric cars is just a lame excuse to not let go of car culture. Its good to implement these new solutions but the reliance on cars should also be reduced and replaced with high speed electric rail networks especially when it comes to intercity or interstate travel.
Yes but cars cannot be eliminated completely.
Abd hence they need to be converted.
Garbage.. let go of legs and feet culture too but getting your kids , furniture and shopping to and from the railway station safely to your home in all weathers ? Ridiculous notion.
I get the disire to move away from car culture, and I'm all for it but how dose family life fit in to that reality like have 2+ kids and transporting groceries for a family of 4+. I get it for singles and couples and people who work at the same location every day, but for me all my work tools are in my car and I work in different locations every day. Just asking?
@@PRESSPLAYRADIO Of course you can get your kids and furniture from the railway station to your home. You just need a sufficient amount of biking infrastructure and other public transport like busses. Also, kids don't need to be driven everywhere. In developed Asian and European countries, most kids go themselves to school or to their friends by bike, bus or by train.
There isn't a need to do shopping for two weeks by your car. The key is providing grocery stores in walking distance, thus you can just quickly grab the things you need by your bike on your commute back home - or your children can grab it coming back from school. If there really is a need for bigger grocery shopping, you can use cargo bikes with electric motors.
How often do you go furniture shopping? I can't imagine more than a few times a year. Furniture stores can offer delivery service and you could just rent a delivery van. Although more expensive at one point, it ist vastly cheaper than owning a car given better alternatives are provided.
The goal isn't to get rid of cars completely - mostly not even in cities. The goal is to enhance better alternatives than cars to make people switch to alternative modes of transportation that have a lower carbon impact, lower noise and - most importantly in cities - don't take as much space away.
@@lucy9196 The foundation is the zoning plan of cities. If there is sprawled single family housing exclusively, then people in that area really are car-dependent since distances to other amenities are simply too long.
They key is mixed-use-zoning. Thus, you can have things like grocery stores in walking distance. Hence, you don't need to drive there and can just walk there after a commute. Also, with grocery stores being in walking distance and using alternative modes of transportation (public transport and bikes), you or your children can just grab the things you need for the day or the next one while commuting back home.
Most people don't talk about getting rid of every motorized vehicle but individual passenger cars in urban areas. If you are a craftsman and it is impossible to carry the tools bike a cargo bike or something, then of course you should still use something like a delivery van.
The best way to reduce emissions from highways is to shrink the amount of highways and their size and instead use high speed rail. It's faster, more efficient, far cleaner and spurs development. Then have smaller roads and highways with these fancy new materials. But that all leads to less cars which is less emissions.
Rhetoric posing as logic
Skeptical to start, then I started to think there might be something there. Then came the sponsor credit and the skepticism returned.
Shame really, that one tends to think this when sponsors details come up. They clearly helped pay for the video. But in all the time I have subscribed to B1M l have never assumed that they would be influenced. They just present the facts!
@@jamesjohnmoss8130 you're probably right. It just seemed like such an obvious potential for conflict of interest. Are they a frequent sponsor, or unique to this topic?
I don't see it is a bad thing? Better innovations should have a way to advertise as well and why should B1M do it free either? I wouldn't have heard of it had they not made this content
We all lost brain cells watching this stupid fucking video.
As discussed below in the comments they are not the only company doing this. Roads have been being made with recycled materials in Victoria, Australia since at least 2018 starting with an experimental footpath are now using them on major freeway and highway upgrades. They are using a different mix of materials though: recycled glass fines, plastic bags, recycled asphalt and toner from printer cartridges.
The roads have been performing well, resist cracking in heavy traffic and have no leaching of micro plastics. Which is why the program is constantly expanding in Victoria and in other States in Australia as well.
It was the Indian State of Tamil Nadu that first began building roads from shredded plastic waste and asphalt in 2002. Polymer mix roads are also popular in the Middle East and rural Canada as they resist cracking in heat and cold.
Not even making mention of the fact that asphalt has a very low albedo, and thus does not reflect much radiation. They're all serious surface warmers
People don't realize that there's such thing s *too much* infrastructure; here in the US, municipalities are bankrupted by the costs of maintaining so many paved surfaces, because of our immense sprawl. Without infill, we're going to continue becoming *poorer* as a country, because of our overbuilt road system.
I literally only this week started work on this exact topic as the final chapter of my thesis! Thanks!
Sure we need to figure out new methods of building, but we also must rethink what we're building for and how much we're building. There is never a conversation on how building for cars as they are is incredibly wasteful in space and resources. Not to mention electric cars are heavier and tear up the roads faster. We never talk about reducing size and weight of vehicles or encouraging alternatives in transportation. It's always trying to figure things out as they are now.
Well said :) It's always about finding the solution - but a solution that still centers around cars, even though they are pretty much the problem
Sounds like a good idea and we must start somewhere but the only problem I see is that governments don’t care if it’s not cheaper than bitumen then they won’t use it.
In Finland, there's a company aiming to build a bioethanol + lignin plant (BioEnergo is the company). They aim to make bioethanol from sawdust coming from timber mills and they have proposed to extract first the lignin out of sawdust to be used as a binder in roads. :)
Sustainable materials or even circular economy are an important part on the path to a sustainable future. But even recycling consumes energy. Thus, the first question that has to be answered by (local) governments and administrations is, how a sustainable mobility system is implemented. Car-dependend cities can never be sustainable, no matter if the cars are electric or fuel-powered. Public transit, bicycles, car-sharing and other modes need to be supported. In the end there will still be a share of traffic that will rely on private cars. And for this share, you can and need to use sustainable materials.
So this video presents only a minor aspect of the answer, but this is clearly not "how we fix it".
This 8+ minute video contains about 2 minutes on how we can build more sustainable roads, and the rest is all about climate change, which we’ve all heard about a million times by now.
And still the majority of the population on Earth refuses to understand it, so it might be necessary.
I don't know the regional differences, but I think in Germany 80% of the asphalt is being reused. That's a pretty good quota.
Does anyone know how it is in their countries?
Asphalt is the Most recycled material in the world if we change it now where is the old Asphalt going to when we remake roads?
Yet another way that cars are terrible... Add it to the list...
You better not own a car or take Ubers
unfortunately though there's nothing with the potential to replace cars in the foreseeable future, as the list of issues as to why conventional public transit is inadequate for a large number of people is just as long if not longer as the list of issues with cars.
- rigid schedules and waiting on stations is not compatible with many situations.
- delays are way too common, making it a no go for any kind of important appointment. and even if delays are brought down to an absolute minimum - there'll still always be chance for them to occur, meaning that people still need to own a car for appointments where they simply cannot compromise.
- not everybody is a youngster who commutes with nothing more than a briefcase or backpack to school or office. have some more baggage? be elderly? conventional transit methods are often out of the question.
- many people cannot just leave it up to chance whether or not they get a seat or not.
- there's no way around the massive efficiency loss of the vehicles having to come to full stop every couple of kilometers.
- and now probably the biggest issue: conventional public transit does not do last mile.
cars are covering many situations that trains, buses, etc. simply won't be able to adequately handle.
we won't get rid of cars anytime soon.
luckily though, ultimately, the real problem does not lie with cars themselves, but with the fact that every household needs own one or two of them. this can be solved with cars as a service, which could also be a public service. of course, the improvement of infrastructure for conventional public transit is still an important piece to the solution, but again, it's not going to replace cars.
@@holleey really it’s the design of cities and suburbs that make it difficult. Zoning also plays a role. Making housing and shopping miles apart is a terrible idea.
@@AppleseedVending They have to be apart. The whole point of suburbs is to not have everything piled up close. If things are close like you want, it’s no longer a suburb but a city, and residents will start moving further out to get away.
@@starventure I would disagree. Allowing for a variety of zoning within a suburban community makes walking much more feasible. I’m not talking about higher density and high rise buildings. I’m saying there should be restaurants and shops within walking distance mixed throughout the suburbs. That and some two-story office suites that blend into the community
The first step to making roads less toxic to the environment is to make sure nobody living in an urban environment needs a car to go grocery shopping.
Here in Australia, A few years ago. Some councils started trialling asphalt made partially from soft plastics. Haven’t heard anymore about it though.
still happening and is the standard in victoria
Still happening in Victoria Australia. Using a mix of recycled glass, plastic bags, reused asphalt and toner from printer cartridges- using on the Hume Highway and Great Ocean Red.
Yes Victoria! Thank you both for letting me know
Sounds like a bunch of plastic is going to be injected into the air and waterways after thousands of cars drive over it
I love that this channel, and B1M, talk about action on climate change with real enthusiasm. I don't get the sense this is tokenism on your part. I really appreciate that.
This could easily be on the main channel, love it.
Today I m proud of my Indian Government ! As our Government is building roads with recycled plastics , Rubber tyres and also implementing rules for Electric Vehicles and Solar shades ! ❤️❤️❤️
I was wondering while watching if recycled plastics could be used 👍
Hope the 40+ celcius heatwave isnt too bad for you and yours
It would be good to explain why asphalt is a greenhouse gas emitter. (On the face of it asphalt appears to be a recyclable carbon sequestration.) Is it because the production of asphalt is energy intensive and results in the emission organic volatiles which are GHGs?
Thx for bringing up this important topic!
Reduce the surface area and reduce heat given off. Brick walls, asphalt streets, concrete highways all put out huge amounts of heat, even after the sun goes down. The weather people on TV call it the heat island effect. It's a real thing. Trees might can help offset the radiating of surfaces to some degree such as parking lots, but you have to get more cars off the roads. Light rail in urban or similar can help too, but there is no 1 silver bullet cure. All the tricks need to be put to work. Same goes for energy, all the tricks in the bag are required. ALL OF THEM.
Check out the proposed Pasig River Expressway in Manila. It's disturbing. It's just going to induce demand for more cars.
Hence why public transportation and bikes are the actual solution in urban areas. But I guess you know this.
Glass and rubber should be major future roadmaking ingredients. Australia has 500,000 tonnes of waste rubber available per year that could be used.
I can't believe how not even once was it mentioned that we desperately need to rely a lot less on cars. This would automatically mean less roads built and much less maintenance and replacement costs.
Bitumen is the by-product of petroleum production. Less petroleum for vehicles, means less bitumen. So obviously an alternative binder is needed. However, sulphur burns, producing noxious sulphur oxides.
Only problem is scalability of roads made from recycled materials like plastic.
Recycling is not widespread because the supply chain to get the waste from homes to factories recycling to making roads doesn't exist and hence it's even more energy consuming more energy than making roads from scratch.
Can you tell me how I can convince my local mayor to endorse this? My city has potholes and the political jargon is fix the potholes!!!
Then 2 years later, they say. Fix the potholes!!! So I think this can kill that jargon off at the knees
When “convinced the governments” is on the list - the task just got awfully harder.
At least there's no "convince large companies" on the list. The task would be impossible then.
BEVs are the answer especially as their batteries are getting ever better. We could go to the "Boring Company" option for underground roadways and then they could be fast, direct and ultimately efficient without bespoiling our planet's surface.
Maybe we could try putting trains underground. I’ll call it a “subway”.
Sustainability is in design not material. Drive towards walkable cities, not car oriented cities.
in melbourne, roads are starting to be built using a mixture of recycled materials, such as plastic bags, old bitumen/tar and other plastic
Where's the thirsty cement put it in parking lots they on average take up 20% of a citys space.
its simple. build denser less sprawling cities with electric public transit. that will reduce Carbon emissions.
Train good, car bad
I hope they implement the use of recycled plastics in all roads using those prefabricated sections, as well as introducing solar power into roads as well.
Could you do a few videos on bikes and cycling infrastructure please? Perhaps a meetup with "Not just bikes" channel?
I grew up in the Netherlands 30 years ago and they have the best cycling infrastructure on the planet, the happiest kids, the lowest traffic congestion etc etc
The single most important thing to do regarding transport is proper cycling infrastructure, it makes life in a town or city so much more pleasurable and sustainable.
I miss all brick roads for small towns. They may not be the greatest for your car but I don't see them worked on a ton and they were made decades ago.
I won't drive on those with my lowered car and sports suspension, im glad theyre dieing out
@@john_iceman4285 then dont drive a shit car
@@iainphillips3725 logic ?
Have we crossed the point of no return in terms of damaging the planet? There is no such point. We need to trust that our thought, which is our greatest quality, can change nature. We only need to understand the direction to which we should aim our thoughts. What should we think about? What condition or state should we aspire to and ask for?
In order to save our planet, we should think about positive human connections. That is, how can we, in our connections, keep nature safe? How can we all together protect our world? If we truly wish to better our planet, then we should see people holding a concern for how to positively connect everywhere that we look.
It has nothing to do with recycling or other activities that we commonly associate with as being sustainable. If we come closer to and consider each other, that we will reach an entirely organic, perfectly connected and round state, then the negative forces will disappear from the world.
We need to understand that if we start thinking better about each other, then the planet will recover from all harm, because our thoughts are the strongest force in nature. Likewise, our negative thoughts about each other are entirely to blame for damaging the planet. That is why the more we recycle and invest in energies and activities that we commonly think of as being sustainable, the worse our planet becomes. Nothing will work to benefit us until we reach a state where our attitude changes toward each other for the better to protect and improve our planet.
major unaddressed issue of roads: habitat segmentation.
Glad to see that the singer of Korn has succeeded in his reconversion.
Felt like I was watching a discovery channel documentary, your editors need a raise
Sustainable and heat resistant material would be essential for hot places like Brazil. No asphalt lasts long here.
India is using natural Jute fiber & plastic waste from Cities in road building.
Recently Our minister said about using Some processed wood & bamboo for roads.
Low cost, higher quality.
This video misses so much. Such as the fact that roads are already some of the most recycled materials on the planet. Is it bad to improve them by introducing recycled material from the start? No, but to make a video suggesting that the roads are, as Dr. Fina claims, "done the same way because they don't want to change" is extremely misinformative. Engineers and scientists are continually working to improve roadways to both increase durability (and therefore sustainability) and reduce cost; this isn't some sector "unchanged from Roman times".
I would say he have made a lot of progress. Considering how people started talking about global warming in the 1970s. Most of the progress happened in the past few years.
The earth will definitely be HOT when the majority of land will be cover with concrete and asphalt.
How about flying vehicles (drone technology) flying close to the ground for all transport within short distances?
Why not start adding as much white pigment to the new eco asphalt as possible, lightening it to where it would absorb a lot less heat and help with the planets warming. Asphalt roofs should be legislated white or pastels colors as well. This is a massive amount of area that would be reflecting heat back to space instead of creating an even greater oven effect. It could make over a degree of difference. Thoughts any one?
This will be a battle we'll loose.
Fantastic work as always! I appreciate this channel. 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
Amazing!!! More please
I could not agree more...things have to change and change fast.
Didn't the romans have a different recipe for cement roads though? like their salt water one?
Do you have a link to this video's first clip? It looks very much like my home town so was wondering what city that is.
encourage more public transportation so there’s less cars and therefore like roads needed
I hate to break this to you, but the driving factor is and always will be COST. Transportation dollars are always in short supply. When you can demonstrate a material that will lower total costs (construction plus maintenance) and performs adequately, then you'll see a switchover. Not before. You can yell "but the climate" until you're blue in the face, but money makes the world go round. It always has and it always will. Demonstrate lower overall costs and the world will follow.
I didn't know that! Once again, better educated thanks to B1M! 💐🤗
Any updates of Solar Freaking Roadways?
Yeah, it is a Stupid Freaking Scam.
Disappointed this video didn't even mention planning our societies less around the car in the future.
Hello from Kansas 🇺🇸
The problem is goal #8, economic growth. Economic growth and saving the planet or rather humanity just don’t go together. 🤷🏼♂️
Not really. You can have economic growth while still saving the planet, you just need to sustainable grow the economy. For example, developing nations should not be designing cities the way North America stubbornly refused to let go of, but instead like how Europe has transitioned to; walkable and person-oriented. That way, they can have 10x the economic growth in the same land a Walmart uses in the US and still have room for greenery. Additionally, small businesses would do far better since it's been proven that car-centric design benefits massive corporations at the expense of local businesses.
It's asphalt, not ashphalt
I would have liked to know more about the solutions. It's good to hear about the problems, but it gets to be just way too much.
What is Uberbinder? Why is it better? How is it so revolutionary? Is it cheaper? Is it more durable? Why would we use it, if not for political pressure? These questions need to be answered before I'm convinced.
Ashphalt?
Add to road buildings negative environmental impact the fact that CAR TIRES degrade & end up in our waterways, where ‘tire dirt’ kills native fish 🐟🐟🐟
It would be better to avoid builsing roads were they aren't needed.
tbf we don't really even need roads. Rail infrastructure would be much better
Were screwed but I wanna die knowing I atleast die something to reduce my footprint
Cars are trash. Stop building roads
What about no?
Can we all just make work from home an legitimate option?
lol jobs you can work from home are not really jobs...
What about covering the roads so that roads don't disect animal habitat? This is a huge problem that nobody is addressing. I'd love to see a video on this and make it more talked about topic.
"the state of our planet" ....for us. That part is always ignored. We don't own the planet.. we use it.
For short: Asphalt isn't very good for the environment
This is still so much noise, with nothing more than perceived solution of shuffling around the same problems without really reducing those problems.
Like sweeping the problems under the carpet.
I don't think we as a self professed cognitive species is yet ready to recognise this fact, let alone affect the changes needed to steer away from the wrong path we are still on.
1:30 Was that once a river?
Very good video
Electric and autonomous cars aren't going to save us. The best thing we can do is drastically reduce the amount of cars on the road. Public & active transport have much lower emissions, significantly less road space needed & has a much lower impact on the road, meaning less maintenance.
maybe they should make better roads that dont break easily
I like your videos but this one is, I won't say full of shit but rather incomplete and one-sided only.
As I cought your attention listen:
- You can enhance performance of asphalt by adding shredded used car tires, which enhances its fatigue resistance and flexibilty at low temperatures, hence less cracking = less penetration of water = less damage.
- You can use cold-mixed asphalt for pavement renewal, in one go you mill off top 4cm, mix it with new cold asphalt binder and pave it in one machine - no new material except binder added.
- You can use hot-mixed asphalt for pavement renewal, just as above but with heating up the mix so less added binder is added.
- Used tarmac is the most recycled construction material, just mill it up, heat up and lay again. You can even store it for longer time and reheat it. Try doing the same with concrete ! It would be useful only as underlayers as "weak concrete". Its not the asphalt that is a problem, its cement that inherently makes material unusable.
- You can use resins to pave roads, such things are used mostly at pedestrian bridges and indoor parking lots. Some bridge renewals were conducted using this technology as test subjects.
- During rafination process you HAVE TO produce asphalt as a BYPRODUCT of rafination. You can either crack longer hydrocarbon chains into shorter ones to obtain gasoline, which requires lots of energy; you burn it in ship engines or use it to make roads. I suggest the latter. If you want not to use asphalt then either no more petrol based products or retrofiting all refineries with cracking equipment.
- Road embankments are usally made with waste material like fly ash, rest material from mining, output from tunneling, destroyed concrete and other as sand is a prime comodity. So embankments are our way of reusing the wastes already.
And as someone mentioned already, the best road would be one replaced with mass transit.
@@SimonNotPublic Verbally state it at the start. Or ideally not sell out at all and make actual useful and trustworthy content. On mobile I did not see the notices you refer to, only heard him mention the sponsorship at the end.
YES!!!! In the South (Georgia) there's a lot of rain. Many roads are now being converted to brick roads instead of asphalt because Brick roads are better for drainage.
@@SimonNotPublic Oh wow, free content, I guess it doesn't have to be morally obligated content, then. No, it doesn't meet my standards, if you want to produce an unbiased report on something, you better make sure you're shilling for somethign completely unrelated, like Brilliant of some VPN that's not going to bias the content of your report. Good for you if you like being fed one-sided stories just because you think the conflict of interest is made obvious enough, lol.
It’s going to take more than 9 years for those UN member countries to meet the set climate goals. I’d even say it’s more like 10 to 20 years away from being a reality in most of them.
This video was extremely one sided and didn’t provide any information on other ways we could build our roads. Road construction isn’t causing an as big of a problem as coal fired power plants and even cars themselves.
I’m sorry but you’re not exactly being honest with your reporting on what the ipcc said and there modelling. N let’s be honest if the modelling is anything like the covid modelling which was at best 469% wrong at worst over 800% wrong then……. Saying that great video as usual
build like Amsterdam
Build Like Amsterdam 👌
Think like the Dutch 👎
Why is it always that the new material is way better, more available and less expensive but never gets used? Are they really making it seem like it’s just these mean concrete workers and road builders that don’t want to use this magic material that would save the world? Doubt it
B1M sat?
Make a fundraise for Mr Johnatan so he can buy himself a mic.
Where is the resistance? you want to build a road with some magical material whatever that is be my guest! As long as we can drive on it that is all it matters.
What if some of the material used leaches toxic chemicals into surface and ground water and off gasses into the air?
@@terencemckenna9760 There’s always that possibility. There is a price for everything in life.
FYI, the video doesn't actually start until 3 minutes in......
Stop building roads? 🤷
Where is this 6:37 that peoplework topless, in an environment that is usually heavily "policed" for safety purposes? Don't get me wrong, I'm not disgusted or complaining, just pleasantly suprised.
there are also roads made from recycled plastic
great topic I am really interested to learn about the alternative it's just that I can hardly even hear how it's pronounced in the video could you maybe do a more informative presentation on it specifically? Thank you
oh I got it they're secretive about the patent nvm
@@TheBombson You should also take a look at Ferrock - concrete mainly consisting out of sand and iron which actually absorbs CO2. And iron can be much easier made carbon neutral than cement since you "just" need an carbon neutral source of energy - like Hydrogen.
@@je6a478 thanks a lot! I’m really fascinated by innovative materials
@@TheBombson You should also read about bamboo and it's application in construction. Taking the fibers from bamboo and gluing it together gives impressive tensile strength. And I don't know if it has been done before, but technically, you should be able to cross laminate those. Thus, you could create an enhanced version auf CLT.
Also, Bamboo grows much quicker than trees and can grow in a rate of up to 3 feet a day. Thus, using cross laminated bamboo could have a much higher strength, be much more economical than traditional CLT while being carbon negative.
Cool, right? What do you think about that?
You can also tell me about promising materials you've discovered, I'm also curious about that.