Это видео недоступно.
Сожалеем об этом.
Designing Suburbs for Better Transit
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 май 2021
- Enjoy this first episode of a new series of videos where we'll discuss how to better design our suburbs!
As always, leave a comment down below if you have ideas for our future videos. Like, subscribe, and hit the bell icon so you won't miss my next video!
=ATTRIBUTION=
Epidemic Sound (Affiliate Link): www.epidemicsound.com/referra...
Nexa from Fontfabric.com
=PATREON & RUclips MEMBERSHIPS=
If you'd like to help me make more videos & get exclusive behind the scenes access and early video releases, consider supporting my Patreon or right here on RUclips! Every dollar goes towards helping my channel grow & reach more people.
Patreon: / rmtransit
RUclips Memberships: / @rmtransit
=COMMUNITY DISCORD SERVER=
Discord Server: / discord
(Not officially affiliated with the channel)
=MY SOCIAL MEDIA=
Twitter: / rm_transit
Instagram: / rm_transit
Website: reecemartin.ca
Substack: reecemartin.substack.com
=ABOUT ME=
Hi, my name's Reece. I'm a passionate Creator, Transportation Planner, and Software Developer, interested in rapid transportation all around my home base of Toronto, Canada, as well as the whole world!
![Jordan Adetunji - KEHLANI REMIX (feat. Kehlani) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EeJ8n5PxFGE/mqdefault.jpg)
My god yes to cycle lanes. Bikes are in the weird position where they're just as vulnerable to cars as a pedestrian, but in tern too fast to really share the same space as pedestrians comfortably.
It's really dumb that people think they slow traffic down. During the first wave of coronavirus in the UK they started putting in these temporary cycle lanes around London and other cities, but theres loads of people who keep banging on about how they increase traffic, make it slower for everyone, blah blah blah. People just don't seem to understand that more people on bikes means that the people who need to drive will be able to get there faster
@@pingu255 you can tell people this till you're blue in the face but they'll never let up on their selfish stance.
@@pingu255 I guess more people from the UK need to visit Amsterdam. more people cycling means less busy roads means people will arrive faster at their places but it also depends on distance they have to travel tho.
@@Noam-Bahar exactly. Urban cycling is seen as a "downtown" thing in the US for some reason, even though the suburbs have plenty of space for separated cycle lanes.
Of course, it would help if there were actually some places like shops, cafés or restaurants nearby, so you have a destination to cycle to.
@@pingu255 did u just call my cousin dumb? Im the dumb one in the family so if u gotta problem u can take it up with me. Name Name is a good kid n he doesnt deserve that type of bad talk. He’s one of the smartest members of our family actually.
Cue people that live on culdesacs saying “woah, woah, you can’t put a culdesac on the road I speed through! Then I’ll have to drive like a whole block out of my way every time I go home!”
Having even 1 bus line running through a super block would increase the visibility of buses and I’m sure increase ridership. Putting them into practice with our current winding suburban streets however would be...difficult. For the sake of not making a journey back to the urban center take forever, a bus could likely only serve a few super blocks before it went back to the arterials. It’s definitely doable, but you’re right, running buses over grid streets is so much easier.
The beautiful thing for drivers is they expend virtually no effort to take a detour
I truely think that alot of suburbs might have to be partially torn down and rebuilt to be better accessable via any form of transit or biking. This might happen when resources start getting tight in the future....
@@alanthefisher lol now there’s a popular opinion; if you haven’t made a video about that, you definitely should! Certainly as suburbs age, there will be less and less opposition. The NE passed an “extreme blight” bill last year that allows homeowners to get up to a $5000 tax credit for home improvements if they live there, so Lincoln is about to designate two large areas of the city as such. One of the neighborhoods is old Air Force base house that are essentially double-wides from the 50’s, and the rest is just working class-lower middle class single family homes (and downtown which of course will have developers getting millions in TIF; just a bit more than $5,000). Literally like 10 old people would probably object to significantly restructuring some of the neighborhoods, but go further south in the city and opinions might change a bit lol. 50 years from now, however, it could be a very different story. I think people’s tolerance for hideous 80’s residential architecture may eventually run out lol.
I definitely am going to do some videos on Lincoln’s former streetcar network, and what I would build if I got Stalin’s key to the city someday.
@@TheFourFoot Oh yeah it'll be very *popular* haha, I'm sure the comments will be even better than my newest Armchair video too
I think there’s some value in putting a small plaza/park/square next to a significant transit station, like a metro or regional rail station. It provides a pleasant first impression to people arriving and is a convenient place to meet up with out of neighbourhood friends coming to visit. Or in neighbourhood friends if you’re setting out to another part of the city.
For sure, but a big park with sports fields is a big no-no in my books!
I agree. Many train stations across the world, especially in Japan, are surrounded with stores, department stores, and shopping districts. It would help both the businesses and the train stations.
@@coastaku1954 Yes but if you have been to Central Park in New York, you would not want to walk across it to get to your transit stop. This is especially important because many people have mobility issues. I agree that small parks are a nice addition to have near a transit stop.
Next to is fine, surrounding is another thing. I think having a station at the end of a park or gardens is good and many European central stations were built in such locations in the 19th century.
Add cafe
One thing that I see neglected too often in urban planning is space for delivery vehicles. Despite the fact that we live in a world where more and more people shop online, cities are becoming less and less friendly to the very delivery vehicles that make it possible for all those online purchases to make it to their destinations. This becomes especially important when you consider essential services like medical deliveries or food deliveries for people with mobility issues, especially given the fact that a lot of countries have aging populations. I know this isn't public transit in particular, but if you're talking about designing urban spaces, I do feel delivery vehicles warrant some mention if you want to talk about a fully-functioning neighbourhood.
In the Netherlands, you often see delivery drivers with electric cargo bikes (e-bakfietsen). Obviously doesn't work for huge bulk items, but cargo bikes can fit a lot of stuff and they can move around like bikes. Also, they're very cheap to purchase and operate, and don't even require a license. But they are completely compatible with walkable and bike able cities, and they don't cause air and noise pollution.
We can make space for delivery vehicles by taking the space from street parking for cars
a friend once asked me how wide I thought a sidewalk should be,
for residential type areas I said "wide enough for a couple to walk hand in hand" or a city "wide enough for two couple to walk hand in hand past one another"
*Love* it!
It's honestly amazing how many of the problems with North American suburbs come from 20th century urban planners refusing to let the free market decide what should be built where and at what density, despite how much their politicians claim to adore capitalism. For example, the thing about density needing to be highest near transit stops and major roads is just what happens naturally almost everywhere else on the planet.
Even gridded street patterns are more likely to happen in a free market environment than in NA cities. Not the most likely to happen, as proven by nearly every medieval city centre ever, but still more likely than in an environment as heavily regulated as North America.
That’s what bugs me when market fundamentalists act like single family detached homes are as popular as they are because of the “free market.” It’s illegal to build anything else in over 60% of the land area in my 360 sq. mi. (932 sq. km) city. The US needs Missing Middle Housing and an end to the strict separation of zoning uses.
They would still be the dominant housing type, but their competition is intentionally suppressed.
To be fair, we should also keep in mind historical context.
This frankly awful style of Urban Development didn't really occur until after World War II, during a time of great economic success, and a lot of these growth patterns were chosen to suit the increasingly consumerist culture of the United States. Cars became a fairly common occurrence, so development patterns started revolving around them. People add more money to buy large single-family homes, so they built them, etc. This style of development was sustainable under the economic growth we were experiencing, but the economic growth was only temporary as it was basically because we were the only country on the planet whose manufacturing wasn't bombed into dust by World War II, so it was short-term. Now that the post-war economic success has gone, this infrastructure is inherently unstainable because people simply don't have that much money anymore, but rather than change it, lobbyists have instead tried to enforce it because it is more profitable for the companies that produce things like cars or buy real estate.
It's not so much that we didn't let the free-market decide, but that we did let the free-market decide, it made a terrible short-term decision, but that short-term decision was very profitable and so companies use the money gained from the free-market to regulate the market in their favor. This type of behavior is the natural result of the free-market, and the politicians know it. The free market doesn't necessarily decide what the most logistically efficient method is, but the most logistically profitable method is, and while those things do sometimes lineup, this is not always the case, as seen by Urban Development.
@@pennyforyourthots sorry, but no. American suburbs were not a product of the free market. It was a product of planners zoning huge swathes of land solely for detached single family homes with big lot sizes and the FHA subsidizing car-centric neigbourhoods. If it really was just a product of the free market, they wouldn't be the only type of housing available in most of North America, because get this: not everyone wants to live in a suburban hellscape.
If you want to see what a city guided by the free market really looks like, then have a look at Latin American cities, who also weren't destroyed during the war; of course there are American-style auto-centric suburbs, but they're not the only housing option available, or even the most popular, because it wasn't the only thing people were allowed to build. Even Aussie cities were allowed to grow in a more laissez faire manner than US or Canadian cities, even if it still guided by car-centric policies.
@@coastaku1954 oh my, are you sure that houses that were made artificially cheap are increasing in price after their competition was legalised again?
Also, in the rest of the world we call those weird, alien vertical dwellings "houses". In't that a weird term for it?
Japan is quite close to free market urban planning and gridded streets aren't common. Also, another major reason why cities build loop streets and cul-de-sac is to dump traffic on provincial/state roads to avoid paying for wider streets. Any private developer would do the same.
Out of all youtubers who talk about urban planning, you sound the most unbiased and knowledgeable.
I like how Australia has combined vehicle centric planning with commuter rail networks.
Also Germany has not given up on public transport despite of good roads.
This video is VERY good! However, I think it could benefit so much from having more pictures and video that help exemplify what you're talking about. That being said, good on you for being able to do such long takes without using filler words!
I live in a suburb on the North York-Scarborough border. God bless the TTC for running a bus line to the nearest subway through my neighborhood where almost everyone drives. Barring peak hours, the bus sometimes carries only 3-4 people through the length of its journey. This has made life for people in the area who don't own a car (like myself) very easy.
Living in the Toronto suburbs doesn't require a car! The buses are great!
Toronto’s transit system is so good that it’s perceived as bad. It’s good enough that people actually use it a lot, but when they depend on it and there is a delay people complain and see it as bad, which wouldn’t happen if people didn’t continue to use it.
Have you seen Not Just Bikes? (He shouted you out, that's where I got in touch with your channel.)
He's a fanboy of The Netherlands, but I think there is still much to improve here. Though I think that the separation of pedestrians, bikes and motor vehicles has been done fairly well here. Let's just say: It works to the level of being not obvious and even comfortable... (If you think we're spoiled; just say so, because I'll probably agree... 😂)
To get specific: What is your take on the idea of "Hoofdnetten" NJB mentioned in his video titled "Invisible Bicycle Infrastructure of the Netherlands"? Do you think it could be a functional policy-tool to design cities (and suburbs) with? And if yes, how should Toronto (or any city for that matter) approach it?
I've been absorbing "Not Just Bikes" too. I think being a little more tactical can help, especially advice on how to spot targets for lower cost interventions. As well as which changes become self reinforcing.
The owner of that channel also Canadian, from London, ON. He lives in The Netherlands now.
it actually works great where I live in Tucson, Arizona we have a system of "bike boulevards, which are traffic calmed streets, but most importantly they use these pedestrian lights called HAWK lights that are button activated but they have "hot buttons" which means that the majority of lights will let you cross as fast as 3 seconds after pushing it, and no longer than 30 seconds which is not very common.
that way, cars have absolutely no reason to use these streets in any way other than local traffic. I prefer these over the dedicated mixed use paths of my city. also, since the lights only last however long it takes for a pedestrian to cross the street, it has negligible effect on traffic flow, so it's capable of being placed way more places than normal pedestrian lights. this approach can be applied in almost every US city and can help cities get more walkable and bikeable to the point where they can start making more significant investments.
I like that you mentioned both bike lanes and parks but you forgot to combine the two points: always route your bike paths through parks and always design parks with bike access. Not only are parks great places to ride, but the park doesn't suffer from having a bike highway running through it and perhaps only stands to gain from increased accessibility by people rolling and cycling. What you don't want is people driving to a park. It's an especially good idea to build long corridor-like parks because they feel quite substantial as you're walking and biking through them but they're still relatively compact.
Some parks in the UK forbid bicycle riding. Others have specific bike paths and separate pedestrian footpaths though people mix them up all the time.
This video (and videos from Not Just Bike) will serve as the baseline in my city design in Cities: Skylline 😁. I live in a car-dependent suburb and my city design tend to have non-grid and car-oriented design. Dealing with traffic is a massive pain point, with huge low density area and concentrated commercial area in my map. I started mixing these areas to make small commercial area available within the neighbourhood (to serve the local community) works a lot better in terms of accessibility and traffic (I have a lot more foot traffic from this layout). This video highlights a few key things to me:
1. The importance of grid design. I used to think grid is just a lazy and ugly design. Implementing transit options along major roads that are of grid design do in fact make it easier for people to navigate (My area's major road are all in grids, North-South and West-East directions).
2. Small parks should be within the local neighbourhood, while major facilities (e.g. community centre) should be next to transit near major roads.
3. High density residential area should be close to major roads, with commercial area close by.
Can't wait to dig up my city and implement these 3 points in CSL !
NJB sucks. He's too angry and hateful and refuses to listen to different opinions.
Another consideration with buses: at lower frequencies (15+ minutes apart), it starts to becomes more and more desirable to time transfers. But it's logistically impossible to time transfers at every grid intersection, so instead you would need a hub every several km. Also in this case, bus lanes and signal priority become extra important, because buses need to make their connections on time, and better punctuality means less schedule padding and everything can run faster.
Absolutely correct, I've had a video on this planned for a while!
Yeah for sure the bus lanes and signal priority don’t just speed things up, they make trips more reliable so transfers are easier. It’s very important to avoid a high variability in travel times.
In that case, would the bus routes be focused on one seat rides to and from those hubs?
@@eriklakeland3857 Is it true that how common stop skipping is at a given place and time affects how important bus lanes and signal priority are?
They should have more bike trails that run beside streets, such as on Leslie north of Highway 7! There is plenty of space in the suburbs to do so. That would make the suburbs more cycle-friendly.
Interesting video. Two thoughts to build off what you shared: First, it might be interesting to talk about how we can RE-design suburbs to be more transit-friendly. We've already build so many sprawling suburbs that before we build more, it might be better to fix what we already have. The second is that "density" doesn't have to mean condo towers. The increased use of "missing middle" housing instead of all single-family homes, especially close to arterial roads, will increase the number of potential transit riders and help retrofit suburbs in a more sustainable way. Anyhow, looking forward to more videos.
Small addition: make side walks Through cule de sacks ( the suburb pattern) so walker or Bicycle could cut short path but accessibility for car is only for residential use.
Add mix use builds.
Before crossing add this super grip paint so CAr can stop.
I think generally slowing down traffic in our supposedly "traffic calm" neighbourhoods is a good start.
Something I noticed about sidewalks in suburbs is how they're designed like sidewalks in cities: directly connected to the road. This would make sense at lower speeds, but some highways are built with a sidewalk taped to the edge with no regard for human life.
I spent my teenage years on a cul-de-sac off a street that was popular in my city as part of a shortcut between a major highway and the municipal airport, and there was one side of the street where there was a sidewalk (the side opposite where my cul-de-sac was). It was never very far from the street, sometimes with enough of a space in between for a tree to grow, other times with maybe two feet from the curb. At one stretch it was separated from the street by about 3-4 feet, but there was no curb- it was at the same elevation as the street! My mother would always urge my sister and me to stay on the edge of the sidewalk away from the street and towards the patch of forest hiding a creek and Interstate overpass because at any time a southbound Ford F-250 could just barrel through ignoring the 30 mph speed limit, as cars often do on that street.
Even in spite of all this I have very fond memories of walking down this sidewalk with my family to experience the canopy of trees and occasional hanging fruits that pass for “nature” on a fifty/sixty year-old suburban development bound on one side by an Interstate spur. The trees were too dense to see the concrete supports, but if one looked through them he could find a creek that had been engineered to carry sewage waste from the local households and the local university. At least they kept some small rapids and falls with the rock formations, which gave it some semblance to its former natural self.
Love the focus in this new series. Keep them coming!
Happy to hear!
Hi Reece, great video. One thing I disagree with you on is that it is desirable to concentrate density on car-prioritized roads/arterials. These are highly unlivable roads and will never be not so. Better to build suburbs with arterials that do that job well (minimal access and no reason for pedestrians to use them) and have more livable streets in the centre of concession blocks that can support transit. The most car-oriented housing/uses should be on the periphery acting as a buffer to the arterials. Check out Houten in the NL for how to build a greenfield suburb right. The transit is at the centre.
Yes, you still need to concentrate density around the transit corridors, but those corridors don't need to be arterial roads for cars as well.
I wouldn't say my suggestion is that arterials need be car prioritized, just that they need to provide substantial room for multiple modes and high capacities!
@@RMTransit I think a 'complete street' for multiple modes is considered ideal in English speaking countries. But in Europe, planners seem to prefer 'unbundling' all the modes if possible.
@@RMTransit Doddibot is right. The European “unbundling” approach is safer and better for walking and cycling. Ironically, they’re often better for drivers too
Arterial don't necessarily have to allow cars at all, for example a train line functions as an arterial, and a train station is a great place to increase density nearby.
Thanks for sharing this Reece! This is a subject that's been preoccupying my mind for a while now and there's a lot to be said for developping suburbs in a way that is amenable to Transit, looking forward to hearing more of your thoughts on this!
Thanks!
Grids of arterial roads could create large rectangles, within which there could be the winding streets and short cul-de-sacs. If the size of these rectangles was such that a walk to the nearest arterial road and public transit was less than 10 minutes, that would be a good walkable neighborhood.
I absolutely agree
We have quite a few transit-suburbs here in Stockholm, Sweden. They were designed mostly in the post-war years and the thinking was often that pedestrians should not have to interact with car traffic. They are often maligned by urbanists but I quite like the abscense of cars. The distribution of commercial outside the central areas (often times surrounding a transit station) is something that could be improved in many areas however. Of course we also have more "modern" sprawl with carpets of single family homes in some outer areas that I would not consider transit friendly, but from a North American perspective they still get a substantial amount of transit.
Designing “modern CANZUS Suburbs” for better transit. It’s not the sexiest title, but it’s more specific to the “suburbs” you’re referring to; a particular type of urban design that emerged relatively recently, not as dominant outside of the couple of countries, and not limited to suburban areas. Suburbs (and cities) are diverse, and come in all sorts of forms, so it’s important to be specific and focus on design, and not get stuck in “city vs suburb” or “high-rise vs single family house” debates.
In addition to the points you made one important factor is that roads need to be designed according to a specific function. It's fine to have a fast road that connects to the nearby highway, but that road should not have many functions or intersections along it and have segregated ped/bike infrastructure. In some cases those roads should definitely have sound barriers and grade-seperated bike and pedestrian facilities.It's fine to have suburban businesses clustered together but they shouldn't be drowned in a sea of parking (consolidate parking instead) and should be accessed through side streets rather than the main road. Similarly, a local shopping street that is lined with local businesses (often located near a transit station) should prioritise shopping, peds/bikes and local traffic and not motor through traffic. All this is for safer and more efficient flow of traffic.
Agree!
So basically no stroads..
@@coastaku1954 I will explain it the best I can.
A stroad is a passageway for vehicles that tries to be both a neighborhood STREET (access to houses/businesses) and a road (aka highway). A highway/road is intended to move vehicles quickly W/O pedestrians and cyclists in the way. Its easier to understand when u have personally experienced walking along a stroad to see how much of a nuisance it is . Ashley Phosphate Road in North Charleston is the PERFECT example of this. Its near my Grandmothers house and its abysmal from the point of view of a pedestrian. Its also tends to be clogged w/ traffic. They expanded it from 2 lanes to 6 which solved nothing.
@@coastaku1954
Its like when ur boss gives u 2 projects to complete and wen ur done both projects are horrible.
@@coastaku1954
Correcting infrastructure mistakes is costly there is no lie in that. It would be up to the city planners to decide whether to change a stroad in to a road, street or to divide a stroad into a road and street that function next to each other (separated by fencing, trees or the like) as he showed in the video. I broke up my comment btw so it wldnt feel like an essay.
In the Chicago area, we have a handful of suburbs that are served by at least one rapid transit line. Two of these suburbs, Evanston and Oak Park are doing a good job of facilitating transit-oriented development by allowing higher-density housing, much of which is mixed-use with first floor retail and commercial space, near transit stations. These areas also have the benefit of being pedestrian-friendly.
I agree with the Paul Mees concept of having a network effect in your system. Have feeder bus systems that are reliable and punctual that connect with other bus routes and most importantly train stations. As suburbs are largely dispersed, it is usually the bus that can retrofit this density issue. As an Australian, I am strongly against the suburbs in general. Medium density is the answer baby.
Vancouver uses smaller community buses to serve some suburbs. They have a shorter turning circle and even turns around using a cul-de-sac for one route.
Great video. The late Paul Mees discusses a lot of these concepts in his book Transport for Suburbia, where the primary comparison is Melbourne vs. Toronto (and where the latter shows much higher ridership, even in suburban areas!)
I'd say a grid but with different shapes would be good. Kinda like San Francisco but more and smaller scale
I just realized that the suburbs north of Vancouver seem to have implemented most of these tips already.
Considering the city/district was mostly developed throughout the 60’s, I don’t think we have much of an excuse.
I needed this video!!
I've always strongly believed that loops and cul de sacs can be used for good. If there is a grid of arterial roads outside the local road network of neighbourhoods, you can use loops and cul de sacs combined with varied permeability, making the suburb less of a maze for pedestrians and cyclists than for cars as paths connect the former two modes to transit and other destinations.
Now I’m thinking of those strange “fused grid” maps on Wikipedia, though with less angular residential street spurs.
3:11 that's how most of the old suburbs built in the 1960s are in my home town are. But instead of walkways they have a tiny park between the roads. Even within the suburbs it's much easier to cross it by walking than by car because all the roads within have no exit and you're forced to go to the 4 arterial roads around it
High quality cycling lanes is something that is painfully easy to create but doesn’t get built for whatever reason. Especially seeing at how much space is used around arterial roads around neighbourhoods.
Sadly the hard to navigate nature actually built-in on purpose. It's considered a feature to keep nonresidents out.. It's a passive aggressive step below an actual gated community..
What’s the problem with keeping people out that don’t live in your neighborhood? I can totally understand this point, you want your privacy and want to avoid through traffic.
@@Chrischi4598 It’s because the only people that know how to navigate it are residents that have to use cars because there will be basically no walking paths between the streets
@@peskypigeonx Yeah where I live, there's a lot of paths to get to the main road so I always thought that was normal
@@Chrischi4598 ......your privacy and want to avoid through traffic and through pedestrians?
@@Chrischi4598 mostly to avoid excess traffic passing through, creating noise and more danger around kids
I love the discussion on this channel. Although, I find myself wishing you had more complimentary graphics to look at -- I think it would help illustrate your points. I know they're work intensive, but it would help a lot.
I’m glad you’re gonna be making more of these. I doubt we’re going to be shedding suburbs anytime soon, so we might as well build them better.
I personally think suburbs aren't a inherently bad concept its the way were doing them they could be so much better than they are
@@Lumberjack_kinglate 19th/early 20th century streetcar suburbs were great. Allowed people to move out of the city center and still be able to commute to work and opened up area outside the center for middle-class housing, though not as sprawled as post-WWII America (and even 1920s LA in some parts).
I think this is one of your best videos so far. What would make it even better is if you were able to illustrate what you are talking about with some diagrams or animations, or even using something like Cities Skylines to make your point. Or just photos/video clips or Google maps captures showing examples of good/bad design
Another great video! The one issue with high density near arterial streets, which is good, is how to reduce street noise in the high density areas both inside the buildings and outside as well. Can you make a video about that? Thanks! 😃
Thanks for covering this. More relevant the higher gasoline prices go. One question- Any ideas how to get more direct bike/walk routes from homes to arterials in existing subdivisions? Like ways to secure rights-of-way?
I have a crazy idea for that (to answer my own question).
Allow significant upzoning of all nearby lots, contingent upon ROW being secured. Local (county) government could facilitate voluntary Transfer of Development Rights from owners of a few strategically located lots (on potential ROW) who are willing to sell their development rights to many lot owners wanting to build big nearby. Sellers' homes would be demolished and land used as ROW. Buyers would demolish their own homes and build a much bigger multifamily building(s) with limited parking (due to the less car dependent neighborhood).
I guess the subdivision would have to vote to allow their current zoning/ deed restrictions to change in this way. Not sure how those laws work.
Value of increased development density on many lots could potentially make this arrangement profitable for all who participate.
Great topic!
Love this channel
Two questions: 1. How do we deal with the stroads that already exist in suburbs? Increase density and infill in those big box parking lots? What do you think? 2. Sure, moving people more efficiently along their commute is a good goal, but can we reduce the needed commuting in the first place? Rezoning some small suburban streets for light commercial, small mixed-use buildings, etc. Essentially incentivizing small high streets, neighborhood markets, and the like. I don't know what it looks like exactly...thoughts?
Def a topic for a future video!
Pretty great video, though I'm not so sure about putting density right on top of arterial roads, since then you would be creating stroads.That means a lot of people would have their building frontdoors facing at not such a pedestrian friendly environment. Putting density near artierial roads (for example, on perpendicular local streets) makes more sense imo
I'm not entirely sure what you mean (might be a language thing, I'm from the Netherlands) but I do agree that stroads suck. That being said, i think the main reason stroads are called stroads is because they are not quite roads (meant for the efficient flow of traffic) and not quite streets (destinations, not meant for thorough traffic). They try to be both, with a large amount of wide lanes that accommodate high speeds, and large amounts of driveways into local businesses, and in doing so, they actually fail to be either.
What would be better is to have a road (meant for efficient flow of traffic, so no driveways or on street parking), potentially with some parallel streets that do have driveways and on street parking (but as little as possible). Don't try to let a road also do the job of a street. It doesn't work.
There's a few places in Melbourne with small parks near transit. It can be a little dangerous at night (this would require quite a bit of housing re-design to fix unfortunately), but it can make walking home much nicer during the day.
Suburbs could be so much better make it walkable allow mixed use. Development and other types of housing instead of making it illegal and only allowing single family homes . Also eliminate car dependence and large wasteful parking lots by having efficient Public transit to other suburbs and city centers
I know you don't love BRT, but what do you think of a system that upgrades transit first with BRT, which allows continuous improving service while capturing right of way and establishing riders while requiring low investment. The system could then upgrade to bi articulated Trolley buses on a pantograph, which allows capacity and comfert growth (more room, less noise), while building station and over head wiring infrastructure. This would allow build out without effecting service, and busses could divert around stations undergoing construction and regular buses can run along side. Once complete the trolley buses can run the route at high frequency, and construction on tracks can begin. Sections with track construction can be detoured around using small on board batteries, while sections with complete track can be used by the buses. Overall this allows continuous high capacity, high comfort, and high frequency service while building a tramway. Obviously no good for one project, but if the transit agency has a long term plan of upgrading high demand bus routes while fostering TOD, then you have constant construction in all 3 feilds keeping costs low while never building or commiting to a single large scale project. There might be 4 BRTs built, of which two are Identified as busy enough for upgrade, and so Trolley buses on a line just upgraded to Tram can be moved over while freeing up buses for new BRTs. This moves the long term operational costs of Buses over many routes, while using the low capital costs and high route flexibility to establish routes rapidly.
this is such a good video
Nice video!!!!!!!!!!
Great video
Anybody who lives in a streetcar suburbs says that they don’t live in the suburbs. They say that they’re from “the city” ; this includes me.
06:00 yeah streetlights especially bright ones distract birds which for obvious reasons is kinda bad so slightly dim yellowish light is used a lot at least where I live
I added this in your new Buffalo video, but I think it makes sense here and that most of your suggestions are included. Durham Region outside of Toronto needs improvement. York Region connects to line 1 in Vaughan, which is expanding to Markham and Richmond Hill along Young steet, along with the rapid Viva BRT system and 3 Go lines. Peel is building light rail, likewise has 3 Go train lines, and rapid bus routes ZUM and MiExpress (which could stand to be amalgamated). Durham, the 3rd neighbor of Toronto, has 1 go line and a single BRT in development (plus go express buses that exist in all locations) along highway 2.
The single go line wouldn't be so bad, but it is mainly on the wrong side of a highway requiring a car or long bus ride to reach. Street cars(or trolley trains) would make this much more usable. Durham already has the most tolled roads in Ontario (Canada maybe?) And is going to almost double in population in 20 years. Since Durham is basically part of Toronto and since your a local influencer I hope you can stir up up some interest and use it as an example of what a suburb can do.
Gta articulated transit are improving like where i live 30 mins north of toronto there are some routes have peak/rush hours have bus served the neighbourhood nearby. now i lived in toronto some routes have peak hours articulate route which sometime serve neighborhood
2:17 100% agree once again.
It takes longer to walk in the suburbs because of these stupid cul de sacs! Could they not at least have connecting paths like we do in the UK?
yeah, I live in a Russian city with a population of 300k+ and you can't imagine how many stops we have like "Strasbourg Park" or "Victory Park" and within a radius of 150 meters from the stop there is a park on one side of the road and on the other two storey houses. Despite the fact that approximately 10,000 people live in the district who are forced to walk 400-500 meters to the bus stop ...
Westchester has done a very good job.
If you haven't already then I highly recommend reading the book /Transport For Suburbia/, by Dr. Paul Mees.
Yes I have!
in melbourne we have busses running in suburban streets
ln the UK there is very few grid roads they started organically
look at Stuttgart area transit and mixed uses mixed density suburbs/villages
Really enjoy your videos. However, maybe you can incorporate more visual elements. Like video or photo which you can narrate. Anyways! Thanks for another interesting video :)
There are no suburbs in Japan. It’s either urban or rural or a mixture of both. Mostly all connected by all forms of transit. It’s functional, beautiful, and convenient.
I wonder if this would work:
On an arterial road, there's a route that uses 60+ foot long, fully low floor buses with 4 doors (say a Mercedes-Benz Citaro G or even a CapaCity), running every 10 minutes, perhaps along with other routes, say, regional routes that use 50 foot long, low entry buses (such as a Setra S416LE) that skip most stops to go even further than the edge of the suburbs, but there are also a number of routes that use buses that are 36 feet long or less (say, a Mercedes-Benz Citaro K or SprinterCity), and these routes go into the suburbs, running every 20-30 minutes at most, as well as in some cases also stopping in areas where there isn't a proper bus stop (something called "hail and ride"). The arterial and intra-suburb routes (and possibly even the regional routes) then connect at another arterial route, a major shopping centre in the area, or a metro/S-Train station, where passengers can change from the intra-suburb buses, to the arterial buses, and perhaps even to regional buses and the metro, and vice-versa
Meh. It sounds like that would make public transit pretty shitty for the suburbanites. They'd only have access to buses with a 30 minute frequency, and transferring would be a nightmare.
Better: just serve the arterial roads and make the neighborhoods walkable and bikeable. Have good bike parking at bus stations. Give the buses stop buttons so the bus only has to stop if someone wants to get on or off.
That, or have buses skip every second stop. So the first bus would serve stops 1, 3, 5 etc and the next would serve 2, 4, 6.
In bangkok thailand they tend to operate very high frequency bus service on main roads often 24/7 basis. But in the suburban areas they use small vans and pick up trucks that run shuttles into the small roads of the suburbs. These tend to by turn up and go flat cash fare services. Thus giving high frequency transit right into small streets but 3 or 4 transfers are needed to get from one area to another. But every 30 second main road bus service frequency waiting time is very low. But there interchanges are very poorly layed out and nothing is marked at stops as to wear to wait. Its often just a wooden seat in front of a shop.
But at peak times the bus service is extremely slow and 5 buses can arrive at once. Ie 2 hours 30 mins for 20km journey with zero bus priority. So it works great off peak and weekends but peak times its terrible.
hong kong mini bus service (mostly with green top and khaki sides with Japanese van rolling stock tho they are transitioning to the china stuff if not wrong) could be a reference for such services
@@EastofVictoriaPark well BKK seems like a village (or Kampong, as known around SE Asia) that grew out from there, building up from there, destroying some old buildings for new ones.
People often make excuses like "if you can afford to live in (insert suburb name here) you can afford a car" or "if you want to take transit, live in the metro area" these excuses are illogical because even if you can afford a car, you might want to be able to afford high quality food or entertainment devices, you might be disabled or you might be too old to drive. Also you might have kids and you are not always able to drive them. I think it is a good idea to make suburbia more walkable and transit friendly because not only there would be more things nearby, but also, you can connect kids, elderly, people who don't want a car or disabled people would be connected to the city.
This is such an important topic. And your ideas are great. Unfortunately; it’s too much talking, not enough visuals. It would be great to re-do with some examples of some examples of suburban retrofits and new suburban communities that are better served by transit.
I really like the ideas in this video. However, I think it would be even better if you provided more visual examples like pictures, diagrams or videos to demonstrate what you mean.
The biggest space issue with modern suburbs are the streets that feel as wide as a freeway. That's so much pavement for so little car traffic. I have no issue with single-family homes. But I think if we were to maximize suburban efficiency, a suburb should be set up like a superblock. Car parking for single family homes should be behind the houses themselves, in smaller alleyways. That way the front of the homes open into pedestrian only green spaces. There can be a path way that emergency, city, and moving vehicles can use. There are some condo-townhome complexes in Toronto that do this. I live in one where all cars are parked under ground and all the homes open to pedestrian paths with some green spaces. It is great because sometimes I let my kid roam around and there is no issue with cars and no ugly sea of pavement. It also increases density while still maintaining single-family units.
This would be good suburb design
Mississauga has entered the chat.
This video has a City Beautiful vibe to it. Looking forward to more of this.
Day 3: Athens metro line 4? Demystified?
I live in a suburb of Ottawa. Behemoth double decker and bendy buses go past the end of my street carrying four or five passengers. They are all going downtown. But I can’t get a bus to the local grocery or big box stores. Because of street design walking to those stores is impossible. So for all the ballyhoo about shopping locally and being more eco friendly the transit system and neighbourhood design simply does not support it.
rmtransit + not just bikes collab? that would be yt gold!
I think one of the "problems" even with higher residential density and grid streets... it's that destinations in suburbs tend to be malls or tech parks. Free parking with ample space in the lots and actually kind of hostile to pedestrians who attempt to enter on foot.
It's not great if your goal is building a strong inter-urban transit network, which I think ought to exist if we want society to be equitable and green and so on.
Even worse, very unpopular to change that status quo as suburban residents don't support anything that makes it harder to park their car.
You basically need to have central business district that hundreds of thousands commute to daily in order to make parking enough of a struggle that transit improves. And suburbs usually don't have that.
Even though Vancouver has some of the best transit in North America, it's an absolute joke whenever you're more than 10km from a skytrain or Rapid Bus line, such as in Langley and Aldergrove. I hope that the Skytrain to langley brings with it greatly improved bus service.
Twisty streets, loops, and cul-de-sacs aren't just in suburbs -- they are quite common within major city limits as well, for the same reasons -- developers finding it profitable to advertise exclusive neighborhoods.
With respect to parks taking up the space around transit stations: Even worse is when parking lots and/or mazes of roads taking up the space around transit stations, so that people are encouraged to drive to the station or even just plain drive rather than walk to the station. Sure, if you need to provide for park-and-ride at a station, do so, but do so in a way that doesn't stomp on the people who live around the station and just want to walk to and from it. Bad offenders around here (Boston area): Alewife on the Red Line (parking garage is not as bad as a parking lot, but then good luck getting across the roads around it); Quincy Adams and Braintree on the Red Line B branch; Riverside on the Green Line D branch; and both ends of the Hingham to Rowe's Wharf ferry (H1) -- the Hingham end has the dock surrounded by a colossal parking lot and is on the other side of the local bay from the nearest major apartment buildings, and the Rowe's Wharf end is separated from the nearest transit station (Aquarium on the Blue Line) by several roads. If only Boston hadn't thrown away the Atlantic Avenue Elevated . . . .
What do you do when you have cycle lanes and people still cycle on the sidewalk.
3:16 taking through streets and blocking them does make it much harder to navigate around
For drivers maybe
@@RMTransit i think a narrowed road at a raised walk/bike path connecting to a path going perpendicular to the main road would be great
Sad that we have gotten to the point where someone as revered as Reese needs to guide planners to do what we did right over 100 years ago. Chicago (outside of the loop but in the city limits), Milwaukee, Cleveland, etc historically did an excellent job of building multi family density near arterials and transit and gradually dedensefying to townhomes, duplexes, and single family homes as you get further from the arterials.
1:14
Yes and no, of course it's okay to want to live in a place that's not a dense urban center, suburbs are not INHERENTLY bad, but the way that many suburbs are build today is completely unsustainable, both from an environmental standpoint and an economic one (go watch not just bikes' string towns series). These are also the hardest to retrofit. Many people would also prefer to take a private jet for any journey over 5 kms, but that doesn't mean that's okay. To be clear, I'm not saying you're a bad person if you live or want to live in a car dependant suburb, for many it's the only option right now, but going forward active steps need to be taken to convert current car dependant suburbs and prevent the development of new ones.
How North American Suburbs are made sort of make them hard to save as is due to the economic problems they have built in. If transit was added and things like set back requirements and large lot minimum were removed I'd imagine you'd be able to salvage them but I feel lots will be abandoned and torn down.
The former areas though could be transformed, after the suburbs removal, into natural space that was formally there.
I'm just here to learn how to improve my suburbs in City Skylines.
1:14 lol sounds like a certain billionaire
This should be an easy thing for cities already with rail service in the suburbs but unfortunately they mostly try to get people to park and ride instead of providing connecting transit or bike lanes.
Netherlands in a nutshell? Lol
I think e-bikes are a big part of the answer here
The absolute best bike infrastructure for a post-WWII North American suburb (admittedly a very low bar) I've seen is Irvine, California. Bicycle lanes on both sides of the road on virtually all major (and medium-sized) roads, as well as 113 miles of off-street bike paths with lots of tunnels and bridges. They even have a 22 mile long, off-road bike path that goes to the beach.
I've noticed you never compare to nor ever mention Japan, the second biggest developed country in the world, with cities/burbs more transit oriented than perhaps any metro area in the world. Why is that the case?
You know a city that is not good for public transit in the suburbs? London, Ontario....
It could be good!
@@RMTransit yeah I know, just saying that as a reference to 'Not Just Bikes'
@@switzerlandch4986 London traumatized NJB and he needs us to know 😂
@@TD-gc5tq Yes lmao
@@switzerlandch4986 AKA fake London lol.
You say people in a suburb "still live in an urban area", but do they really do? But what makes these areas "urban"? An urban area is an area within you can walk because of the infrastructure and the short distances. For me a North American suburb is a village near by the city - and just like a village they have zero infrastructure. For the future they need to develop into towns with their own "market square" and infrastructure for basic daily needs. This market square intentionally only offers stuff you can get "everywhere", just in this case in walking distance servicing this suburb only - so it doesn't attract any traffic from outside.
I live in the worst county in New York for public transit Suffolk county I live close to New York City but have the worst public transportation system in the suburbs
Skrzyzowanie_z_wyniesiona_powierzchnia_02_JPG
Skrzyzowani_wyniesione_01.JPG
Next time try to lock the focus in your camera. You can see that in this video it keeps auto-focusing and it's very distracting to watch.
Also, early on in the video you were using many images and videos to convey your ideas, while later on it was just you talking to the camera. I get that it's more difficult and it takes more time, but the video would be much more enjoyable to watch.
"iconc bessarion" aka memed to shit by transit enthusiats
Ya absolutely do not need a grid in order to allow people to move between more and less dense, or more and less central, areas. Its a completely false dichotomy. I think Copenhagen is a decent example of this. Imagine that as an organic mess, where the streets approximate circles of different sizes, in different places, and some of the traffic veins travel between their centers, or between their peripheries: The trains extend outward from the center of the city, and busses travel around the perimeter of the center, in rings approaching a circle. It works perfectly well. Yes, the road names can't be made systematic and immediately legible for a foreigner and thus it's less "easy", but who the hell cares? Use google maps. I... No. You speak with confidence, but you're wrong.
or you could used smaller bus australia has Banana bus
Double decker
Mine bus
Coochie bus
City bus
Van banana bus
Also, need to zone commercial space in walking distance from suburbs!
That will be a totally different episode!