i like the use of cities: skylines because it illustrates a clear "before and after" of what we could have here in the US. even in a virtual world, the difference is crystal clear
Hahaha if you just start playing cities skylines u will start building American like infra, if u have played it for a while u start building European like. Which is very weird cuz I swear that Europe was build long before America. Looks like we are losing sense instead of gaining
@@michelstoel2921 Still, even Cities Skylines has it's car-centric limitations. The biggest bummer being that you can't create pedestrianised streets since all buildings must be connected to roads - even parks, which makes no sense.
@@GTAVictor9128 ye true ,but u can play with pedestrian paths and cycle paths to make going to the shops faster that way then by car. Add some nice public trans and u basically have a good flowing system
American engineers almost destroyed The Hague and Amsterdam with there plans to put highways everywhere in our cities. Luckily the population demonstrated and the plains were (mostly) stopped. Except for one small part that is now considered the ugliest part in Amsterdam.
Cities like Tokyo and Osaka in Japan were altered by the construction of the tolled expressway systems but to a lesser extent than the interstates and the related 400 series highways.
Cities like Tokyo and Osaka in Japan were altered by the construction of the tolled expressway systems but to a lesser extent than the interstates and the related 400 series highways.
Just imagine... They could have filled up all those Amsterdam canals and construct 6-lane highways right through the city center... And instead of those quaint old merchant's houses, there would be ginormous tower blocks which were not that neccessary since nobody would be living in the city center anymore. It could have been all just highways... Sigh. Ah well, we will have to make do with how Amsterdam turned out to be instead. Everywhere there's pedestrians, cyclists and trams milling about, where there could have been just cars cars cars driving at 50 mph (80 km/h) everywhere, no silly pedestrians in sight because anything but cars would be banned.
induced demand also applies to things like bike lanes and public transit too. But in those cases, that's a good thing. One of the main argument against bike lanes is that currently, almost no one bikes. But if you build it, they will come. Like yeah no one walks or bikes because we created such an unsafe environment for those things. they think seattle or portland have bike lanes because there's a huge biking community when it's actually vice versa. The community emerged due to the city being good for biking
And now they're trying to widen I-35 through the middle of downtown Austin 😡 The city can't even say no to it, because it's host to inter-regional traffic. Not that they would, they're huffing the same exhaust fumes as TXDoT.
Noise pollution is another factor to consider. I live in Cheyenne, Wyoming, where I-80 meets I-25. Any time I step outside, I can always hear the freeway. Even if I drive 45 minutes to a trailhead at the I-80 summit and then hike another 45 minutes into the Sherman Mountains, I can still hear the freeway. Even out here in the west, and in the least densely populated state in the union, it takes hours of driving to reach a publicly accessible place where I can't hear the damn road noise. (To be fair, in the places I have lived back east, the endless forest helps block out much the road noise, compensating for the higher population density.)
highways serve to essentially block people from accessing the city without a car. If you dont have a car, you are stuck in whatever section of the town you live in.
You could have focused more on how USA freeways just dump huge traffic volumes into... streets. If they're not stroads. Not even collectors, let alone proper arterials. Plowing highways through cities instead of going more or less around them to keep quite a city center inside of its radius and building dedicated infra to accomodate it is the biggest flaw of the interstate system
I'm thankful everyday that visionary activists in Raleigh prevented a freeway from plowing N/S through the center of downtown 50 some odd years ago. Even today, the center of the city is free of such a monstrosity.
I was making that observation about the large cities in the Carolinas in general while driving through those states recently. Notice that in all of the large cities in NC and SC (Greenville, Columbia, Charlotte, Raleigh, Durham, etc.) none of the major interstates go through the actual downtowns. You have to get on an auxiliary highway that sort of just ends and then "feeds" you onto the city grid. Like, the closest you have is I-277 in Charlotte. And even in that case, it was built when Uptown Charlotte was smaller than it is today and the skyline expanded towards 277 instead of it cutting through the cityscape, really.
@@tresgriffin8242 about the only city with a sorta downtown interstate is Winston salem with what is now known as Salem parkway (US 421), in which 30 years ago was I-40. They recently did work on Salem parkway 2 years ago and the state could honestly rename it I-640 if they wanted to. Salem parkway still connect to I-40 on both of its ends. Winston salem could get another downtown interstate soon by extending the I-285 number through Winston and into the northern edge of town.
@@tresgriffin8242 it’s really just a renumbered highway. That’s it 🤣🤣🤣🤣. I always knew it was gonna be called 285 but then I see the signs started to pop up overnight. I rather for them to name it 185 or 385 since it acts as more of a spur to Winston from 85.
@@AlexCab_49 good luck haha! Apple will definitely love this. From the company that shoves lightning ports onto their iPhones to having a massive parking garage in their expensive circle HQ building
I really like how the Norwegian capital city of Oslo was able to convert from the former 13 lane counting highway and road network stretching along the city's water front in the downtown area to a new neighborhood where pedestrians, cycling, tram and bus infrastructure are dominating the public space between the opera house and the central station. You can still go there by car, but only one lane per direction is left for car traffic. The former highway was relocated into a tunnel stretching unterneath the port
Sydney, Australia realises this and is being smart. We are putting our highways underground in tunnels, and yes, it's expensive, but one of the reasons is to give back land to the community through the use of parks and recreational centres. We are also investing in public transport, with Sydney Metro and our More Trains More Services (MTMS) scheme.
Personally, I think they should just ditch the highway altogether. The expense of burying an entire highway inside a dense urban area is just not worth the low number of people that would be transported, at least, compared to a true metro for example. Then you have to consider induced demand and maintenance inside a tunnel, which is only going to cost more money as politicians try to expand lanes inside the tunnel. Truly, it's really just moving the problem out of sight, but it's still there.
Undergrounding motorways is somewhat better than surface equivalents, but they still generate masses of extra traffic, which pours out and floods roads where-ever the tunnels exit. The vast sums of money would be better spent on active transport, public transport, and well-located affordable housing.
That's great to hear for over there in Australia. Wonder if they are going to do high-speed rail along the coast connecting the major cities? I'm hoping for ANYTHING good up here in Canada. It's sad to say that our highest population density area of Southern Quebec to Southern Ontario that has upwards of 60% of the Canadian population doesn't even have a quality, maglev high speed rail line. China, Japan, much of Europe is leaving Canada in the dust. :/
@@coolioso808 Yeah that’s unfortunate. We don’t have a high speed rail here in Australia, but they have started planning for one. At the moment it will start off small, with a line connecting Sydney and Newcastle, NSW. Then over the next few decades it will probably expand to Brisbane and Melbourne.
@@Agent44996 Ah, well at least they are planning one over there. I think the best we got over here is Montreal is planning a new metro, so it might be easier to get around within the city, but as far as between major cities, there are some slower passenger rail lines, but nothing special and nothing new planned.
Great video! I'm from Düsseldorf, the city which you've shown at the end of the video, and I cant imagine how the city looked before freeing up the waterfront! There are always so many people and restaurants there, its a great place for having a walk and it's in general one of the major attractions of the city. Imagine how much potential there is for other cities!
Apparently they where planning to fill up the canals in Amsterdam to build highways in their place right. Fortunately, those construction plans where halted due to protests against it. And thank goodness that it was halted! Could you imagine what Amsterdam would be like today if it became a car-centric hellscape? Most of Europe dodged a bullet, but we still have some casualties like Glasgow.
@@GTAVictor9128 A lot of cities in europe had these plans. And parts were bulldozed to build highway style inroads to city centers. But luckely people were far more resistant to having their historical city centers full of buildings hundreds of years old demolished. And rotterdam in the netherlands for example, was very much rebuilt as a car centric city, and is to this day the most car centric city of the netherlands (even though compared to many other european cities it's a biking city too, and compared to us cities its a public transit, bike and pedestrian heaven. But even then many european cities fell or still have fallen prey to the dominance of the car. Paris, Rome, Madrid, Brussels, etc all were car infested messes up until a few years ago, and some still are. While a lot was starting to change before covid, it seems to have dramatically shifted into higher gear in many larger european cities. Paris removed the waterfront highway they had next to the seine, but now with covid they really shifted into high gear in building biking infrastructure. Brussels pedestrianised one of its main avenues a few years back, but is still a car infested nightmare for the most part, and biking is a serious health risk to this day there. And there's so many more examples. Even copenhagen, that's often touted as an example of biking infrastructure, really isn't THAT great with many flaws in it's cycling infrastructure and cars still pretty much everywhere. Really the only truly extremely bike and pedestrian friendly cities are found in the Netherlands, and to a lesser degree in Flanders, Belgium. I live there and even here in Flanders was biking to school from 6-7y old with my brother and friends for almost every day up until i finished university. And now as an adult at 40, i still continue to bike on a daily basis. I don't even own a car and never have. But besides that, even in europe the car is omnipresent, and biking and pedestrians are an afterthought, with the only exceptions often being some pedestrianised areas. What IS very different to us cities however, is the extensive public transit networks that exist in almost all european cities, and the dominance of mixed use, medium density buildings everywhere, that create a vibrant, lively "city center feel". In the USA it's not just interstates ploughing through cities that ruin them, it's also the lack of any decent public transit, and the almost complete absence of "missing middle" building zones and districts. The strict divide between downtown high density developments, and the near omnipresence of single family homes outside of that, and the complete absence of middle density row houses, low rise appartments, semi-detached buildings, etc is just as much responsible for creating unpleasant, not so nice cities to be in in the usa than those highways are. The "not just bikes" channel is a great channel that explains many of these well known urban planning concepts (and mistakes) in very easy to understand chunks. I highly recommend it, even though he loves dissing us Belgians like a true Dutchman. :) ruclips.net/video/CCOdQsZa15o/видео.html
I lived in Düsseldorf 1967-69, I spent the summer of 1979 and 1980 there, never had to drive anywhere, I rode the Straßenbahn every where I also lived in Ilvesheim 1971-73, I have been to Köln, Frankfurt, München, Heidelberg, Mannheim and several others. German cities make American cities look like crap.
I feel highways are good as long as it’s not the only form of transit to take. Look and Western Europe, specifically the Netherlands, they have absolutely massive highways but also comprehensive high speed rail and bike routes. Also, highways should be for getting between cities or around cities, not through.
depends on every city and how it grew. I'm entirely okay with highways going through cities as long as it's done in some sort of good way. Just look at highway E18 cutting through Oslo. While it dominated the water front in the downtown area until some decades ago, it now goes through the city in a tunnel underneath the port. It also works with the ring highway in Berlin, being a major arterial road carrying lots of traffic which otherwise would be on the normal city streets; In Stockholm a highway goes north to south through the city but sneaks around the historic city center in a greater distance. Sometimes, a highway going around the city takes up way more space, is longer and thus obviously also more expensive, good example for that one would be the highway ring around the Bavarian capital city of Munich
Eisenhower didn't want interstates to go through cities - he wanted them to go around cities, as the German autobahns do. But there would be no funding available for mass transit, and big-city congressmen wanted a piece of the action by getting highways built in their cities. I-280 in New Jersey ruined old cities and rural areas alike in Essex County, NJ, and there was a better route for it around Essex County, but Essex County politicians wanted a public works project there. The biggest insult to Ike was that I-290 in Chicago - which destroyed the West Side - is named for him. Eisenhower went on record as saying that a subway would be better for Washington, DC instead of a highway. A subway did open in Washington, but not in Eisenhower's lifetime.
It was not done that way in Lexington KY and it’s one of the nicest big cities in the country, Pittsburgh does not have an interstate running through it but only spurs from the turnpike and I-79. Cincinnati sucks because of how I-75 & I-71 were put in, Columbus is no better and Dayton has I-75 going through it but I-70 is to the north.
You forget the underlying reason for the interstate system, the Military, and the movement of intercontinental missiles from coast to coast. That is why the original laydown of the interstate was reinforced concrete over thick impacted crushed rock and a minimum required height of overpasses and as straight runs as possible and restricted radiuses of curves in the interstate. The width on the straight runs was so designed for the landing and take-off of aircraft if ever needed. The medians on both sides of the roads were not just for disabled vehicles to park, they increased the useable width if needed. It was the U.S ARMY Corp of Engineers that designed the interstates in the first place.
Ike was the Supreme Commader for D-Day and on. The took Hitler's Autobahn and created the original interstate highway system with the ostensible purpose of being able to move military assets. Then the oil and car companies as well as all the industries (e.g. tire/rubber etc.), real estate speculators, 'developers' etc. started dismantaling light rail (LA, et. al.) and pushed local, state, and federal policy makers into adding more and more and more massive 'expressways' in, around, and thru most cities. Suburbia - a.ka. the Geography of Nowhere - was born. As James Howard Kunster so eloquently stated ' the largest mis-allocation of resources in human history'. Go back to sleep America, sportball is on teevee 24/7.
The irony of it is, highways are terrible for moving miliary assets. Imagine racking up miles on your brand new fleet of inefficient convoy vehicles and tanks on the highway to bolster defences on any given border. Your machines are already toast by the time they get there. A reliable network of fast and high throughput railroads across the country would offset the odometer miles to stupendously efficient, low rolling resistance trains. It's such a fundamentally incorrect judgement call that was made based on a stupid excuse that would never have made sense to anyone with a proper understanding of surface transportation logistics even back then. Truly wild.
Hitler's generals hated the autobahn and see no use to them. Thats why much of the third reich autobahn survives to the present as these were only used as emergency airfields. You could see the infrastructure way high up on the air, a rather easy targets. They prefer rails as their war materials, especially tank units, hates mileage counts as their brittle drivetrain cant survive long drives on the highway.
Hitler never intended the Autobahn to be used for military purposes because of how open and vulnerable it would be for military vehicles to get bombed or strafed from the air. The German Autobahn was built for the civilian trucking business and car enthusiasts; which America copied in the 1950s/60s. However, we took our obsession with the car a little too far at this point.
The city skylines example was brilliant because I can directly visualize how much a city would benefit from public transportation in replacement of an absolute eyesore of massive concrete highways
I know right. This is stuff that my family thought we were the only ones thinking about this stuff. Do you have any other channels in mind with original ideas / discussions like this?
Our planet is fine, it's a rock in space. What goes on down on its surface is of no concern to it. It doesn't matter to the planet, it matters to every single life form that inhabits it.
I visited California from Europe,and every little town looks the same when travelling on the interstate i.e. off ramp,main, street burger and fast food joints,on ramp. no little stores,no fresh fruit and veg to be found anywhere,no sidewalks,no people walking and chatting. Where is everybody ?
It was almost always poor and black neighborhoods that got bulldozed. Almost always. They also have been used to deliberately isolate rich suburbs from poor suburbs, and push commerce into massive high cost centralised locations.
Who knew that building and maintaining a street with huge surface area would have cost more than a compact metro system that can carry more than an order of magnitude more people !?
@@edwardmiessner6502 unsafe drivers are bred by car dependency. When streets are designed to highway code, people will drive on them like on a highway. When everybody drives a car, the ones least capable of competently controlling heavy machinery are given level playing field with the most competent. Punishing bad drivers makes no difference without properly designing the living environment for people and not cars, and providing alternatives to driving. Society needs car independence now.
If it's comedy, it's funny 'cause it's true. Interstates _are_ considerably safer than the 2-lane highways they replaced or bypassed. They eliminate "points of conflict" like pedestrian/bike crossings, at-grade intersections, railroad crossings, driveways, and business entrances. Having the directions of travel segregated means far fewer head-on collisions, and having traffic enter and leave via higher-speed ramps (comparable to prevailing speeds on the main roadway) instead of slow-speed right-angle turns reduces collision frequency and severity. It may seem contradictory, but despite the higher speeds, wider roadways, and greater traffic volumes, interstates fare better in terms of collisions/fatalities on a per-capita/"vehicle miles driven" basis.
@@Zalis116 the interstate highway system is a small part of the picture compared to the countless networks of state highways and roads. And though limited access highways eliminate conflict points, that's an insignificant amount of conflict points. There are still hundreds of highways and roads with thousands of conflict points, driveways and intersections, for any given limited access highway. Even still, driving on an interstate is full of dangers. Your average interstate is constantly littered with fenders, tire shreds, shattered glass, and collision-borne traffic congestion. Do I think either form of car dependent infrastructure is uniquely better or worse than any other? No. They're all bad despite their intended qualities.
@@mrmaniac3 I certainly wouldn't claim the Interstates are perfect, but they comprise a very small percentage of the total road mileage in the US, carry a disproportionate percentage of total road traffic, yet still have lower accident and fatality rates than other types of roads. They have, in the aggregate, saved lives and money. Would things be better if we weren't so car-dependent? Sure, but I wonder if the anti-interstate crowd would be fine with having long-haul 18-wheelers drive down their historic cobblestone small-town Main Streets.
0:00 Note on the left hand side is Fullerton Park-N-Ride. It used to have lots of RTD (now Metro) and OCTD (now OCBus) buses. At one time it had lots of express buses to Los Angeles, Riverside, Long Beach, San Juan Capistrano, and Santa Ana. Most of that is gone. I am not particularly sad about it. Metrolink replaced a lot of those services.
Living in Wisconsin I will never get over what Scott Walker cost us with HSR. Would have been so great. And now this interchange will cost us a chance to make a Brewers entertainment district. Which after the Bucks entertainment district has gone so well you would think would have a better chance
I think it came down to big oil. There were American cities with fantastic rail networks but they were bought out and converted to bus routes. Big oil makes money from bus routes, not rail routes.
And this is one of the many reasons why I'm currently studying to become a Landscape Architect so I can (hopefully) work on projects to remove these ugly things.
In my country i am seeing this problem of highways. There is a NH 50 highway which cuts through every town, every day to we get up with the traffic of highway and town at same time. But it's also made by us too we people started building house, school, hospital on the sides of highway and we build a new town on other side of highway it's like we divided the town in half and also the community .
every time I've driven in a freeway, ive aged atleast 5 years. they are absolutely terrifying. also San Pedro is beautiful. all my cities in csl are just Toronto-lite lol
Most major and many minor cities do have them, including (but not limited to) Indianapolis, St. Louis, Nashville, Kansas City, Dallas, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Portland, Denver, and Chicago. But if you look at them on a map, you'll see that they also have the "mainline" highway routes cutting directly through the city centers. These mainlines were billed as necessary to move freight into and out of cities, and to allow Certain People to move into further-out suburbs and commute to city-center jobs, which enabled them to avoid living near Certain Other People. Planners also deliberately used in-city highway construction as a means of "urban renewal" to bulldoze and clear out undesirable or blighted neighborhoods, and as the video attests, there was a pretty clear pattern of who lived in those places. And as more of the development and tax base moved into the suburbs, more sprawl developed around those bypasses and ring roads, to the point where if you're on a long-distance trip and need to cross a major metropolitan area, it's often faster to take the interstates that go straight through the city, instead of the bypass -- you can expect both routes to be equally congested, but the mainline travel distance is shorter.
The tolled expressway system in Japan was modeled on the Interstate system in the United States, with all of Tokyo being crisscrossed by tolled expressways. They have lower traffic due to the tolls.
Everybody keeps saying that Japan is the greatest thing to be ever invented after the cellphone, so why doesn't the world hire Japanese engineers and city planners?
There is a reason why American roads are like that - Insurances. More cars on the road more money insurance will make. So insurance companies make sure do to everything in their power to put more cars on the road and make it illegal to not have insurance.
Madrid, Spain, where I am from, had the main urban freeway, the M30, cutting the city in half through the river, until they decided to bury it under the ground. Now the space is a huge park that is always crowded with people walking, running, cycling etc
@@Phillowownz I was very impressed by your production quality and loved your cities skylines example! I've subbed and wish good luck to your channel from here, the anti-car dependency movement is only gaining traction so your channel is in the growth zone. (Which is probably how it got recommended to me)
We can all thank the Koch Brothers for letting all this happen decades ago (sarcastically speaking). America could've had the best transit system in the world. We could've had more well paying jobs. We could've been the best of everything. Public transit is often underfunded, even as of 2022, making overall operations inefficient. No wonder other countries are beating us at everything, and that's just sad.
6:43 It always saddens me when waterside land is used up for roads like in the 1990 picture. City access to water should never be covered up like this, it should either be used for beaches/parks, pier style commercial, cargo or under limited circumstances, housing. (I list housing last because housing land tends to be private property, but water side land like this should in my opinion be reachable and usable by the public. (Yes, some access might need to be limited if the area is used for cargo because of safety or security, but even in those areas it could still be kept rather open.)
From someone that lives in one of the worst cities regarding traffic in the world : if there's anything worse than having too many highways, that is to have very few.
yup, Interstate 4 (pictured at 2:38) did exactly that, with Parramore (to the left of I4) being the predominately black neighborhood. and this community is still struggling today.
Its so disappointing to me that sidewalks and pedestrian infastrucure for $100,000 will get denied because it's too costly but then we'll turn around and spend 1.4 billion adding a lane or two onto the freeway
I partially disagree with this video. I agree that the freeways that gutted and divided major cities was a mistake, but I do believe they should have been built underground, sunken, or surrounded by landscapes to minimize the impacts especially on the outer portions of the metro area. They are also a better alternative to stroads/collectors/arterials. Not building freeways or even expanding especially with a second hand transit system with cause arterials especially to gain more traffic. Transit cannot fully replace car travel. Not to mention, we should not let cars travel only below 55 mph. Let us expand the interstate highway system more as well as building more Maglevs
They have the Hukou system which stops migration. No such thing as urban flight there because uppity types have an awful habit of getting sent to reeducation centers. If having a glorious mass transit system requires surrendering your freedom to say “I’m moving”, you are a very evil person.
You have to drive to the train, take the train, then pay for a taxi to get where you have to go. There are many situations where its impractical. Chicken nuggets are disgusting but I havent seen many people eating them while driving 😂
Had to look it up , of course.. one Charles Erwin Wilson , former CEO of General Motors ! 😅😂...🤔...🥺. Of course US politics and business never bite each other... 3 generations Bush : Harriman Brothers banking and Zapata Petroleum Corp. Dick Cheney : Halliburton. Donald Trumpf.. Other businessmen/presidents were Warren Harding, Edgar Hoover, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter.. They were of course good for their former business partners in particular. Remarkable : of these 6, the only president under who the economy did well, was Truman, who was unsuccessful in business..
Not because it’s expensive but because scum politicians waste the funds. The transit is also second hand. It gives people the false idea that transit is a joke
On aerial shots on highway infrastructure I've taken to mentally replacing the roads with mountain ranges. Doing this it has become a lot easier to understand the destructive effect that metro interchanges have on communities.
2:38 so I live here. Everyone here HATES I4. There's constant traffic, constant construction, and has literally been dubbed the most dangerous highway in the entire United States SEVERAL TIMES. I try to avoid it as much as possible. Also, to the west of I4 is a large, low-income, high-crime community, whereas the east contains wealthy inner city/suburbia communities. I4 is literally a wall that separates the rich from the poor.
@@GenericUrbanism lol WELLLL I'm not gonna tell you specifics for safety reasons, but northern Orlando. At one point you zoomed in onto my neighborhood/my part of town. It was just neat to see lol
Oh I'm aware, and I used to live in Titusville and did rideshare in the Orlando area on the side. I almost collided with a disabled vehicle in the middle of the lane on I4.....at night with low visibility.
Same problem here in Bergen, Norway. For some reason the north-south highway cuts through a residential area at the outskirts of the city, turning what could've been a plaza for people into a four-way intersection with many lanes and lots of congestion, noise, pollution, and pedestrian underpasses that are uncomfortable for a lot of people to go through, especially at night. The politicians want to put a concrete 'lid' over the streets, but this is of course met with opposition from the usual suspects who would of course rather see the money spent on even more roads and highways.
Your solution in Cities Skylines seems to have a major issue in the lack of mobility of freight. Cities rely on massive amounts of freight and goods to survive. That was one of the main goals of the interstate system, to move more goods in a more speedy and efficient manner. It has become more about passenger movement than goods movement and that is one of the main issues with the interstate system today. People tent to take the interstate to move around town, while surface streets remain relatively unused. Public transport is definitely a much needed solution, but not at the cost of limiting movement of goods.
there can be solutions for the freight issue. The following example would have all the potential for a great solution, but in the end it isn't: I live just outside my state's capital city. My village is connected to the city with 2 highways and a mixed use rail line; Half of the village is occupied by commercial / industrial space with several postal and logistics companies have distribution centers and several large supermarket chains have storage and distribution facilities as well. That commercial area is right next to both the highway and rail line. It would be the perfect opportunity to get all the ingoing freight to the commercial area by train, unfortunately it's not like that in reality and all the ingoing freight comes with trucks; All the freight going into the city, postal vans and distribution trucks from the supermarkets start there, right outside the city, and will go into the city from there on and barely get into the path of freight traffic which goes around the city.
The solution is a road, and it’s still there. It’s not insanely wide as it was before, but with four lanes still a pretty major road. And it’s not clogged with passenger traffic. I don’t see your problem.
I don't personally believe that hydrogen and EV's are the answer going forward. What we need is just less car ownership, and policies in place facilitating this, such as more rail, more bike paths and safe footpaths, and better planning that places essential services closer together. Trouble is, I can't imagine the number of lobby groups whose noses would be put out of joint by this. Anything that pleases many of us, just has to upset another group.
You can have less car ownership in the cities. Just improve mass transit and it can happen. What your problem is, is that you would like to force people to live in cities who do not want to be there in order to justify mass transit. US cities are basically golden oreos, white in the outside and dark inside. The dark part has no real wealth and does not generate tax flow, while the light part creates taxable income but will move at will to avoid its tax payments going to benefit the dark portion. Concurrent to this is the hostility to mass transit and the praise of highways because on highways, the chances of sitting next to a dark citizen are essentially zero unlike with mass transit where it is a certainty. In order to have what you want, one part HAS to go. But which would you choose? And how do you go about it without encouraging racial violence?
Texas largest cities all have their downtowns encircled by freeways. Well all except Austin and that is because Austin wasn't that big enough for them to do the same as Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio at that time. That has caused them to be cut off from not only the rest of the cities but even the parts of the city adjacent to the downtowns. It is one of the dumbest things they ever did and Houston and Dallas are desperately wanting to change this. Dallas wants to demolish 345. Houston wants to demolish the Pierce Elevated. But TxDot also wants to build a wide freeway on the eastern side of downtown where I 45 will get rerouted to. It will against affect residences and businesses. We continue to make stupid mistakes after stupid mistakes.
The European model is awful, that’s why. It doesn’t take into account free migration or “sudden suburbs” due to urban blight or political skullduggery like Buckhead. Europeans are the last people to be following; their model is powered by fairy dust and unicorn farts.
For me,Nature is the only way to live. I will get myself a house and a wooded land one day. Far enough from other people and this concrete hell people built.
I second that! I'd rather not be in a city, however that includes cities in places like Seoul, SK where it smells horrible throughout the city. Its not as bad in the more well off parts but gets really bad as you go down the economic latter. Its the same thing in American cities by and large.
These monstrosities are one of the main reasons you should always charge GM & every of the old North American auto makers a 20-30% scumbag tax whenever you buy anything from them.
The only part I take issue with is that there was ever much to destroy. All these highways were a terrible idea in retrospect, but what they replaced was not exactly The Vatican. These neighborhoods were by and large not "nice," nor were they in any sense "well-designed," except to the extent that it was a short walk from your squalid clapboard hovel with no running water to your job at the unspeakably filthy steel mill. I can only imagine that the idea of dining al fresco never occurred to anyone in these places because the sidewalk was an open sewer. And these American cities served the purpose they were designed to serve just as they do now: to create enormous profits for a very small number.
Definitely sucks that there's tons of highways that go through the historic parts of most American cities (including my hometown of Dallas). Thankfully, there are a few cities in the US that managed to, more or less, dodge a bullet, with the best example being much of the state of Indiana (excluding Indianapolis, Evansville, Gary, and the counties of Floyd and Clark).
I use busses, but if I had to work, I don't know how I would get to work on public transit, a bag of cement or some gallons of paint alone are a lot to carry. Real problem till now, just started driving, I really only find busses good for parties.
@@GTAVictor9128 wait, that's not the point, I never said I had a car or van, I'm saying I can't easily do contracting work by bus, and that sure doesn't mean I get a car or van. I have a very different idea of how they whoever they are should build transit. It's not like it just has to not work for people in these areas of work.
US has problems becouse its made by thinking cars first but you cant add lanes forever,i think that problem could get fixed easily=less lanes but need to connect well into city infra to avoid getting too bad traffic jams with less lanes and also i suggest to upgrade transport options to move without cars what could already drop amount of cars
![Why American Cities Are Removing Their Highways [Documentary]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/yvRVirzMis0/mqdefault.jpg)
![Why American Cities Are Removing Their Highways [Documentary]](/img/tr.png)
i like the use of cities: skylines because it illustrates a clear "before and after" of what we could have here in the US. even in a virtual world, the difference is crystal clear
Yea same
Hahaha if you just start playing cities skylines u will start building American like infra, if u have played it for a while u start building European like.
Which is very weird cuz I swear that Europe was build long before America.
Looks like we are losing sense instead of gaining
@@michelstoel2921
Still, even Cities Skylines has it's car-centric limitations. The biggest bummer being that you can't create pedestrianised streets since all buildings must be connected to roads - even parks, which makes no sense.
@@GTAVictor9128 u can get pedestrian only roads on community market
@@GTAVictor9128 ye true ,but u can play with pedestrian paths and cycle paths to make going to the shops faster that way then by car. Add some nice public trans and u basically have a good flowing system
American engineers almost destroyed The Hague and Amsterdam with there plans to put highways everywhere in our cities. Luckily the population demonstrated and the plains were (mostly) stopped. Except for one small part that is now considered the ugliest part in Amsterdam.
Cities like Tokyo and Osaka in Japan were altered by the construction of the tolled expressway systems but to a lesser extent than the interstates and the related 400 series highways.
Cities like Tokyo and Osaka in Japan were altered by the construction of the tolled expressway systems but to a lesser extent than the interstates and the related 400 series highways.
Just imagine... They could have filled up all those Amsterdam canals and construct 6-lane highways right through the city center...
And instead of those quaint old merchant's houses, there would be ginormous tower blocks which were not that neccessary since nobody would be living in the city center anymore.
It could have been all just highways...
Sigh.
Ah well, we will have to make do with how Amsterdam turned out to be instead.
Everywhere there's pedestrians, cyclists and trams milling about, where there could have been just cars cars cars driving at 50 mph (80 km/h) everywhere, no silly pedestrians in sight because anything but cars would be banned.
RIP Glasgow as it got ripped apart by highways.
@Zaydan Naufal imagine getting dunked on by Enver Hoxha lmao
The TXDot was spot on. Their expansion of the interstate near Katy has been used as an example of induced demand more times than I can count.
Twenty lanes of freeway plus six lanes of frontage road and STILL the I-10 is chock-a-block with traffic!
It is good for car sales though.
induced demand also applies to things like bike lanes and public transit too. But in those cases, that's a good thing. One of the main argument against bike lanes is that currently, almost no one bikes. But if you build it, they will come. Like yeah no one walks or bikes because we created such an unsafe environment for those things. they think seattle or portland have bike lanes because there's a huge biking community when it's actually vice versa. The community emerged due to the city being good for biking
And now they're trying to widen I-35 through the middle of downtown Austin 😡
The city can't even say no to it, because it's host to inter-regional traffic. Not that they would, they're huffing the same exhaust fumes as TXDoT.
They just announced $80 billion more dollars for highway expansion. So they still haven't learned anything.
Noise pollution is another factor to consider. I live in Cheyenne, Wyoming, where I-80 meets I-25. Any time I step outside, I can always hear the freeway. Even if I drive 45 minutes to a trailhead at the I-80 summit and then hike another 45 minutes into the Sherman Mountains, I can still hear the freeway. Even out here in the west, and in the least densely populated state in the union, it takes hours of driving to reach a publicly accessible place where I can't hear the damn road noise. (To be fair, in the places I have lived back east, the endless forest helps block out much the road noise, compensating for the higher population density.)
highways serve to essentially block people from accessing the city without a car. If you dont have a car, you are stuck in whatever section of the town you live in.
thats why having good public transport infrastructure is important
You could have focused more on how USA freeways just dump huge traffic volumes into... streets. If they're not stroads. Not even collectors, let alone proper arterials. Plowing highways through cities instead of going more or less around them to keep quite a city center inside of its radius and building dedicated infra to accomodate it is the biggest flaw of the interstate system
Are sunken ones okay?
@@Cyrus992 visually yes, but if they still dumped their traffic onto streets, it's no better finctionally
@@Spido68_the_spectator you have an exit every 800-1300 feet
@@Cyrus992 Which means... ? I can't visualize how it looks like to multiply my foot by 800+
@@Spido68_the_spectator Look at I 90/94 running through the Chicago Loop.
Add roundabouts on both ends too.
I'm thankful everyday that visionary activists in Raleigh prevented a freeway from plowing N/S through the center of downtown 50 some odd years ago. Even today, the center of the city is free of such a monstrosity.
They need to cover 277 on the south side of uptown Charlotte with a lid.
I was making that observation about the large cities in the Carolinas in general while driving through those states recently. Notice that in all of the large cities in NC and SC (Greenville, Columbia, Charlotte, Raleigh, Durham, etc.) none of the major interstates go through the actual downtowns. You have to get on an auxiliary highway that sort of just ends and then "feeds" you onto the city grid. Like, the closest you have is I-277 in Charlotte. And even in that case, it was built when Uptown Charlotte was smaller than it is today and the skyline expanded towards 277 instead of it cutting through the cityscape, really.
@@tresgriffin8242 about the only city with a sorta downtown interstate is Winston salem with what is now known as Salem parkway (US 421), in which 30 years ago was I-40. They recently did work on Salem parkway 2 years ago and the state could honestly rename it I-640 if they wanted to. Salem parkway still connect to I-40 on both of its ends.
Winston salem could get another downtown interstate soon by extending the I-285 number through Winston and into the northern edge of town.
@@idriveastationwagon1534 As an Atlantan, I refuse to recognize North Carolina’s I-285. 🤣🤣🤣
@@tresgriffin8242 it’s really just a renumbered highway. That’s it 🤣🤣🤣🤣. I always knew it was gonna be called 285 but then I see the signs started to pop up overnight.
I rather for them to name it 185 or 385 since it acts as more of a spur to Winston from 85.
I'm so glad San Francisco resisted freeway expansion as they did. I can't imagine that city being as gutted by freeways like LA.
brooooo i love what they did, not w the 280
San Fran did an amazing job taking down the Embarcadero freeway after the earthquake
@@kinghadithefirst1853 Now they should do the same with 280.
@@AlexCab_49 good luck haha! Apple will definitely love this. From the company that shoves lightning ports onto their iPhones to having a massive parking garage in their expensive circle HQ building
but at least it opens up Mission Bay area more
I really like how the Norwegian capital city of Oslo was able to convert from the former 13 lane counting highway and road network stretching along the city's water front in the downtown area to a new neighborhood where pedestrians, cycling, tram and bus infrastructure are dominating the public space between the opera house and the central station. You can still go there by car, but only one lane per direction is left for car traffic.
The former highway was relocated into a tunnel stretching unterneath the port
Sydney, Australia realises this and is being smart. We are putting our highways underground in tunnels, and yes, it's expensive, but one of the reasons is to give back land to the community through the use of parks and recreational centres. We are also investing in public transport, with Sydney Metro and our More Trains More Services (MTMS) scheme.
Personally, I think they should just ditch the highway altogether. The expense of burying an entire highway inside a dense urban area is just not worth the low number of people that would be transported, at least, compared to a true metro for example.
Then you have to consider induced demand and maintenance inside a tunnel, which is only going to cost more money as politicians try to expand lanes inside the tunnel. Truly, it's really just moving the problem out of sight, but it's still there.
Undergrounding motorways is somewhat better than surface equivalents, but they still generate masses of extra traffic, which pours out and floods roads where-ever the tunnels exit. The vast sums of money would be better spent on active transport, public transport, and well-located affordable housing.
That's great to hear for over there in Australia. Wonder if they are going to do high-speed rail along the coast connecting the major cities?
I'm hoping for ANYTHING good up here in Canada. It's sad to say that our highest population density area of Southern Quebec to Southern Ontario that has upwards of 60% of the Canadian population doesn't even have a quality, maglev high speed rail line. China, Japan, much of Europe is leaving Canada in the dust. :/
@@coolioso808 Yeah that’s unfortunate. We don’t have a high speed rail here in Australia, but they have started planning for one. At the moment it will start off small, with a line connecting Sydney and Newcastle, NSW. Then over the next few decades it will probably expand to Brisbane and Melbourne.
@@Agent44996 Ah, well at least they are planning one over there. I think the best we got over here is Montreal is planning a new metro, so it might be easier to get around within the city, but as far as between major cities, there are some slower passenger rail lines, but nothing special and nothing new planned.
Great video! I'm from Düsseldorf, the city which you've shown at the end of the video, and I cant imagine how the city looked before freeing up the waterfront!
There are always so many people and restaurants there, its a great place for having a walk and it's in general one of the major attractions of the city. Imagine how much potential there is for other cities!
Apparently they where planning to fill up the canals in Amsterdam to build highways in their place right. Fortunately, those construction plans where halted due to protests against it.
And thank goodness that it was halted! Could you imagine what Amsterdam would be like today if it became a car-centric hellscape? Most of Europe dodged a bullet, but we still have some casualties like Glasgow.
Looks absolutely beautiful
@@GTAVictor9128 A lot of cities in europe had these plans. And parts were bulldozed to build highway style inroads to city centers. But luckely people were far more resistant to having their historical city centers full of buildings hundreds of years old demolished. And rotterdam in the netherlands for example, was very much rebuilt as a car centric city, and is to this day the most car centric city of the netherlands (even though compared to many other european cities it's a biking city too, and compared to us cities its a public transit, bike and pedestrian heaven.
But even then many european cities fell or still have fallen prey to the dominance of the car. Paris, Rome, Madrid, Brussels, etc all were car infested messes up until a few years ago, and some still are. While a lot was starting to change before covid, it seems to have dramatically shifted into higher gear in many larger european cities. Paris removed the waterfront highway they had next to the seine, but now with covid they really shifted into high gear in building biking infrastructure. Brussels pedestrianised one of its main avenues a few years back, but is still a car infested nightmare for the most part, and biking is a serious health risk to this day there. And there's so many more examples. Even copenhagen, that's often touted as an example of biking infrastructure, really isn't THAT great with many flaws in it's cycling infrastructure and cars still pretty much everywhere. Really the only truly extremely bike and pedestrian friendly cities are found in the Netherlands, and to a lesser degree in Flanders, Belgium. I live there and even here in Flanders was biking to school from 6-7y old with my brother and friends for almost every day up until i finished university. And now as an adult at 40, i still continue to bike on a daily basis. I don't even own a car and never have.
But besides that, even in europe the car is omnipresent, and biking and pedestrians are an afterthought, with the only exceptions often being some pedestrianised areas. What IS very different to us cities however, is the extensive public transit networks that exist in almost all european cities, and the dominance of mixed use, medium density buildings everywhere, that create a vibrant, lively "city center feel".
In the USA it's not just interstates ploughing through cities that ruin them, it's also the lack of any decent public transit, and the almost complete absence of "missing middle" building zones and districts. The strict divide between downtown high density developments, and the near omnipresence of single family homes outside of that, and the complete absence of middle density row houses, low rise appartments, semi-detached buildings, etc is just as much responsible for creating unpleasant, not so nice cities to be in in the usa than those highways are.
The "not just bikes" channel is a great channel that explains many of these well known urban planning concepts (and mistakes) in very easy to understand chunks. I highly recommend it, even though he loves dissing us Belgians like a true Dutchman. :)
ruclips.net/video/CCOdQsZa15o/видео.html
I lived in Düsseldorf 1967-69, I spent the summer of 1979 and 1980 there, never had to drive anywhere, I rode the Straßenbahn every where I also lived in Ilvesheim 1971-73, I have been to Köln, Frankfurt, München, Heidelberg, Mannheim and several others. German cities make American cities look like crap.
I feel highways are good as long as it’s not the only form of transit to take. Look and Western Europe, specifically the Netherlands, they have absolutely massive highways but also comprehensive high speed rail and bike routes. Also, highways should be for getting between cities or around cities, not through.
depends on every city and how it grew. I'm entirely okay with highways going through cities as long as it's done in some sort of good way. Just look at highway E18 cutting through Oslo. While it dominated the water front in the downtown area until some decades ago, it now goes through the city in a tunnel underneath the port.
It also works with the ring highway in Berlin, being a major arterial road carrying lots of traffic which otherwise would be on the normal city streets; In Stockholm a highway goes north to south through the city but sneaks around the historic city center in a greater distance. Sometimes, a highway going around the city takes up way more space, is longer and thus obviously also more expensive, good example for that one would be the highway ring around the Bavarian capital city of Munich
@@toniderdon Six should be the limit. The New Jersey Turnpike has 12 lanes between Burlington County and Newark.
the government set a limit on highway lanes per side. The highway cant be more then 4 lanes wide on each side
Eisenhower didn't want interstates to go through cities - he wanted them to go around cities, as the German autobahns do. But there would be no funding available for mass transit, and big-city congressmen wanted a piece of the action by getting highways built in their cities. I-280 in New Jersey ruined old cities and rural areas alike in Essex County, NJ, and there was a better route for it around Essex County, but Essex County politicians wanted a public works project there. The biggest insult to Ike was that I-290 in Chicago - which destroyed the West Side - is named for him. Eisenhower went on record as saying that a subway would be better for Washington, DC instead of a highway. A subway did open in Washington, but not in Eisenhower's lifetime.
It was not done that way in Lexington KY and it’s one of the nicest big cities in the country, Pittsburgh does not have an interstate running through it but only spurs from the turnpike and I-79. Cincinnati sucks because of how I-75 & I-71 were put in, Columbus is no better and Dayton has I-75 going through it but I-70 is to the north.
You forget the underlying reason for the interstate system, the Military, and the movement of intercontinental missiles from coast to coast. That is why the original laydown of the interstate was reinforced concrete over thick impacted crushed rock and a minimum required height of overpasses and as straight runs as possible and restricted radiuses of curves in the interstate. The width on the straight runs was so designed for the landing and take-off of aircraft if ever needed. The medians on both sides of the roads were not just for disabled vehicles to park, they increased the useable width if needed. It was the U.S ARMY Corp of Engineers that designed the interstates in the first place.
Ike was the Supreme Commader for D-Day and on. The took Hitler's Autobahn and created the original interstate highway system with the ostensible purpose of being able to move military assets.
Then the oil and car companies as well as all the industries (e.g. tire/rubber etc.), real estate speculators, 'developers' etc. started dismantaling light rail (LA, et. al.) and pushed local, state, and federal policy makers into adding more and more and more massive 'expressways' in, around, and thru most cities. Suburbia - a.ka. the Geography of Nowhere - was born. As James Howard Kunster so eloquently stated ' the largest mis-allocation of resources in human history'.
Go back to sleep America, sportball is on teevee 24/7.
The irony of it is, highways are terrible for moving miliary assets. Imagine racking up miles on your brand new fleet of inefficient convoy vehicles and tanks on the highway to bolster defences on any given border. Your machines are already toast by the time they get there. A reliable network of fast and high throughput railroads across the country would offset the odometer miles to stupendously efficient, low rolling resistance trains. It's such a fundamentally incorrect judgement call that was made based on a stupid excuse that would never have made sense to anyone with a proper understanding of surface transportation logistics even back then. Truly wild.
@@mrmaniac3 but hey atleast we can never have to see the backroads of any state you're going through! amirite?
Hitler's generals hated the autobahn and see no use to them. Thats why much of the third reich autobahn survives to the present as these were only used as emergency airfields. You could see the infrastructure way high up on the air, a rather easy targets. They prefer rails as their war materials, especially tank units, hates mileage counts as their brittle drivetrain cant survive long drives on the highway.
Hitler never intended the Autobahn to be used for military purposes because of how open and vulnerable it would be for military vehicles to get bombed or strafed from the air. The German Autobahn was built for the civilian trucking business and car enthusiasts; which America copied in the 1950s/60s. However, we took our obsession with the car a little too far at this point.
I was a fan of Kunstler until he bought into the Stop The Steal scam.
The city skylines example was brilliant because I can directly visualize how much a city would benefit from public transportation in replacement of an absolute eyesore of massive concrete highways
Highways are racist
Everything is racist
Loving these new channels popping up that talk about these things
I know right. This is stuff that my family thought we were the only ones thinking about this stuff. Do you have any other channels in mind with original ideas / discussions like this?
So sad, we need to let go of the car dependancy! Our planet needs it!
not only that, WE need it!
Our planet is fine, it's a rock in space. What goes on down on its surface is of no concern to it. It doesn't matter to the planet, it matters to every single life form that inhabits it.
No 😎 carbon emissions is a myth
85% of the planet is pristine untouched nature, it's fine.
I visited California from Europe,and every little town looks the same when travelling on the interstate i.e. off ramp,main, street burger and fast food joints,on ramp. no little stores,no fresh fruit and veg to be found anywhere,no sidewalks,no people walking and chatting. Where is everybody ?
Some still offer alternatives
It was almost always poor and black neighborhoods that got bulldozed. Almost always. They also have been used to deliberately isolate rich suburbs from poor suburbs, and push commerce into massive high cost centralised locations.
great video, appeared on my homepage, hope the algorithm continues to favor you!
Who knew that building and maintaining a street with huge surface area would have cost more than a compact metro system that can carry more than an order of magnitude more people !?
I live in Oslo, and we have a highway going under the city in a tunnel.
The Chick Fil A and Phantom Fireworks billboards on the San Pedro highway are a nice touch lol
The purpose was to "eliminate unsafe roads"?!! Wow that is comedy.
The problem is not unsafe roads but unsafe drivers. Congress and the state legislatures can pass laws ensuring this.
@@edwardmiessner6502 unsafe drivers are bred by car dependency. When streets are designed to highway code, people will drive on them like on a highway. When everybody drives a car, the ones least capable of competently controlling heavy machinery are given level playing field with the most competent. Punishing bad drivers makes no difference without properly designing the living environment for people and not cars, and providing alternatives to driving. Society needs car independence now.
If it's comedy, it's funny 'cause it's true. Interstates _are_ considerably safer than the 2-lane highways they replaced or bypassed. They eliminate "points of conflict" like pedestrian/bike crossings, at-grade intersections, railroad crossings, driveways, and business entrances. Having the directions of travel segregated means far fewer head-on collisions, and having traffic enter and leave via higher-speed ramps (comparable to prevailing speeds on the main roadway) instead of slow-speed right-angle turns reduces collision frequency and severity. It may seem contradictory, but despite the higher speeds, wider roadways, and greater traffic volumes, interstates fare better in terms of collisions/fatalities on a per-capita/"vehicle miles driven" basis.
@@Zalis116 the interstate highway system is a small part of the picture compared to the countless networks of state highways and roads. And though limited access highways eliminate conflict points, that's an insignificant amount of conflict points. There are still hundreds of highways and roads with thousands of conflict points, driveways and intersections, for any given limited access highway. Even still, driving on an interstate is full of dangers. Your average interstate is constantly littered with fenders, tire shreds, shattered glass, and collision-borne traffic congestion. Do I think either form of car dependent infrastructure is uniquely better or worse than any other? No. They're all bad despite their intended qualities.
@@mrmaniac3 I certainly wouldn't claim the Interstates are perfect, but they comprise a very small percentage of the total road mileage in the US, carry a disproportionate percentage of total road traffic, yet still have lower accident and fatality rates than other types of roads. They have, in the aggregate, saved lives and money. Would things be better if we weren't so car-dependent? Sure, but I wonder if the anti-interstate crowd would be fine with having long-haul 18-wheelers drive down their historic cobblestone small-town Main Streets.
0:00 Note on the left hand side is Fullerton Park-N-Ride. It used to have lots of RTD (now Metro) and OCTD (now OCBus) buses. At one time it had lots of express buses to Los Angeles, Riverside, Long Beach, San Juan Capistrano, and Santa Ana. Most of that is gone.
I am not particularly sad about it. Metrolink replaced a lot of those services.
Living in Wisconsin I will never get over what Scott Walker cost us with HSR. Would have been so great. And now this interchange will cost us a chance to make a Brewers entertainment district. Which after the Bucks entertainment district has gone so well you would think would have a better chance
I think it came down to big oil. There were American cities with fantastic rail networks but they were bought out and converted to bus routes. Big oil makes money from bus routes, not rail routes.
Wall Street and Federal Reserve too. Now current transit systems are a joke to pump the status quo
Big oil, big auto, and big real estate.
The riverside highway in Düsseldofw was not removed. They buried into a tunnel which is now under the walking area.
And this is one of the many reasons why I'm currently studying to become a Landscape Architect so I can (hopefully) work on projects to remove these ugly things.
Same here. Studying geography and hoping to become a city planner or something after the studies.
You’re forgetting the impact to health. Car exhaust fumes, noise and light pollution are incredibly decremental to health.
not to mention obesity due to people not walking or biking and so not getting any real exercise
How relevant is that? Being cars are generally cleaner now plus hybrids and plug in hybrids also being available?
@@jeffkardosjr.3825 Nope tire pollution among other things are severely detrimental to health
@@DefenestrateYourself No.
I like the white car whizzing randomly about from lane to lane at5:00🤗
In my country i am seeing this problem of highways. There is a NH 50 highway which cuts through every town, every day to we get up with the traffic of highway and town at same time. But it's also made by us too we people started building house, school, hospital on the sides of highway and we build a new town on other side of highway it's like we divided the town in half and also the community .
every time I've driven in a freeway, ive aged atleast 5 years. they are absolutely terrifying.
also San Pedro is beautiful. all my cities in csl are just Toronto-lite lol
yep here in Chicago there used to be street cars but they were all gutted for more roads
Is there no concept of bypass and ring road in America
Yes, many cities, especially in the south and east tried implementing them.
Most major and many minor cities do have them, including (but not limited to) Indianapolis, St. Louis, Nashville, Kansas City, Dallas, Minneapolis, Atlanta, Portland, Denver, and Chicago. But if you look at them on a map, you'll see that they also have the "mainline" highway routes cutting directly through the city centers. These mainlines were billed as necessary to move freight into and out of cities, and to allow Certain People to move into further-out suburbs and commute to city-center jobs, which enabled them to avoid living near Certain Other People. Planners also deliberately used in-city highway construction as a means of "urban renewal" to bulldoze and clear out undesirable or blighted neighborhoods, and as the video attests, there was a pretty clear pattern of who lived in those places.
And as more of the development and tax base moved into the suburbs, more sprawl developed around those bypasses and ring roads, to the point where if you're on a long-distance trip and need to cross a major metropolitan area, it's often faster to take the interstates that go straight through the city, instead of the bypass -- you can expect both routes to be equally congested, but the mainline travel distance is shorter.
The tolled expressway system in Japan was modeled on the Interstate system in the United States, with all of Tokyo being crisscrossed by tolled expressways. They have lower traffic due to the tolls.
Everybody keeps saying that Japan is the greatest thing to be ever invented after the cellphone, so why doesn't the world hire Japanese engineers and city planners?
They have lower traffic because they have amazing public transit and walkable neighborhoods
There is a reason why American roads are like that - Insurances. More cars on the road more money insurance will make. So insurance companies make sure do to everything in their power to put more cars on the road and make it illegal to not have insurance.
Also Airlines industry love people flying from Chicago to New York, not ride the train.
Good video and you did not even mention the HORROR of stroads!
Madrid, Spain, where I am from, had the main urban freeway, the M30, cutting the city in half through the river, until they decided to bury it under the ground. Now the space is a huge park that is always crowded with people walking, running, cycling etc
amazing video, however although its good, like not just bikes politicians wont care unfortunately.
Gotta keep trying I guess
@@Phillowownz I was very impressed by your production quality and loved your cities skylines example! I've subbed and wish good luck to your channel from here, the anti-car dependency movement is only gaining traction so your channel is in the growth zone. (Which is probably how it got recommended to me)
@@Phillowownz Damn I have just seen you have a few more videos, sweet!
@@Phillowownz yo send ur vids to politicians everywhere.
Bangkok half of downtown people walk under highway or skytrain bridges.
This guy has convinced me, public transport is cheaper and more convenient!
We can all thank the Koch Brothers for letting all this happen decades ago (sarcastically speaking). America could've had the best transit system in the world. We could've had more well paying jobs. We could've been the best of everything. Public transit is often underfunded, even as of 2022, making overall operations inefficient. No wonder other countries are beating us at everything, and that's just sad.
People don’t fight hard too
What is the connection to the Koch Brothers? Did they decide policy in the 1950's?
This is a very informative channel 👏. Thank you for your observations. ❤️
You are already doing a more thoughtful job of design than the actual traffic engineers who are building our country.
6:43 It always saddens me when waterside land is used up for roads like in the 1990 picture. City access to water should never be covered up like this, it should either be used for beaches/parks, pier style commercial, cargo or under limited circumstances, housing. (I list housing last because housing land tends to be private property, but water side land like this should in my opinion be reachable and usable by the public. (Yes, some access might need to be limited if the area is used for cargo because of safety or security, but even in those areas it could still be kept rather open.)
TexasDOT has you on their radar now
Like raging white water rapids dividing Quebec City into pods, with few crossings.
Good video and to the point
The illustration provided by the Cities Skylines bit was also great
uh th u.s highway system was designed by the ceo of general motors
From someone that lives in one of the worst cities regarding traffic in the world : if there's anything worse than having too many highways, that is to have very few.
2:00 Almost all neighborhoods gutted this way were Black neighborhoods.
yup, Interstate 4 (pictured at 2:38) did exactly that, with Parramore (to the left of I4) being the predominately black neighborhood. and this community is still struggling today.
Chicago gutted Italian, Greek and Jewish neighborhoods to build I-290. Because Richard J. Daley, the mayor who had it built, was Irish.
I don't need to watch the video I'm subscribing based on the title alone. then i'll watch the video.
Why not just build it under like how boston did
Should They Ever Get Rid Of Los Angeles Area Freeways?
Its so disappointing to me that sidewalks and pedestrian infastrucure for $100,000 will get denied because it's too costly but then we'll turn around and spend 1.4 billion adding a lane or two onto the freeway
I partially disagree with this video. I agree that the freeways that gutted and divided major cities was a mistake, but I do believe they should have been built underground, sunken, or surrounded by landscapes to minimize the impacts especially on the outer portions of the metro area. They are also a better alternative to stroads/collectors/arterials. Not building freeways or even expanding especially with a second hand transit system with cause arterials especially to gain more traffic.
Transit cannot fully replace car travel. Not to mention, we should not let cars travel only below 55 mph. Let us expand the interstate highway system more as well as building more Maglevs
Your video just said... Streets and highways bad. Trains good. Let's look at my video game with artificial logic is MUCH better. I'm a genius.
Subway systems for every city and high speed rail connecting all the cities together! Oh wait, that's China.
They have the Hukou system which stops migration. No such thing as urban flight there because uppity types have an awful habit of getting sent to reeducation centers. If having a glorious mass transit system requires surrendering your freedom to say “I’m moving”, you are a very evil person.
If highways are free at the point of use, demand will always exceed supply.
The free market needs to be harnessed.
Which map did you use for the Cities: Skylines city? :)
Canto Grande map from the Steam Workshop
@@Phillowownz Thanks! Very cool video by the way, I'm currently studying for my masters degree in Spatial Planning in the Netherlands :)
There’s construction again on 94 lol
The problem is that Americans prefer to be stuck in traffic jams for hours while they eat their chicken nuggets than share a train or even walk.
You have to drive to the train, take the train, then pay for a taxi to get where you have to go. There are many situations where its impractical. Chicken nuggets are disgusting but I havent seen many people eating them while driving 😂
Americans prefer car travel due to crime associated with cities and public transport.
@@Novusod yet its a missconception because car crashes(the most common one)isn't reported
@@Novusod which is really stupid especially on regional or intercity trains since they will always make you get off if you don’t have a ticket
@@Novusod they are all related, racism is at the center of it. It's like asking which came first ? The chicken or the eggs ?
Shout out to all europeans with american highways fetish
No one wants it. China is the new model, not US.
Thanks for the video!
Your videos give me depression. But great content, love your channel!
the future of cities inside the Metro Manila, Philippines will be filled by more skyways with tolls as well as railways, it is just kinda balanced
Great video. Do you know who Eisenhower's Defense Secretary was?
Had to look it up , of course.. one Charles Erwin Wilson , former CEO of General Motors ! 😅😂...🤔...🥺.
Of course US politics and business never bite each other... 3 generations Bush : Harriman Brothers banking and Zapata Petroleum Corp. Dick Cheney : Halliburton. Donald Trumpf..
Other businessmen/presidents were Warren Harding, Edgar Hoover, Harry Truman and Jimmy Carter.. They were of course good for their former business partners in particular.
Remarkable : of these 6, the only president under who the economy did well, was Truman, who was unsuccessful in business..
The guy who designed the Ford Falcon became JFK’s defense secretary
Highways be looking like me eating spaghetti
BUt if you dont have highway overpasses where are the homeless going to hang out? RIP America
3:40 - LOL if you think that price tag is accurate. For comparison, California's HSR project is now 3x what they estimated.
Not because it’s expensive but because scum politicians waste the funds. The transit is also second hand. It gives people the false idea that transit is a joke
Would have loved for your solution to have been an elevated toll lanes. Like there doing all around the country.
That tweet was hilarious! Had to look it up!😂
On aerial shots on highway infrastructure I've taken to mentally replacing the roads with mountain ranges. Doing this it has become a lot easier to understand the destructive effect that metro interchanges have on communities.
2:38 so I live here. Everyone here HATES I4. There's constant traffic, constant construction, and has literally been dubbed the most dangerous highway in the entire United States SEVERAL TIMES. I try to avoid it as much as possible.
Also, to the west of I4 is a large, low-income, high-crime community, whereas the east contains wealthy inner city/suburbia communities. I4 is literally a wall that separates the rich from the poor.
I4 is the parking lot of Orlando.
(Ps I made a video about Orlando)
@@GenericUrbanism YES, IT IS.
and nice! at one in the vid point you zoomed in on my house lol.
@@scrim1784 Thanks for watching the video. Where is that house?
@@GenericUrbanism lol WELLLL I'm not gonna tell you specifics for safety reasons, but northern Orlando. At one point you zoomed in onto my neighborhood/my part of town. It was just neat to see lol
Oh I'm aware, and I used to live in Titusville and did rideshare in the Orlando area on the side. I almost collided with a disabled vehicle in the middle of the lane on I4.....at night with low visibility.
Same problem here in Bergen, Norway. For some reason the north-south highway cuts through a residential area at the outskirts of the city, turning what could've been a plaza for people into a four-way intersection with many lanes and lots of congestion, noise, pollution, and pedestrian underpasses that are uncomfortable for a lot of people to go through, especially at night.
The politicians want to put a concrete 'lid' over the streets, but this is of course met with opposition from the usual suspects who would of course rather see the money spent on even more roads and highways.
Your solution in Cities Skylines seems to have a major issue in the lack of mobility of freight. Cities rely on massive amounts of freight and goods to survive. That was one of the main goals of the interstate system, to move more goods in a more speedy and efficient manner. It has become more about passenger movement than goods movement and that is one of the main issues with the interstate system today. People tent to take the interstate to move around town, while surface streets remain relatively unused. Public transport is definitely a much needed solution, but not at the cost of limiting movement of goods.
there can be solutions for the freight issue. The following example would have all the potential for a great solution, but in the end it isn't:
I live just outside my state's capital city. My village is connected to the city with 2 highways and a mixed use rail line; Half of the village is occupied by commercial / industrial space with several postal and logistics companies have distribution centers and several large supermarket chains have storage and distribution facilities as well. That commercial area is right next to both the highway and rail line. It would be the perfect opportunity to get all the ingoing freight to the commercial area by train, unfortunately it's not like that in reality and all the ingoing freight comes with trucks;
All the freight going into the city, postal vans and distribution trucks from the supermarkets start there, right outside the city, and will go into the city from there on and barely get into the path of freight traffic which goes around the city.
@@EnjoyFirefighting Yes, there CAN be a solution to it. But nobody seems to care to try to find the solution.
The solution is a road, and it’s still there. It’s not insanely wide as it was before, but with four lanes still a pretty major road. And it’s not clogged with passenger traffic. I don’t see your problem.
I don't personally believe that hydrogen and EV's are the answer going forward. What we need is just less car ownership, and policies in place facilitating this, such as more rail, more bike paths and safe footpaths, and better planning that places essential services closer together. Trouble is, I can't imagine the number of lobby groups whose noses would be put out of joint by this. Anything that pleases many of us, just has to upset another group.
You can have less car ownership in the cities. Just improve mass transit and it can happen. What your problem is, is that you would like to force people to live in cities who do not want to be there in order to justify mass transit. US cities are basically golden oreos, white in the outside and dark inside. The dark part has no real wealth and does not generate tax flow, while the light part creates taxable income but will move at will to avoid its tax payments going to benefit the dark portion. Concurrent to this is the hostility to mass transit and the praise of highways because on highways, the chances of sitting next to a dark citizen are essentially zero unlike with mass transit where it is a certainty. In order to have what you want, one part HAS to go. But which would you choose? And how do you go about it without encouraging racial violence?
U got that right ! Understatement of the century 😮😢 they are horrible …
Texas largest cities all have their downtowns encircled by freeways. Well all except Austin and that is because Austin wasn't that big enough for them to do the same as Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio at that time. That has caused them to be cut off from not only the rest of the cities but even the parts of the city adjacent to the downtowns. It is one of the dumbest things they ever did and Houston and Dallas are desperately wanting to change this. Dallas wants to demolish 345. Houston wants to demolish the Pierce Elevated. But TxDot also wants to build a wide freeway on the eastern side of downtown where I 45 will get rerouted to. It will against affect residences and businesses. We continue to make stupid mistakes after stupid mistakes.
Why not just use the European model, highways around the city to go from one part to another in short time, and then highways from one city to another
The European model is awful, that’s why. It doesn’t take into account free migration or “sudden suburbs” due to urban blight or political skullduggery like Buckhead. Europeans are the last people to be following; their model is powered by fairy dust and unicorn farts.
Best comment
For me,Nature is the only way to live.
I will get myself a house and a wooded land one day.
Far enough from other people and this concrete hell people built.
Having a highway passing through a city is weird. Have it outside instead with exits to the city.
I wish San diego, LA, and other cities had a better transit system. Like how Tokyo is.
Highways created links between destinations but destroyed the latter.
US city's development happen during 18s 19s so goverment invested more money on highways unlike China they have invested in both highways and HSR.
I second that! I'd rather not be in a city, however that includes cities in places like Seoul, SK where it smells horrible throughout the city. Its not as bad in the more well off parts but gets really bad as you go down the economic latter. Its the same thing in American cities by and large.
These monstrosities are one of the main reasons you should always charge GM & every of the old North American auto makers a 20-30% scumbag tax whenever you buy anything from them.
Yeah especially since those crappy companies assemble their pos cars and trucks in Mexico and imports cheap parts from China.
I would really love to work on improving city planning in the USA do you know how could get started
The only part I take issue with is that there was ever much to destroy. All these highways were a terrible idea in retrospect, but what they replaced was not exactly The Vatican. These neighborhoods were by and large not "nice," nor were they in any sense "well-designed," except to the extent that it was a short walk from your squalid clapboard hovel with no running water to your job at the unspeakably filthy steel mill. I can only imagine that the idea of dining al fresco never occurred to anyone in these places because the sidewalk was an open sewer. And these American cities served the purpose they were designed to serve just as they do now: to create enormous profits for a very small number.
Definitely sucks that there's tons of highways that go through the historic parts of most American cities (including my hometown of Dallas). Thankfully, there are a few cities in the US that managed to, more or less, dodge a bullet, with the best example being much of the state of Indiana (excluding Indianapolis, Evansville, Gary, and the counties of Floyd and Clark).
Great video!
I use busses, but if I had to work, I don't know how I would get to work on public transit, a bag of cement or some gallons of paint alone are a lot to carry. Real problem till now, just started driving, I really only find busses good for parties.
I won't use the mega road thing though, I don't even think I get mail fast enough to afford it.
That's the thing though: reducing car dependency would free up space for those who actually need to drive vans and trucks as part of their job.
@@GTAVictor9128 wait, that's not the point, I never said I had a car or van, I'm saying I can't easily do contracting work by bus, and that sure doesn't mean I get a car or van. I have a very different idea of how they whoever they are should build transit. It's not like it just has to not work for people in these areas of work.
@@alphonsobutlakiv789 A well designed transport system gives the users viable options.
@@GTAVictor9128 Ah, the old commuter vs commercial cheat. Going to judge by according to their needs, eh?
Wonder if they are still pushing on with the superhighway
It's Murica, right? And they finally completed the "lane expansion" of the 5 just south of L.A.
US has problems becouse its made by thinking cars first but you cant add lanes forever,i think that problem could get fixed easily=less lanes but need to connect well into city infra to avoid getting too bad traffic jams with less lanes and also i suggest to upgrade transport options to move without cars what could already drop amount of cars
"Conveniently" is the keyword here. The rest of the world is the laughing stock of Americans for using mass transit and bicycles.
I'M ON THE HIGHWAYYYYYYYY TO HELL!
I love highways. The more lanes, the better. No traffic lights, no bicyclists, driving at a constant speed which is good for fuel economy.
love highways as well ... driving at high speeds and not crawling along at only 65 mph
Or you could do what they’ve done in Sydney. have a good public transport system and put The big highways underground