How did the Chain Bridge in Budapest become car-free?

[@urbanmobilityexplained]

Thanks for watching! What do you think of this measure? Share your thoughts in the comments💡

[@nemo-x]

I'm sorry, but this video is just false in every single aspect 😢 -It absolutely crippled traffic in the city, by cutting one of the major thoroughfares connecting two sides. -Due to massively increased congestion this means longer times sitting in traffic jams, thus greater pollution. -The increased travel times throughout the city mean time losses for people, and financial losses for businesses. -It was also done in direct violation of the contract to restore the bridge which specified that it must be able to maintain its former function, which means the city lost out on a massive amount government funding, which means the capital is essentially bankrupt and has little money for actually useful projects improving the city. -Additionally foot traffic over the river at that point is marginal at best, as the river is long, there aren't many good scenic photo spots on the bridge, and the view from it is limited, in addition to it being windy. And footpath connections on one side are extremely limited, as there is basically only a non pedestrian tunnel, a long way on the riverbank right beside a road, and a dense and narrow street between houses on that side. -The reasoning with the prevention of damage to the bridge is nonsensical, because it can be restored again and again, and all bridges will need to be restored after some time anyway due to being in wet and windy environment with metal parts, so slightly lengthening the time between renovations is merely a financial benefit, which is insignificant compared to the financial damage caused by loss of business due to inaccessibility alone. -Also, this is THE one bridge which didn't need to ban cars to make foot traffic on it safer, because the pedestrian area is separated by a wide and tall metal wall. -It also comes from a mayor who utterly hates cars for personal reasons, and has made it his mission to make life difficult for people in cars no matter the rationale. So it's harming the environment, costing people time and money, doesn't actually help people on foot, doesn't help tourism (if anything it hurts it because of congestion), reduces accessibility of the inner city, doesn't help with preservation, was paid for by money that could have gone to actually useful projects, and was completely unnecessary for foot traffic - which is minimal at best anyway. Which is why this project has been widely condemned by civil engineers, traffic planners, car organizations, and private citizens all around the country, because of the utter havoc it is wreaking on travel times and the resulting congestion and pollution. The claimed public support for it is an outright sham, the "survey" was a propaganda campaign organized by the mayor to mirror the disgusting propaganda "surveys" organized by the government, and had an abysmal turnout. It is only supported by people who don't have to travel near it, and sycophantic supporters of the mayor, simply because he opposes the current crap government. This isn't making a livable environment, this is simply trying to make life a living hell for people using cars, which is the outright stated intention of the mayor. He has his personal reasons for that (his father was hit by a car) but in general that's utterly moronic, and harming businesses and people. You can't turn a city into a village unless you raze it to the ground. It isn't structured that way. The end card hits the nail on the head: a) It did NOT involve people in the decision making: there was just a decision by the mayoral office and a sham propaganda survey with abysmal turnout, everyone else including most professionals condemned it b) The changes were NOT explained and there was NO time given to adjust: suddenly one day the news just broke that after the renovation is finished they won't be getting the bridge back to use it as before, and all the explanations given are easily debunked with the exception of the mayors stated intention to punish car drivers c) Public transport is HARMED and active mobility IRRELEVANT: because of increased congestion throughout the city, public transport times are significantly increased, 6 more buses per hour is because of changed routes, not due to banning cars, pedestrian traffic wasn't a problem even before the change and only occurred in fair weather, and bike traffic is negligible even after the change. d) Digital technology was NOT used to measure the impact: if it was they certainly hid it well, because everything indicates massive disruptions to city wide traffic flow since the change. This is either woefully uninformed, or deliberate misinformation for propaganda purposes. Shame on you.

[@RJ-tr8vt]

As a Budapester, I'm sad they let taxis on the bridge. Taxi drivers are the worst behaved road users in Hungary. They make it a very unpleasant experience to cycle the bridge

[@azamolnarlevi]

Exactly. The Chain Bridge is still uncapable for having a good bike ride as our taxi drivers would hit their own mothers for being 5 seconds faster.

[@barnabasszabolcs8708]

hmm, I think people who are not professional drivers but have strong cars are the most dangerous, the taxis are usually reasonable, and they have a lot more experience than regular drivers.

[@azamolnarlevi]

@@barnabasszabolcs8708 it’s not about experience, but behaviour

[@pzsgy]

As a Budapester taxi driver, I don’t think so! ❤

[@pzsgy]

taxi are the public transport system in

[@photoo848]

Rebuilding a removed for renovation Lion out of Lego bricks is such a mood Awesome that they did this

[@turkizno]

Sadly someone did try to light the lego lion on fire overnight one night, there are pics on the net that it has a scorch mark on one of its sides

[@juliuspeters1]

The most impressive about this story is not even the idea itself, but how 79% of the citizens supported it. Without such a support, this project probably would not have been implemented and that's the main limiting factor in many other cities.

[@urbanmobilityexplained]

You are absolutely right!

[@aturchomicz821]

Urbanism isnt a money issue, its a political one!

[@nohabpapa]

Whacking lie!

[@adm_108]

In the video it says, 79% of respondents. Who are citizens of course, but only the 9% of all the citizens responded, which renders the result less impressive. Sorry for the nit-picking.

[@etbadaboum]

In the end, car drivers are a minority! But a very voluminous and vocal one.

[@Nhkg17]

I don't understand why taxis have the advantage and are allowed on the bridge (or in other cities can use the bus lanes). Taxis should be restricted. After all, approx 50% of the time they run empty and just block city streets.

[@thombaz]

It's because you don't know the history of Hungary.

[@nekoastolfouwu]

Politics

[@privatenoob]

Unfortunately the taxi maffia has a huge power in Hungary. They were able to demand lower gas prices in Hungary in the 90s by literally blockading the entire city, and did the same move later to ban Uber.

[@hypernewlapse]

@@privatenoob thats a universal story, in spain it is literally the same story

[@acourierslife-egyfutarelet8856]

As a hardcore cyclist from Budapest I actually support the concept of taxis being used more freely compared to regular cars. A taxi driver has interest in running empty as little as possible so I think the 50% is a rather pessimistic guess. Besides that if a taxi rolls out to work it is in use basically the whole time so one car could serve multiple people. These people then don't need their own cars so taxis do free up some space since there should fewer parked cars on the city streets. Taxis are a low efficiency (from the point of the city) but highly convenient version of public transportation. Now speaking from experience, as a courier i can see that a lot their drivers are aggressive assholes and yeah the taxi maffia is a thing. But solving this should be a matter of regulations and time. I still think that the concept is viable

[@balazspetho5636]

It is also became an important public transport line as BKK created or diverted 3 (178,210,210B) more bus lines goes through the bridge next to the 3 (105, 16, 216) which have been used this route already. So the public transport now is quick and more frequent, and you van go directly into Pest city center from different parts of Buda side, without the need to change lines.

[@andrasbiro6604]

It is a very congested part of the city. The crosswalk at Batthyány square (public transportation hub) is the main bottleneck (it should remain there to prioritise people walking and using the tramline it leads to) That route does not let the traffic flow in the roundabout at Clark Ádám square and this resulted in congestion on the bridge as well. Now buses can at least reach the roundabout a lot faster and they can usually pass trough in a reasonable time. Great improvement indeed!

[@nemo-x]

Except they could have done that without the bridge being restricted.

[@balazspetho5636]

@@nemo-x For buses, the passage through the tunnel and the Chain Bridge often took 20-25 minutes instead of the standard 6 minutes before the restriction. Now there is technically a bus lane on the bridge and the number of people crossing the bridge in any way is already higher than before the renovation and traffic reorganization. Thus, by restricting car traffic, we managed to significantly speed up public transport and increase the actual capacity of the bridge at the same time. In addition, the bridge only accounted for about 2-4% of the number of cars crossing the Danube. And since there is still taxi traffic on the bridge, about half of it has disappeared, since before there was basically just traffic jams on the bridge all day. And because of the renovation, the entire bridge was out of service for almost 2 full years anyway... Without car restriction the bus lines was not efficient.

[@balazspetho5636]

@@andrasbiro6604 Batthány tér is a different part of the city. I think you wanted to mention Széchenyi tér, which is at the Pest side of the bridge. Yes, this area needs reconstruction and there should be a more easy and tourist friendly way to walk on the bridge, because it is a popular way between Pest downtown and Buda Castle area. The plans are ready, de debate is on who should found the reconstruction. (The government or the local government?)

[@etbadaboum]

It's a great example! Paris just did the same thing with the Iéna bridge facing the Eiffel Tower with a similar setup, to already huge success.

[@barnabasszabolcs8708]

Tök jó! Nem is tudtam, h biztonságosan át lehet menni már biciklivel a Lánchídon!🙏❤

[@yagi3925]

Gratulálok. Minden jót kívánok.

[@GuiCDourado]

Great example! Thanks for sharing

[@bencekeomley-horvath385]

Using it every day by bike

[@hypernewlapse]

*private car free. not fully car free

[@csuulok]

1:39 biggest stinker 😂

[@turkizno]

The adjustment period I feel was still a bit too short, and the traffic in other areas of the city definitely got worse because of it. But I absolutely fully support the bridge going "car-free", due to the integrity of the bridge as well as to remake the city to be more car-free as well. Nyugati Station is an absolute nigthmare in rush hour still, especially coupled with Europe not doing anything about those abhorrent, big as a bull american cars that are here for no reason.

[@nemo-x]

Yeah but if you make the city car free you kill the city. Inner city businesses will not be able to operate if people can not get there by car unless it's tourists with light shopping at best. You don't carry new furniture to your apartment on a bike or public transport. You don't come back from a shopping trip or a grocery run with several bags of things on the tram. Don't try to turn a metropolis into a village. It will not work, it will just cause massive issues. Nyugati is precisely a nightmare because half the city is forced to go over the Margit bridge.

[@janoshortobagyi9877]

Didn't expect my home city to appear in a youtube channel about positive examples of urban design :) But yes, chain bridge is one of the not so much good examples here, even if this move is criticised by dumb right-wing populists.

[@urbanmobilityexplained]

Thank you for watching! This is our very first UMX video filmed in Budapest. Feel free to suggest other good practices that could be featured on the channel in the future. We’re always looking for new topics! 😊

[@cintula82]

the only positive concept regarding Bp.

[@jurijgnjv]

@@urbanmobilityexplainedanother positive example is in Jozsefvaros, the 8th district of Budapest. Creating greener public spaces, and being the first municipality to be brave enough to make the otherwise free residential parking permits not free. Now its between 5 to 8 euros for a car per months, which had a great effect. Before the reform there were 20% more premits than parking spaces, now its about even. It was quite a controversial reform as it has one of the worst well-off population among the districts of Budapest, but a brave move politically. All other inner city districts were waiting if the leadership will lose the electuon because of it, but they were reelected and now the 7th district is introducing a similar reform.

[@nemo-x]

It isn't criticised by dumb right wing populists it is criticized by everyone who doesn't explicitly hate cars. The Magyar Autóklub isn't dumb right wing populists. Several traffic planners have also condemned the change, and it is MEASURABLE that congestion in the city has increased massively because of it.

[@mastermindd]

Majd lesz nemulass, mikor az Árpád-hidat és a Petőfi-hidat felújítják. :D

[@S300V]

Lets say its more a money grab by the city Council. Only 7% voted on the question of the car ban (I doubt thats even representative). The bridge was not renovated to previously agreed standards, so the cost difference was pocketed. Funniest: police stand on each side of the bridge... but dont stop cars from entering the bridge! They fine them when they get to the other side! 😂 What a load!

[@balazspetho5636]

7% of Budapest's population is approx 119.000 people. And every citizen had enought time and opportunity to make his voice heard. A representative study on a topic like this needs 300-2000 people...

[@S300V]

@balazspetho5636 300-2000 people? You are joking right 🤣 300? Thats less than a single full no7 bus... on an light day😆. The enough time is not an excuse for the low turnout as it is a question of advertising, reach, inclusion too.

[@metrothom]

I live in Budapest. This change is definitely a positive. But it would be even better to remove taxis, there is no reason for the special treatment. The really radical thing would be to remove the buses too, change the pedestrian lane to bike lanes, and send pedestrians down the middle. This would benefit both pedestrians and cyclists. The outer path on each side is rather narrow: one bike or two pedestrians wide. For pedestrians, the bridge is much calmer now but the space still feels ‘tight’, so it is still not a place to dwell. And it’s difficult for wheelchairs and other restricted mobility. Instead, make each outer path a one-way path for bikes: then they can just go straight ahead without worries. And pedestrians in the middle would get a great experience, with good space to enjoy the views, take their time. You could even put tables and greenery there, it would become a real destination.

[@nemo-x]

I have no idea where you live, or work, but it can not be near that place, because crippling the transit in a city leads to more traffic jams, more pollution, and the number of people using it on foot is minimal, because it is open to the elements and windy. And you also seem to not have been on the bridge, because the views are restricted because of the construction of the bridge and the railing, so barely anyone uses it on foot. And from the center of the bridge there are absolutely *no* views except for the sky, because of 1.7 m tall metal trusses that are part of the basic construction of the bridge surround the roadway. It would not become a "destination" unless you literally placed businesses onto the bridge, which would mean fundamentally altering the basic layout of a cultural heritage landmark. And then you also want to ban public transport from it. Why? Spite? Do you want people to suffer? Getting from one side of the city to the other is difficult enough as it is, but now you also want to punish people using public transport. I don't wish ill on you, but if you ever have an accident needing transport by ambulance you would NOT say what you are saying for example.

[@metrothom]

@@nemo-x "I have no idea where you live, or work, but it can not be near that place", "And you also seem to not have been on the bridge", "Do you want people to suffer?". You are free to disagree with my suggestions, but this tone is disrespectful and condescending. In any case, you are mistaken in your assumptions: I live and work near the bridge, and have crossed it many times, in buses, taxis, on bike and on foot. I simply think that while the city is moving in the right direction with respect to urban mobility, it can and should do more. Again, you are free to disagree, but the condescending tone is completely inappropriate.

[@nemo-x]

@metrothom The suggestion you made restricting public mobility by banning public transport is also completely inappropriate and actually insane, and i think it is audacious that you would even dare suggest such a thing. It is directly harmful to hundreds of thousands of people in favor of having a minor increase in comfort of a miniscule minority using the bridge on bicycles. Like burning down an apartment block because it blocked the view from your living room window. I actually can not express how ludicrous and morally and factually wrong i think your suggestion is, so i have been very courteous in my phrasing of things, because clearly our disagreement is beyond just the usage of the bridge. But to give reasoning for each of the phrases you were upset about: -I assumed you could not live or work near the bridge, because even just occasionally being there it is blatantly obvious that the videos picked for the report are misrepresentative, as there are barely any cyclists and much fewer pedestrians there most of the time. -I also assumed you have not been on the bridge, because the views from it are absolutely not special in any way or better than the views from the riverbanks. The view from the center of the bridge is especially bad because the structures of the bridge are in the way. And the views from the pedestrian areas are not impacted by the banning of cars. These pedestrian lanes you suggest have always existed on the sides of the bridge, and in the center they would just have limited views. I assumed that you were not knowing what you are talking about, because the only other options would be that you are delusional or in some other way incapable of perceiving reality, or you know the facts but don't take them into account when deciding things, or you take them into account but want to make people suffer. I did not want to assume the latter. -But your suggestions *would* point towards that: The current restriction objectively makes things worse for car users across the city. The mayor when asked about this specifically was *for* letting car users suffer. You however are not satisfied with this and want to extend the ban to public transport as well, which would be making things worse for even more people. Because pedestrians are already completely and safely separated from traffic, the view is much better from the sides, and wide pedestrian lanes already exist, the only benefit would be to cyclists who, again, are not just a minority, but a negligible minority compared to drivers or even pedestrians. Additionally it would not be without precedent, since the mayor explicitly stated that drivers *should* suffer. If you know about all these facts and think that overall your suggestions wouldn't result in suffering you must be thinking that you could get more people to switch to a bike. But that isn't the case either. The only place where a significant part of the population uses bikes for getting around is the netherlands. Which is both flat and has a coastal moderate climate. Budapest has hills, and temperature extremes ranging from +40°C to -20°C. You will not get people to switch to cycling under these conditions. And even if the bridge were car free and this would somehow entice people to magically be okay with discomfort and possible health harm from cycling in freezing and hot weather, *the connecting roads* all have cars and public transport, so people would still have to cycle near cars to get to the bridge. Additionally densely built up areas with businesses other than finance and gastronomy can not operate with bikes. The economy, including tourism depends on being able to transport bulky things to individual destinations, which necessitates taxis or cars. Making things worse for them is harming the economy of the inner city. As i stated in another comment: If you want to live in a village or town go move there, there are plenty with nice waterfront access and bike paths like Visegrád, grand architecture like Esztergom, or bridges like Baja. Do NOT try to fundamentally alter a culturally and historically significant metropolis including altering the function of historical landmarks. Not only would Séchenyi be turning in his grave if you told him that his magnum opus for easing transport and vitalizing commerce will be restricted to foot traffic. But you would also be harming hundreds of thousands if not millions of people with the knock on effect of deleting one of the main reasons the inner city could become a great thing in the first place: ease of access. Saying you disagree with this is like saying you disagree with grass being green. It's not a matter of perspective or just one fact. It's a ton of independent facts, most of which are incontrovertible, all pointing towards the same thing, of your suggestion being very harmful, for little to no benefit. Like burning down an apartment block because it blocks the view from a single window. THIS is why i am upset, and THIS is why implore you to rethink this.

[@ahaveland]

I live in Budapest too - it is a bridge, not a coffee shop or park! It is there to allow people to cross from one side to the other and I'm sure that a great deal of research has been done to find the greatest benefit to the maximum number of people, not just ourselves. Before the renovation it was a nightmare to cross - sometimes taking over 20 minutes! I ride, walk and drive an EV and think that they have made the best decision, though it would be nice late at night to be able to drive across it when there is no traffic. Removing buses is not an option - they are an efficient means of moving people and would have to use other roads and add to traffic elsewhere.

[@PhoenixHen]

Being Hungarian, I'm disappointed he didn't say this in Hungarian. His accent is very strong, and people in other videos spoke their mother tongue.

[@jeremylarsen6072]

I see your point, but his English is great! And doing it in English probably gives the topic more exposure, even if subtitles are available

[@urbanmobilityexplained]

We understand your point! We typically allow the speaker to choose the language they feel most comfortable with on camera, whether it be their mother tongue or another language of their choice. Many opt for English, indeed, because it's widely used ☺

[@abrissimon914]

ahhh yes, Hungarians judging each other for speaking English in a Hungarian accent... such a classic Not everyone speaks in perfect Received Pronounciation and it's alright to have a foreign accent! He speaks well and is completely understandable that's what matters

[@PhoenixHen]

@abrissimon914 Yeah but I wanted to hear him speak Hungarian like how French people spoke French on this channel

[@iGhostr]

How? they changed the rules! That's how

[@szubudaj]

the only reason for the bridge to become car-free is that the majority of the current government officials reside at the castle district and for them to go to work is to cross the Danube on that bridge . The major of Budapest is a member of the opposition and as such made the bridge car-free to make life a bit more difficult for them 🤫

[@TilmanBaumann]

It's a fine bridge with great views. Forcing cars over this ancient and narrow beauty is really a bad idea. I remember it was so nice to use.

[@nemo-x]

It does *not* have great views have you actually been on it? Basically every other bridge has better views.

[@Joemoa]

Bring it back traffic will be better.

[@AkosLestar]

I live next to this bridge and have to cross to the other side of the river every day. This isn a smart and green idea. At least the people that live in the two districts that the bridge connets should have the possibility to use the bridge by car, but no, the mayor have to show how green he is… meanwhile the traffic jams in the city are enormous. Also it’s not even a pedeszrian bridge since the middle part of it is used by buses taxis motors and cycleists. Also it’s not even safer for biking since i usually go through it by bike and the speeding taxis are fucking dangerous.

[@utalomAlibbantakat]

boooooo! ADJÁTOK VISSZA A KÖZLEKEDÉSNEK A HIDAT! PÉNZ TOLVAJ FŐPOLGÁRMESTER RÚGJÁTOK KI!

[@abrissimon914]

Köszönjük a gondosan megalapozott érvelést

[@utalomAlibbantakat]

@abrissimon914 nem tetszik? Akkor ne olvasd!

[@nemo-x]

@@utalomAlibbantakat Hát bocs de igaza van.

[@nemo-x]

@abrissimon914 Tessék itt a megalapozott érvelés: A lánchíd a város egyik fő ütőere volt. Amióta elvágták teljesen megbénult a városban a közlekedés. De ez okkal van így, mivel főpolgármester úrnak feltett szándéka az autósokat büntetni (lásd sávok eltörlése a körúton, ahol a nagy forgalomban egy két biciklis közlekedik csak.) Ez folyamatos dugókhoz vezet, ami iszonyatosan szennyezi a környezetet. A magyar autóklubtól kezdve közlekedési mérnökökön keresztül minden hozzáértő ember elítélte a tervet elmiatt. Továbbá a dugók miatt meghosszabbodott közlekedési idők effektív az emberek idejét rabolják, és cégeknek ezen keresztül pénzügyi veszteséghez vezetnek. Mindez pedig még nem is veszi figyelembe, hogy a belváros autós megközelíthetőségének meggyengítése káros hatással van minden olyan ottani cégre ami nem éppen kisbolt vagy turisztikai vendéglátóipari jellegű. Továbbá az indoklás, hogy az emberek sétálgassanak a lánchídon teljesen eszement, ugyanis csak a várra van jó kilátás, de arra is csak az egyik oldalról, és nem szebben mint a pesti oldalról. Továbbá a duna széles és szeles, a hídnak a gyalogos része pedig nem fedett, ezért tökéletes időjárást leszámítva senki nem akar gyalog rajta lenni. Az autókat kitiltani pedig akkor sem kellett volna ha a gyalogosok segítése a cél, hiszen a lánchíd az a híd amelyiknél a legjobban fallal el van különítve a gyalogos rész az autóktól. Továbbá a felújítási szerződés nem teljesítése miatt a főváros milliárdokat bukott el, ami miatt most kevesebb pénz van más fontos projektre. Ezért a fővárost megrövidítette a főpolgármester ór pénzügyileg, és minden érv amellett szól, hogy a közlekedésnek vissza legyen adva a híd.

[@nemo-x]

Yeeeeah the issue is that it absolutely crippled traffic in the city, by cutting one of the major thoroughfares connecting two sides. -Due to massively increased congestion this means longer times sitting in traffic jams, thus greater pollution. -The increased travel times throughout the city mean time losses for people, and financial losses for businesses. -It was also done in direct violation of the contract to restore the bridge which specified that it must be able to maintain its former function, which means the city lost out on a massive amount government funding, which means the capital is essentially bankrupt and has little money for actually useful projects improving the city. -Additionally foot traffic over the river at that point is marginal at best, as the river is long, there aren't many good scenic photo spots on the bridge, and the view from it is limited, in addition to it being windy. And footpath connections on one side are extremely limited, as there is basically only a non pedestrian tunnel, a long way on the riverbank right beside a road, and a dense and narrow street between houses on that side. -The reasoning with the prevention of damage to the bridge is nonsensical, because it can be restored again and again, and all bridges will need to be restored after some time anyway due to being in wet and windy environment with metal parts, so slightly lengthening the time between renovations is merely a financial benefit, which is insignificant compared to the financial damage caused by loss of business due to inaccessibility alone. -Also, this is THE one bridge which didn't need to ban cars to make foot traffic on it safer, because the pedestrian area is separated by a wide and tall metal wall. -It also comes from a mayor who utterly hates cars for personal reasons, and has made it his mission to make life difficult for people in cars no matter the rationale. So it's harming the environment, costing people time and money, doesn't actually help people on foot, doesn't help tourism (if anything it hurts it because of congestion), reduces accessibility of the inner city, doesn't help with preservation, was paid for by money that could have gone to actually useful projects, and was completely unnecessary for foot traffic - which is minimal at best anyway.