Urbanism Is Not Climate Masochism

We once heard a story from a driver in downtown Halifax, Nova Scotia who was annoyed that a cyclist was slowing him down. Do you know what he said? “You’re not saving the environment, buddy.” This was interesting. The assumption was that if you’re on a bike trying to get somewhere you must be doing it for environmental reasons, probably in an annoyingly self-righteous way. But what if it was just a convenient way to get to work without having to worry about parking? What if it was how he spends time with his kids? What if he just enjoys the fresh air and activity? What if he sold a car in order to save money for other priorities? What if he just finds driving unpleasant? None of this occurred to the driver. The assumption was that the cyclist was there on a bike slowing them down for environmental reasons, probably climate change in particular.
Keep Urbanity rolling:
Join our Patreon for early releases, credit at the end of each video, and bonus content: / ohtheurbanity
Contact form: docs.google.com/forms/d/1NeAL...
Subscribe on KZbin: / @ohtheurbanity
Instagram: / ohurbanity
Twitter: / ohurbanity
For professional inquiries, please fill out the following contact form: docs.google.com/forms/d/1NeAL...
References:
"Eat your vegetables" urbanism: thedeletedscenes.substack.com...
BBC 15-minute cities: • How ’15-minute cities’...

[@c.i.demann3069]

Cars are worried bikes will slow them down. Bikes are worried cars will kill them.

[@zivkovicable]

In my city bikes are faster than cars most of the time. if it wasn't for cars getting in the way bike journeys would be even faster. So would pedestrian journeys for that matter.

[@jeffreywilliams3421]

@@irgendwer3610 Its pretty much any city, cars are stopped by lights pretty much everywhere, whereas bikes and pedestrians can just deal with whatever other bike/ped traffic they find if the car wasn't there without stopping (though really heavy bike traffic such as in eastern asia and the subcontinent can require traffic management as well), meanwhile streets themselves often force long 1-5 minute waits (or even longer in some intersections) on pedestrian and bike traffic because cars are so large and so dangerous that managing them overrides all other concerns, not to mention pedestrians often have to funnel themselves toward intersections with crosswalks instead of just crossing where they are because traffic makes impromptu crossing highly dangerous, etc.

[@antb533]

Paris that way most of the time now..

[@nabob14]

Let cyclists ride on the sidewalks. Majority of sidewalks outside the DT core are pretty much empty. Plus, what would you prefer, a 200lb cyclist getting run over by a 2000lb car, or a 100lb pedestrian getting run into by a 200 lb cyclist? Yes, possibly more minor injuries, but likely no deaths.

[@BrandtAbsolu]

Drivers shouldn't be worried about bikes slowing them down. They do that all on their own.

[@HarryLovesRuth]

Having an older elementary school kid gives me an easy argument: I want my child to have the ability to go places safely on her bike. That painted bicycle on the shoulder of the four lane highway doesn't meet that criteria.

[@cooltwittertag]

im glad I was born in a country where I got to safely cycle to all my schools, it made me love cycling and kept me healthy

[@louisjov]

Honestly that argument needs to get used more because saying "my kids should be able to bike to school!" Would actually resonate with skeptical folks who are willing to hear you out.

[@haydnplus]

That is a great point to bring up in any conversation about the safety of cycling in cities. The way I see it, if your child can’t safely ride their bike to school in your city, then that really makes it clear that said city has major problems. In general, children are the best indicators of whether or not a city is good for anyone. If children don’t enjoy being in a certain area, then the adults probably don’t think any better of it.

[@Descriptor413]

@@louisjov Especially if you can tie it to 50s Americana. "Why don't kids bike to school anymore? Because cars took over in the 60s and 70s and now it's too dangerous." It's part of what I call "Mayberry Urbanism"

[@louisjov]

@@Descriptor413 I like your label for that! Small town America is bike friendly and pedestrian friendly! There's an Alan Jackson song, "Little Man" that's lamenting the loss of small town America, and everything he complains about in the song is a direct result of car dependency. Urbanism honestly is probably a misnomer term for all this in a way, because Urban implies city for most people, but in reality small town America is the perfect petri dish to start bringing all this stuff back

[@veggieboyultimate]

People have gotten so much used to cars that whenever they see other forms of transportation, they ridicule it.

[@Seacle14]

I mean cars are kind of objectively the most convenient, most flexible mode of transport. Once we invent teleportation, we will rightfully ridicule cars.

[@Distress.]

It's more to do with the fact that cars are losing space but there are no alternatives for a lot of drivers. The local gets to ride their bike, but the commuter just sees a capacity issue get worse. Unfortunately unless you're building a city from scratch, there's going to be winners and losers.

[@Potatwielder]

Flexible? Eh. If I wanted to for example do somehing spontanious with friends, no. Hey, lets go to the bar (drunk driving anyone?)! Oh look how beautiful the old town is, lets just walk around it a bit and maybe figure something out to do along the way (cars make it so you have to return to your parking spot, which can be far away depending on how nice the historic town center was)!

[@coke8077]

Because many peope pour way too much money into a car as a status symbol or some kind of self fulfillment, so other forms of transport are seen as attacks on their identity, whether they think this consciously or subconsciously.

[@theuncalledfor]

@@Distress. I commute by train. That's normal in my country. Build proper train networks and your country can do it, too.

[@mackiefarrell]

I once had a coworker in Ottawa tell me that McKenney's cycling infrastructure proposal was nothing but a waste of money. He said no one wants it, and that he had a bike already but it just sat in his garage. He didn't really know how to respond when I asked if maybe his bike stays in the garage because he doesn't feel safe riding it on our roads.

[@zeighy]

Should have followed up that silence with "what would make you take that bike out and ride it on our streets? Such a waste you spent money on it and can't use it." Most reasonable people would easily come up with a reason on what kind of change will make them ride a bike. Anyone who can't or don't want to come up with an answer had completely no intention on riding that bike.

[@theuncalledfor]

Do not measure the need for a bridge by counting the people who swim.

[@ThomasKane424]

I live in Ottawa and I think the bike lanes are stupid because it solves a non existent problem. The advantage to a bike is that you can ride it on the sidewalk OR the road. Not create a whole new lane for a mode of transportation that could be on the existing sidewalks and roads which are plenty wide

[@ThomasKane424]

Rideau king Edward btw so right downtown where there’s more bike lanes than parking spots

[@gabrielmassicotte-rochon9543]

​@@ThomasKane424that's not true, the bike lane greatly increases ridership because of the added safety and you can go faster than on the sidewalk. I can already guess you do not ride your bike to work with comments like these...

[@JustMikeH]

Last weekend I was taking a break in a park to cool down when someone approached me and started a conversation about my bike. they were very passionate about cycling and I thought we were having a good conversation. During the conversation I made a passing comment that I stopped driving years ago because I like bicycle touring, and use commuting to keep myself fit. They looked at me incredulously and said, "Oh, you're an environmentalist." then walked away. I did not say a single thing about the environment, and I'm still dumbfounded.

[@freekingfreaking246]

This is the world we live in.

[@willythemailboy2]

You fell into the "tell me you're an environmentalist without telling me you're an environmentalist" trap. 99% of the time that is the correct interpretation of what you said.

[@CheekyCheeky]

I often get the idea that some people think that the Netherlands is a bike Valhalla so it must be terrible for driving a car and nobody does it, completely oblivious to the Netherlands having some of the best car infrastructure around.

[@martijnvds]

And somehow, we even have "you'll be locked in your 15 minute city" conspiracy theorists!

[@Quintinohthree]

Honestly, as good as the Netherlands is, much of it is still very car-centric and attempts to change that are not universally accepted.

[@kaasmeester5903]

@@Quintinohthree How much does it have to be changed, and why? We're pretty much at the point where the bike is a viable choice for any journey, if you're willing to ride the distance. Even cross country. The two main reasons to implement further changes seem to be: 1) making the bike a more attractive choice where it makes sense, and 2) road safety for cyclists. We'll be seeing car-free zones, or zones where they are actively discouraged, as well as lower speed limits in cities (30km/h). That's all great... as long as people who do need a car can still use one, or have options to move.

[@gencreeper6476]

@@martijnvds To be fair though thats a valid concern for Americans. The US gov and most of the local gov down from that hardly do anything without having some nefarious purpose behind it to benefit the American ruling class. I could actually see American cities once they actually run out of room for cars to where theyre forced to change specifically implementing policies that limit people to within 15 min of their designated housing in the name of "keeping order". A lot of europeans dont really understand this about the US. I do because I actually live near it. Western europeans (in particular after many wars and revolutions) have the luxury in modern times of assuming the government was established to help the people of the nation even if it fucks up horribly from time to time. America is an outright plantation aristocracy where the government is a tool for the ultra wealthy to wield against everyone else limited only by an ever eroded old constitution. Many Americans have every right to fear a future where theyre gonna be locked in their home and restricted from leaving. Basically you need a sane enough society in the first place to even want to have people walk among eachother and not locked behind metal doors. Just trying to drop European wakable infrastructure into the US wont solve these deep societal problems that predated the automobile and actually helped cause the US brand of "car dependence" not the other way around.

[@FullLengthInterstates]

​@@Quintinohthreethe main complaint of the netherlands ive seen from urbanists is much of it is unwalkable due to large distances. which i really don't think is a problem when the bike infrastructure is so good. density has other important benefits but if you're unable to travel because you refuse to use wheels, you only have yourself to blame.

[@Coccinelf]

I'm really curious what is the percentage of people who buy their first car because they really want to as opposed to because they don't have any choice. A 16 year old kid buying his first second-hand car because he can't wait to go places without his parents driving him around doesn't buy a car by choice.

[@JChang0114]

Perhaps they don't want to be sexually assaulted on a train or want to deal with a warm tram car smelling of piss.

[@jaredhamilton8694]

Given the general state of bike and transit infrastructure in North America, most people don’t have a real choice. So at that point, it’s just a question of whether the apathetic count alongside the unwilling (and also how many people are car enthusiasts).

[@elliotwilliams7421]

Yes they do choose to buy cars

[@jternowetsky35]

@elliotwilliams7421 it's not a choice when owning a car is the only practical way to get anywhere.

[@yorkshirehousewife784]

@@elliotwilliams7421 there’s a difference in choosing to buy a car and choosing to use one. I own a car, it’s taxed MOT’d and we’re insured all year round. I choose to cycle everyday locally (work, shopping, hospital visits, medical and recreation) because it’s quicker to get about my city and its suburbs. It’s cheaper to run and free to park, we also have some safe infrastructure to. However, many people in my city don’t know how to get about on bicycle. Because they have spent years travelling by car either being chauffeured and or driving and not going anywhere by foot or bike. They simply don’t know how to navigate the city without a car. They see driving as an only option and the general consensus is: “it’s too dangerous to cycle” because of dangerous people behind the wheel. And they’re not wrong. I’ve uploaded 100’s of video clips to our police force because of dangerous drivers putting my life in danger. I’ve even been hit by a dangerous driver whilst stopped allowing a pedestrian to cross a road in a residential area. He accelerated into me then almost hit a pedestrian on the pavement as a result of hitting me being out of control of his car, driving as a secondary activity. Listening to extremely loud vulgar rap with small children in the car. My footage on my bicycle. Was the only evidence of what happened that day. Often people choose to Drive because they don’t see any other choice.

[@SkipGole]

Whenever I get a compliment for commuting to work, my coworkers sometimes comment on how I’m trying to save the environment. This is not my main reason. I tell how it’s much more pleasant and stress free to ride because there’s no traffic. For example, my commute is always 50 minutes. That never changes. In a car, it can be 20 to 45 minutes, which is stressful, especially after all those relaxing bike rides!

[@mindstalk]

Yeah, the _reliability_ of not driving is underrated. What really gets commuters down isn't just a 45 minute commute but having to plan for a 45 minute drive even when it's normally 20 or 30. Walking and biking don't have that problem; grade-separated trains usually shouldn't either. (Buses in traffic do.)

[@tsubadaikhan6332]

Also, how is your fitness and mobility compared to theirs after a couple of years? Bad knees limit me to e-bikes that people scoff at, but I like being able to eat an extra piece of chocolate cake without feeling guilty, or paying for a gym membership I wouldn't use. Plus, my city is on a river. I've discovered dozens of beautiful little oasis's, buildings and even artworks.

[@blubberblubb]

I can't blame the car owners. It's really hard to understand without experiencing firsthand. We sold our family car and switched to bikes thinking we'd make a noble sacrifice. Boy was I wrong. There is an indescribable quality to getting around by bike. I never expected this, but switching to bicycles has been a reward instead of a sacrifice.

[@elliotwilliams7421]

What's hard to understand?

[@hankboog462]

​@elliotwilliams7421 a lot of people have so little experience with good transit and bike infrastructure that they literally have no idea how nice it can be and just assume they're only good for people who can't or won't drive

[@hngldr]

For years I was a full blown climate denialist libertarian but still biked to work because I thought it was insanely inefficient and silly to drive to the gym to hop on a stationary bike. I also thought it was crazy to wear down one of the most expensive things you can own just to go a couple miles down the road and be stuck in traffic and not get fresh air. To me biking was freeing to my finances, time, and physically. I continued to do it even in far-flung suburbs because it was that much of an obvious winning choice. While I now am the total opposite of a climate denialist, during the time I was biking was still a stupefyingly obvious win

[@dominicgunderson]

May I ask how you went from climate denialist to, well, not a climate denialst lol.

[@hngldr]

@@dominicgunderson Sure! So my mindset at the time was a combination a couple things. First was not thinking the science was fully clear - not in the sense of thinking CO2 wasn't going up, wasn't a bad thing, or wasn't causing these effects, but that the extent and severity of effects being caused by it might not be as bad as some think because so much has to be put together to extrapolate good nunbers for those effects that the margin for error is probably high. Basically I thought CO2 was going up and was causing some of these effects, but wasn't sure it was going to be so bad. Second, I thought that even if the effects were that bad that we would probably be able to survive and even thrive - I thought the climate scientists extrapolating effects on society were too disconnected from society to accurately predict how it would respond or what the tools of society were - similar to how often renowned physicists start talking about politics or engineering and are EXTREMELY wrong (but get asked a lot because they're smart and people don't tend to understand the nuance of being smart only in a particular area). Basicalmy I thought that yes stuff was happening, but wasn't confident it was as bad or for the reasons scientists said, and I had lots of confidence that even if it was as bad as they said that we would figure it out. What changed my mind was when Tom Scott made a video covering Kurtis Baute's video where he traps himself in a biosphere box where the plants try to keep up with his breathing in order to talk about the effects. The key thing was he just talked about the effects on our brains of higher CO2 - something I already knew was extremely well studied by NASA for Apollo, many universities for their classrooms, and many businesses for their cubicles. In it, he goes on to show that we are on pace to lose roughly 15% of our cognitive problem solving skills by 2050 if memory serves. This hit during the peak of COVID when there was a LOT of stupid people who didn't understand nuance AT ALL (lots of toilet paper hoarders and people filling flimsy plastic bags with gasoline). Before you ask, I wasn't by any means an anti-masker or anti-vaxxer or anything - I found it annoying when people overblew effects to make COVID out to be like the black plague but more contagious, but I also thought it was very important because we didn't know the long-term effects and because even if it was only like the flu, if every single person in a city (including the doctors) has the flu at the exact same time and no medicine is available, that is very deadly. Me seeing that video then couldn't have had better timing - it made it very clear to me that the human race would NOT survive getting any dumber. It also made me start looking at climate change through a new lense - the one I had been looking at COVID through. With COVID I could see how even a flu-like disease could be extremely deadly if it hits everywhere at once and nothing is done. It also let me see that engineering and inventing wasn't enough if people were politically stupid - that you couldn't bail out a sinking ship without plugging the holes no matter how good a bucket you invented. It also was easier to understand how even slightly higher CO2 levels and a few degrees could affect our problem solving that much when having to wear a mask daily - I didn't think masks have long term health impacts or anything (obviously surgeons are fine and wear them daily), but even if it was just the warmth on my face I felt very sleepy and foggy. Who knows, maybe I also had effects from my earlier bought of COVID. Eventually it let me finally see that it wasn't just that we would all get bad brain fog from high CO2 levels but that even if we could survive just fine - our food supply won't, so it wouldn't matter. Lastly is something I only recently stumbled on the words for... When I was in my early 20's, I was very depressed and wanted to die but didn't have it in me. I was struggling to found joy in things but was able to find brief bits of joy in massive amounts of junk food. I consciously made the decision to eat as much junk food as possible every day until I could either be happy in other ways or hopefully just speedrun a heart attack or stroke, thinking those would be relatively quick deaths (thinking back on it I was insane). Instead I got diverticulitis - a disease you normally don't get till your 70's or 80's. I was told I would need a poop bag for the rest of my life. I asked what I could do and 2 doctors both said it was so bad that it was pointless to try and that I'd need it within months. It is now many years later and I'm doing great! But the lesson I learned (and only recently found the words for) is that: When you trash your body like that - you don't have a short but great time and then die young and happy. No, you live miserably for YEARS. If I had gotten the poop bag, I probably would have lived almost as long as if I had never done that stupidity but in a lot more misery - I probably would've just committed suicide or otherwise let myself die. I believe the same applies to our planet now - if we just ignore the problems or worse double down on them with a suicidal "enjoy life & die young" mentality we won't suddenly one day get this movie-like apocalypse that while sad is at least pretty and movie-like. I think that when told the scary effects of climate change - many deniers imagine it that way and conclude "So what? Sounds like our choices are to live miserably or definitely enjoy ourselves but maybe die young." They think if they're wrong (and they aren't sure they are), that at least our death would be quick, short, and fun/pretty (in a sense). Just like me we would instead all live miserably for DECADES before dying. Or maybe the world would just commit suicide via nukes with all the added stress and reduced cognitive ability. So now I extend that philosophy to the world - if we trash it having fun, we won't die young having lived a short but fun life and die in some sudden sad but fun/pretty/poetic apocalypse. No we will live in ugly misery for decades until we slowly die in misery or just off ourselves with nukes under the stress. And even if we try to fix it, the longer we wait the the weaker we will be and more susceptible to problems that should have been easy (the equivalent of going to the bathroom being easy until you have a poop bag). I'm living proof though that not only is it never too late toomake improvements to your life and turn things around, but that there is joy in doing so. I have never lived more in opposite to a "live fast, die young" mentality and I've also never been happier or more able to handle problems thrown my way

[@Moondymon23]

the 15 minute cities thing is so ridiculous. "Hey, how about changing zoning so we can put a coffee shop in this residential area?" "Oh no you're trying to trap me in my neighbourhood!!!"

[@Novusod]

The 15 minute city conspiracy came out of backlash from the World Economic Forum's agenda 2030 in which they stated "It is 2030, you will own nothing and be happy." They proposed 15 minute cities in which all of life's necessities would be packaged as subscriptions so people who live there own nothing. The random youtuber may think it is just about coffee shops but the Billionaires with vast political influence are saying the opposite. It is about creating captive consumers, restricting freedom, dispossessing people of their property so the rich can extract more value from our lives. Anyone who doesn't bend the knee will be tossed into the gutter (homelessness) because they don't have any safety nets to fall back on. It is a total dystopia if you understand what they are planning.

[@yorkshirehousewife784]

😜 absurd ha? Almost as good as: “no I won’t have a vaccine 💉 because bill gates wants to put a chip in me to track my every move!” Whilst playing on a smart phone 📱 tada!🎉

[@simpo558]

Right!!! Making apartments and shops within walking distance makes idiots feel like we're getting trapped in a 15 minute city. It's truly pathetic that so many people believe this and spread it to other plebs

[@dragon_nammi]

​@@yorkshirehousewife784 oh my god it's exactly like this

[@annaolsson5441]

Love to be able to go outside my door and get a coffee and some baked fresh goods from the local bakery, walk to the one of the closer restaurants which is 5 -10 min walk together with my husband on a beautiful evening and be able to see the stars and have the choice to walk or use the buss, bike, tram or sometimes rent a car to me that is freedom...

[@shawnray2436]

"You're not saving the environment, buddy" Not to mention some people are legally not allowed to drive cars but may be able to ride bikes.

[@LoneHowler]

My uncle couldn't drive because of a brain injury. He got everywhere in the city by bike

[@Stroporez]

"I'm not your buddy, guy!"

[@j.s.7335]

It never would have occurred to me that biking could only be about the environment. When I was growing up, my dad had been biking to work for over 20 years. It was exercise, less stressful, and it allowed the family to save money by owing only 1 car. I don't think he once mentioned the environment as a reason, since that was back before anyone considered climate change!

[@abcdeshole]

The mainstream constantly frames anything cycling or urbanism in climate change terms. It’s like there are no other issues with car dependency.

[@CascadiaBC]

My dad cycle commuted to work in the 1970's and '80s from Vancouver to Lake City in Burnaby, 5 days a week, a true pioneer cycle commuter. I guarantee you he never did it for the 'environment'.

[@weezersthebluealbum9479]

This is just another example of people with car brain unable to comprehend that not everyone wants to drive a car.

[@Retro_Duck08]

weezer

[@موسى_7]

Tbh a cyclist in car dependent or car infested places is most likely an environmentalist. Nobody in their right mind would inconvenience and risk their lives so much without purpose.

[@cach9013]

@@موسى_7bikes are also cheaper than cars. Another factor.

[@jetaddict420]

My only problem is that all pro bike people seem to be anti car as well and dont want a healthy mix of transport options

[@LouisChang-le7xo]

@@jetaddict420 yeah because cars are the things that make biking miserable

[@Bismvth]

This is a really crucial piece of messaging for the release of our city's Calgary Plan - basically the closest thing our city has to a constitution, and we're replacing it soon! It enshines walkability, wheelability, and transit efficiency just as important as car mobility. It's not about making cars worse (though you do need to remove space for cars to achieve these goals meaningfully), it's about finally not prioritizing any mode over another, and making all forms of mobility viable and convenient for everyone. "I have to drive because XYZ" is just another way to say "Transit hasn't quite considered folks with XYZ yet." But we CAN, and we WILL!

[@Interrobang2626]

The best perk: You can bring your bike onto public transit. This gives you quick and convenient access to the entire city without having to worry about traffic.

[@mariusvanc]

Ok, and when more than 2 people want to do this at the same time?

[@Maniac8275]

@@mariusvanc You run more trains. Or have space on the trains specifically for bikes. Or limit bikes during rush hour. Do you really think no city has ever come up with a solution to this?

[@quackywhackityphillyb.3005]

@@mariusvanc use a skateboard

[@FullLengthInterstates]

​@@Maniac8275 the biggest benefit of trains over buses etc is adding a railcar to add more space incurs very low marginal cost. if the train is filled by bikes, that becomes a very good justification to run even more trains and improve convenience for everyone. unfortunately cities would rather ban bikes on trains from the busiest areas instead of running more trains. bikes on trains does not have much traction, even among pro transit communities. so bikes on trains will remain a novelty that can only be experienced on some suburban lines.

[@theosiris4179]

@@FullLengthInterstates It's like induced demand on a highway, but the results are much more pleasant

[@oldbrokenhands]

My father had a stroke over ten years ago, and I believe the one thing that kept him going after that was that he was motivated to walk again. Sadly he had to walk in the street because the sidewalks in Dallas are atrocious. Now as I'm getting older I find myself with lower back problems and trying to stay active and researching biking to replace the jogging that I can no longer participate in. You're correct in stating it's not just about saving the environment, urbanism and advocating for other modes of transit is also a way of saving folks via the therapy of outdoor exercise, bike commuting, and mass transit.

[@crowmob-yo6ry]

Cara Mendelsohn is pure evil. I hate her so much!!

[@melissahalle8398]

It's weird that more people don't talk about the success story that is the province of quebec with 100% renewables. It's an interesting story and proves it is possible.

[@beardannyboy]

Because it isn't reproducible. Quebec did it through hydro power, which is dependant on their particular geography. Places without that particular geography can't copy what Quebec has done.

[@noseboop4354]

Quebec is blessed with lots of elevated rivers that can be harvested for hydro. The same model won't work in places like Saskatchewan. And nuclear power? Good luck convincing the federal government to invest in that. And private companies won't touch it due to insurance issues.

[@Whatneeds2bsaid]

Not really. Hydropower doesn’t have the same intermittency issues as other renewables and is highly location dependent. Even comparing it to Ontario, while I have no issues with nuclear, others may disagree, and if they shut down their nuclear plant (like Germany) they’d have a massive clean energy supply shortage with no obvious way to replace it. I say all that to say: Quebec is a green grid on easy mode. Other places have to work a lot harder to replicate their success.

[@baddriversofcolga]

I think it should come with the caveat that hydro is quite bad for the health of rivers. But I think other renewables are totally doable as well if you have political will.

[@dez7800]

@@baddriversofcolga Sure, but hydro still remains better than non-renewables and it solves the problem of intermittency that solar and wind farms deal with. As for Nuclear, you have to manage the radioactive waste which isn't ideal. In sum, hydro is a great energy source and Quebec is lucky to have a terrain that facilitates it, but it still had to develop it. I'm sure other areas have the potential for it but haven't built it yet.

[@langhamp8912]

The complaining about 15-minute cities is only exceeded by how car dealerships are ripping people off.

[@hankboog462]

I genuinely kinda think that the 15 minute city backlash at least started as some sort of corporate psyop

[@jamesphillips2285]

@@hankboog462 More likely anti-WEF (code for anti-jewish) hate.

[@12pentaborane]

I don't see it as complaining, I think it's an actively harmful delusion those conspiracy theorists spread.

[@zilfondel]

I'd be willing to bet that the auto industry is the one paying for the misinformation campaign, like the oil industry has done for solar and EVs.

[@FullLengthInterstates]

The entire car ownership experience from purchase to repairs is riddled with greed. Ordering a bike through a major retailer is definitely a simpler, more transparent process.

[@lej_explains]

100% - I often find people are more convincible when you approach biking/transit from the lack of stress, happiness, connection, and money saving angles rather than larger societal reasons. (Kinda similar to getting people to try eating plant based - don’t tell them they need to to save the world, just say you felt physically better. Now if we could just make urbanist experiences safer (concrete bike lanes and dealing with semi-frequent harassment/crime on some metros) we’d be set in convincing a lot more.

[@jamesphillips2285]

The crime thing is just a case of crime maps being population maps. In many cities 1 person could get murdered every month on the train: and it would STILL be safer than driving!

[@gencreeper6476]

Yes however one thing is biking enthusiasts are prone to the exact same thinking as car enthusiasts in thinking that everyone will enjoy it. I've never enjoyed riding a bicycle and somehow thats a valid stance to take on everything from driving to boating to flying to motorcycles but the moment your response to "why dont you bike" is "I dont like it" its somehow considered weird even by people who dont even bike themselves. To me theyre barely faster than walking, theyre still something you can get hurt (rarely killed even) riding and they still carry the drawback of having to find a spot to "park" it and go back to it plus having to balance it. My dream if I had to have a city would be having all private vehicles including bicycles be second class compared to having almost every street set up for streetcars (totally replacing buses), and pedestrians with a network of skytrains and subways instead of freeways for faster longer journeys. Private vehicles then get space allocated on a needs basis (eg workers carrying tools, deliveries). That really translates to you probably still get to bike most places in the city most of the day and have it be way safer it just means that if need be your bicycle will be stopped so the pedestrians and streetcars can go never the other way around. Transit and pedestrian needs to be at the absolute top of the "hierarchy" not bikes which are still private vehicles that not everyone wants to drive.

[@FullLengthInterstates]

​@@jamesphillips2285 half true: per capita crime rates are higher in US cities, though this often does not factor in the difference in terms of daytime population when all the non resident tourists and suburban commuters flood into the city. So its not the same as a population map, but urban crime rates are inflated due to ignoring the visitors who literally double the city's occupants.

[@Mrnevertalks]

4:40 that's the same comment I made on that video. It was well intentioned, but it isn't the job of Canadians to tell Americans where and how to get involved locally. Also, I do find it silly how derisive some drivers can be of other modes of transport when the majority of what I hear from them are complaints about parking, traffic, or costly repairs. Drivers don't even make driving sound appealing!

[@mindstalk]

The biggest enemy of drivers is other drivers.

[@chefnyc]

I don’t care about much about saving gas because I don’t drive during the weekdays. I am fine driving on the weekends. But I am still a big fan of walkable neighborhoods, middle income housing, biking and public transit.

[@ab8817]

>walkable neighborhoods >middle income pick one

[@Quadfractum]

@@ab8817 Why would a middle income walkable neighborhood not be attainable? If anything it would be easier to have both, rather than a middle income car dependant neighborhood, as you would liklely have more people living closer together, with smaller and cheaper to maintain roads, among other cheaper amenities.

[@ab8817]

@@Quadfractum do i really have to explain why new developments are built for profit today and capital investors and developers have zero interest in affordability or "urbanism"

[@chefnyc]

Sorry I meant “middle housing” and I don’t want to edit my original comment to ensure the replies are still valid. Basically not highrise, not single family house. Something like 3-6 stories apartment buildings. They make sense in terms of developer profits as well (if allowed)

[@user-uo7fw5bo1o]

​@@ab8817 In a lot of cities in the United States you have neither walkable neighborhoods nor middle income housing! The auto-centric suburban sprawl has got that expensive especially in places like Miami and Los Angeles.

[@kevley26]

Babe wake up, our favorite urbanist couple just uploaded!

[@noahkidd3359]

I love this channel because it's one of the only non-obnoxious urbanist channels on KZbin.

[@sarahbezold2008]

oh they're a couple? that's really cute. I assumed they were just cohosts

[@Zyo117]

Where did this 'babe wake up' meme even come from, and why is she always asleep?

[@kevley26]

@@sarahbezold2008 I don't actually know if they've said it before, but I'm pretty sure they've said stuff like "we moved to Montreal" which implies a relationship

[@frempy4426]

@@noahkidd3359What you don’t like someone living in Europe talking about how much of a loser you are for living in North America?

[@TheManOfPeace999]

I couldn't imagine WANTING to drive in downtown Halifax and then complaining about someone on a bike

[@manlan8]

When I started biking to work 24 years ago, my main reasons were that I was watching cyclists pass my bus on the way to work, I wanted to increase my physical activity, and it looked like fun. When I sold my car 2 years later, the main reason was to save money. Having less impact on the environment was just a bonus.

[@DocScience2]

several decades ago, I was in a city where I missed getting on the bus as it passed. I sprinted for a couple blocks and caught up to the bus, and got on it. I often wondered if that bus was always that slow.

[@philrichmond5919]

When you hear people say things like that, it’s not that they believe anyone is doing it for the environment. All they care about is privilege, the promise of having a car is to go where and when you want faster than other people can. Which of course is a lie, because if everyone has one you’re not better than any of them. But what’s worse is having bought privilege is to learn you don’t actually get to enjoy it, and having people on bicycles going about their day just as easily as you without the expense is just a reminder you were duped. Being able to go faster is just the release to feel superior, and when the cyclist rides past you again when you’re stopped by traffic it’s easier to malign them than yourself.

[@Distress.]

Not true at all, there's a ton of urbanists who constantly preach that they're saving the planet with bikes or trains.

[@patriot9487]

@@Distress. they are, and it's not about the environment. It's objectively better in everyway. Better fiscally, better for our physical health, our mental health. ect

[@Distress.]

@@patriot9487 clearly not in comfort and convenience.

[@nikhilsrl]

​@@Distress.Ignorance talking. Bikes are way more convenient for shorter trips within the city. If good transit exists bike + transit trumps cars in convenience and comfort.

[@clobberelladoesntreadcomme9920]

I ride my bike to work and pick up the work vehicle I need to drive that day. While I'd rather be getting around by bike, I don't feel this weird jealousy that the straw-man driver in your head seems to feel. I just acknowledge that for hauling thousands of pounds of equipment from work site to work site, you need a car, and for hauling just yourself, your lunch and a bottle of water, a bike is superior. Urbanist take note: this us vs them attitude does not exist in places with good public transit and bike infrastructure because people just chose the mode that works best for them that day.

[@The2wanderers]

A person riding a bike isn't going to save the environment. But increasing cycling mode share from 1-2% to 20-30% in large cities around the world can make a substantial difference.

[@funshine9892]

I bike to work every day because its the cheapest way to get there .

[@rvallenduuk]

I'm all for the environment and all that, but the main two reasons I cycle in Dublin are that it's faster and cheaper to get around town on two wheels. Infrastructure has improved a lot over the 25 years I'm here but it's still non-existant in many places and shite in others. They just don't get it. Bike theft is rife and the police don't care. People park in bike lanes and the police don't care. They park in bike lanes and on footpaths themselves to go and get a coffee. And still I cycle...

[@Gary_C]

Walking is way better for the environment. So every time you see someone walking be sure to heckle them about their political agenda. EVERY TIME.

[@BTC0288]

I've been car-less in Minneapolis for 35 years now and it's been all about the Benjamins($). I paid off my house in less than 20 years, funded a very healthy retirement account and traveled overseas on holiday more than 50 times (not so great for the environment). I'm slightly overweight but I would probably be morbidly obese if I didn't use my bike to get around for much of the year. Finally I just really, really enjoy riding my bike.

[@travisbassett1084]

There is really good podcost near me where they interview different people who cannot drive for different reasons (anxiety, other medical conditions, too old, too young or income), and the impact it has on their lives. It's a low social economic area and way out of town - it's interesting how they discuss transport is designed around men - going to work and home again. One point they make is city planners should spend time getting around with a pram, in a wheelchair, riding - actually catching the public transport to try and get between multiple medical appointments, as part of the process.

[@vulduv]

I personally find that it's more effective to treat envirmentalism as more of a footnote when talking about urbanism publically. I strongly agree that the face of urbanism should be the increased livability and the economic benefits. Environmentalists also generally know that transit, walking, micromobility and such are already quite environmentally friendly. So you won't get the opposite effect of having those groups assuming that the added livability of urbanism comes at some cost to the environment. Also on the point about the Nth review's video, while I don't completely agree with it, I do agree that urbanist youtubers don't mention actual activism enough. (Though that's definitively a complaint I have much more with some other channels.) I think that even though activism is indeed a very local thing, I don't think it's pointless to show viewers groups and resources that may not be local to them. As simply showing that these kinds of groups exist and what they look like, can prompt people into looking up things that _are_ local to them. And even just showing people that it is possible for them to do more, and getting that on their minds, can push some people towards actually doing more. It doesn't need to be the focus of an entire video, and definitively not every video, god no. As you two say, it's very important to get examples of successful urbanism out there. But I think even just passively mentioning the activist groups involved in success stories, providing links to such groups and resources (Even better if its in an *i* card.), and such things would go a long way towards spurring on more proper activism in people who otherwise would remain fairly passive. Does what I'm saying make sense? Am I missing anything, or does anything I said require clarification?

[@AnotherDuck]

The channel that's the best at highlighting actual and local activism is absolutely Strong Towns. Though that's also the main purpose of the channel, so it makes sense.

[@richardg8651]

I don't share all your biking enthusiasms but thank you for giving me a new perspective with the "eat your peas" criticism. I have been guilty of this outlook.

[@AnotherDuck]

I like bikes, I like peas, and I like people who can reflect on themselves.

[@JesusChrist-qs8sx]

I think part of the reason - and something that urbanists have to get better at - is a lot of the urbanist messaging, and broader urban groups, have a tendency to lean more liberal, and that typically ends up reflecting in their content. There are exceptions, of course, and some are worse than others (and some embrace it, which I'll always respect) but by and far, most urbanist channels tend to be "liberal coded". Inevitably, on the internet, where everything gets taken to extremes, that ends up meaning it becomes another red vs blue, my team vs your team, conservative vs liberal, issue, when the reality is it's anything but that - it's not even exclusively a city thing! Small towns are just as urban as city neighborhoods, at least ideally.

[@bramvanduijn8086]

I've heard it said that reality has a liberal bias.

[@Lunarl4ndr]

Takes me seven minutes to ride to work and ten minutes to drive and no need to find parking, added time. As a pedestrian I can go through lights when it is safe or take non-streets. Plus heart health or something.

[@nerdzone]

What kind of mockery attempt even is "You are not saving the planet, buddy"? It sounds petty as hell.

[@user-xg6zz8qs3q]

Yeah, well ask them about insurance & gas. Cycling is the cheapest method of transportation by a long shot. It makes riding the bus feel like a racket. I can spend 88€ on a monthly transit pass or buy a serviced used bike for 150€. Car insurance alone would be 100€ per month just to have the car.

[@baddriversofcolga]

It's strange because it's simply wrong. And the guy in the car is definitely doing the opposite of saving the environment.

[@user-xg6zz8qs3q]

@@baddriversofcolga You're not gonna convince anybody talking about ethics and the environment. It's especially true with conservatives. The media is owned by billionaires and is far-right/conservative leaning. To put it bluntly, the environment isn't a bother until it is. Money is the most important thing in the universe right now, far above ethics, the environment and personal happiness. You can never have too much money. Everyone is a billionaire in the making. All problems can be solved by the individual, as the self help books say. Yaddi, yadda. Tell that idiot "Your car is making you poor. Dave Ramsey said so". That's how you reach the stone cold heart of a conservative.

[@baddriversofcolga]

@@user-xg6zz8qs3q Oh, I know! It's deeply unfortunate that people don't care about the environment that they live in, but alas...

[@user-uo7fw5bo1o]

When he says that, a good reply would be, "The corporations and Conservatives got you right where they want you!"

[@Chomp-Rock]

'How do you know do deliveries' The same way we do now only faster because the trucks don't get stuck in rush hour traffic.

[@RobRoordink]

In the Netherlands there is a saying What the farmer doesn’t know, he doesn’t eat. North American fanatic drivers have blinders. They should see Not just bikes on KZbin the episode Driving is way better here. Driving in the Netherlands is way better. It’s a country where roads are designed not only for cars but for pedestrians, bikers, public transport and drivers. And it proves to be saver and nicer for drivers too. I live 4 miles from the city center. There I take a coffee with my wife and friend. I can choose between driving, biking, walking or public transport. It’s all very save. That’s freedom. When it is not raining I prefer the bike.

[@crowmob-yo6ry]

NJB sucks. He's too angry and hateful.

[@RobRoordink]

@@crowmob-yo6ry hè is

[@bramvanduijn8086]

@@crowmob-yo6ry I would say frustrated is more accurate than angry and hateful. And that's understandable.

[@mindstalk]

@@crowmob-yo6ry NJB is great and awesome. He's angry at things that _should_ make you angry.

[@ethananderson4348]

I recently had a great conversation with some friends regarding environmentalism. I've had a long standing opinion that there must be a change in lifestyle for the greater society to reduce energy consumption (since it is cheaper than increasing energy production). This viewpoint is entirely sacrificial, and when you live in an auto-oriented region like I do, it is a sacrifice. The benefit comes in the margins: taking the train into the city when possible (even if it may take extra time), biking/walking in the city instead of enduring traffic in a car, etc. Tackling the issue from a QoL improvement is something I need to learn to incorporate in my discussions, and I'm thankful for videos like these

[@bark9396]

coming from Alberta, I hear the mindset of car-free cities being a compromise all too much. this is a great video to show those people that don't believe how beneficial it is!

[@j.vanderson6239]

I am a senior and I bike every day for everything. Not because of the environment but simply because it keeps my body and brain healthy.

[@futurerails8421]

The thing is here in Europe a lot of urbanists propose highly untactical things that generate a lot of resistance and make it much harder to get approval for later infrastructure projects be it for cycling or transit. For example many urbanists in Germany want to impose a speed limit on the famous Autobahn and in The Netherlands they went so far to even lower the speed to just 100kp/h at certain times. It gets even more absurd in Berlin where the Green Party opposed subway tunneling because of CO2 emissions.Not all urbanists are like this but those who are are extremly loud and those who aren't dont speak against the extremists in their own rows. It is extremly frustrating to see Nimbys activists having success turning average people to their side and manipulate them to stop for example light rail projects just because those average people got angry over mainly symbolic anti car measurements.

[@OhTheUrbanity]

The "urbanists" against subways are unfortunately very much a thing here in Canada too

[@bramvanduijn8086]

The Dutch limit of 100 kp/h probably didn't negatively affect transit time at all, what with everyone getting stuck in traffic anyway, so putting it back to 130 kp/h was pure populism. The 100 kp/h rule could have reduced the number of accidents, it would definitely have improved engine efficiency, and it may even have positively affected transit time because changing lanes is easier at lower speeds. But we will never know for sure because populists hate trying something out for a decade or two before judging it.

[@futurerails8421]

​@@bramvanduijn8086 Im not saying speed limits on highways have no effect but instead such decisions can endanger projects for cycling and transit as a side effect. I don't know how it is in the Netherlands but here in Germany a small majority wants a speed limit while a substantial minority is firmly against it. The small majority includes many people who don't even drive while Highways are fully grade seperated in Germany. Those people could become angry if a speed limit it forced on them as it could feel like "Those who don't even drive are interfering with a car only road" and then those people could go after any infrastructure project for sustainable mobillity as a revenge. It's better to use the desire for no speed limit on the Autobahn in Germany or higher speed limits on highways in the Netherlands to negotiate other improvements. Like for example more high speed rail and substantially lower speeds limits on country roads where head on collisions are a major problem, cyclists share the road with cars and both cyclists and pedestrians need to cross the sometimes.

[@ishathakor]

grew up in bangkok and i genuinely hated getting in the car to go anywhere within the city (with exceptions for stuff like going to a school dance because i didn't want to walk there with heels on). i could walk everywhere i needed to go on a daily basis (school and tutors). and i could walk or take the train to plenty of places i liked to go for fun (basically one of the malls). i was used to the weather so the heat didn't bother me at all and the rain would usually stop quite quickly after and the infrastructure was good so we rarely had flooding in my area, and even if it did, it would clear up in like 20 minutes, so you could walk/use transit literally every single day of the year. i grew up like this, walking home from school because taking the bus would take longer (lots of traffic in bangkok lol). just going to the movies whenever i felt like it. going to the mall to do some window shopping. going to the grocery store to get snacks or milk or pick up something we've run out of. going to the corner store at 11 pm on my own because i decided i wanted to get something with my allowance. going over to my friend's place whenever i wanted. stopping at a food stall i liked on the way to my tuitions after school. stopping at a park on my way home to look at some trees and lie on the grass. i used to make fun of my dad for driving to the badminton courts on the weekends when we played badminton because it was such a pleasant walk and only 30 minutes and we were going to exercise anyway, so why did we need the car? i used to complain when he decided to drive to the mall because it was faster to walk or take transit. and then i moved to the us. currently staying at my aunt's place. she lives in a classic american-style car-centric suburb. i can't do anything. going for a walk sucks because it's like being in a ghost town. i never see anyone and it's just road as far as the eye can see. the other day we were out of milk, and i thought i can just run down to the store and buy some. then i realized if i want to go to the nearest grocery store it's a 5 hour roundtrip. i wanted to go to the downtown, and there are no trains or busses. on a bike it would take 2 hours, and there are no bike lanes, so i would have to cycle on a highway with cars going at 70 mph. and the most ridiculous part is, every time i explain how insane this way to live is, i have americans telling me to buy a car! i don't have the money for a damn car?? i don't have thousands of dollars?? and then they'll bring up me complaining about not being able to cycle places as if that's comparable at all, when cycles are infinitely cheaper to buy, own, store, and repair than a car is. i had a friend in college who kept her cycle in her dorm, right next to her desk during the winter months. imagine doing that with a car. and i understand the benefits the car fans are always going on about. it's a box with ac, which is great. you can go door to door. roadtrips do kind of slap sometimes. they're great if you need to be carrying a bunch of shit. but these benefits are not worth being trapped without a car. we advocate for alternative transportation and walkability because they improve your life. and even people who are super against urbanism or 15 minute cities or walking or whatever would agree, because walking down a main street is an infinitely more enjoyable experience than driving to a strip mall. which is why they have to invent things we aren't even advocating for, because by agreeing that good urbanism is a positive thing they would have to agree that something in their life should change, and they are fundamentally against change, not pro car or anti walking. edit: i also think the amount of complaining i've just done about how unpleasant and inconvenient and expensive car dependency is is just more proof that most people aren't in this primarily for purposes of mitigating climate change. that's a nice bonus win-win situation. walking or biking or transit are just better options in many cases regardless of the climate impact.

[@addieburkam2204]

As a resident of Halifax this is very common occurrence. Most drivers here live outside of the city center and therefore need a car to get around reliably (including myself!). However, this also means a ton of people have never experienced cycling so they don’t have a lot of empathy for bikers. Although it seems like the culture is changing a bit thankfully ! Thanks for the great video!

[@Ladadadada]

When I started cycling about three years after moving to London my two main motivations were fitness and money. Although climate change mattered to me it would not have been enough on its own to convince me to try cycling with the (lack of) infrastructure that existed at the time, especially since I was switching from public transport rather than driving. In more recent years with all the improvements to safe cycling infrastructure, my wife and I like cycling in London because it is actually an enjoyable activity to do together, and a refreshing change from squeezing onto public transport during rush hour. And it's still benefiting my fitness and finances.

[@matthewlafrance8817]

Thanks for including footage from Edmonton. That city is very underrated. Nice to see the recognition 😊

[@oynion]

extreme individualism and corporate propaganda is what made americans so brainwashed about cars

[@roshanramesh2634]

And lack of social responsibility.

[@skurinski]

or we just prefer cars. Funny how that works

[@skurinski]

or we just prefer cars. Pretty simple

[@baddriversofcolga]

@@skurinski How can you prefer something when the built environment gives you no choice?

[@Ry_TSG]

@@skurinski You prefer cars over walking or biking on the side of a highway of 4 lane stroad? Of course you do, because that's the only thing that the infrastructure is built for. But would you still prefer cars if the place you lived in made walking, biking, and transit safe, convenient, clean, fast, and inexpensive? Possibly, but it's impossible to know that unless you've experienced it, and I'd be willing to bet that if you could experience that, you would use other methods of transportation at least sometimes in addition to driving. That's the beauty of building walkable cities; you at least have the choice of how to get around, unlike in car centric places where that choice was made for you.

[@RossSpeirs]

We were a car family. We owned multiple cars, loved road trips, etc. growing up. Living in the prairies meant travelling long distances to visit relatives in other parts of the province or other provinces entirely. That being said, my dad ran downtown every morning to work and when he got older, took the train. We walked to and from school, or biked. I bike to as many things as I can, but can no longer bike to work most days as it takes 75 minutes+ each way. We can all get along.

[@davidfreeman3083]

Well said! Yes, urbanism is more than 'sacrificial activism' where people advocate for necessary sacrifices for 'greater goods' such as the environment, or even equality purposes. While these are important causes that drives urbanism, I think it's necessary to mention that better urbanism can benefit our quality of life directly, for the most part at least.

[@juliapoelstra3624]

I try to either cycle or electric scooter to work, but it's a 42km round trip. The last 1-2 km right before work is terrifying.. One coworker has never returned to work after being struck on her e-bike. Otherwise there are some marvelous trails that cut straight across the busy downtown.

[@brandontaraku6081]

Amazing video as always. I chose to bike to work in a no so bike friendly city (LA), and while the environment is probably a factor in pursuing this lifestyle, this was not what motivated me to pursue this. I was honestly fed up with how much money I was spending on my car, including gas, insurance and parking fees. I decided to sell my car and buy an e-bike to commute to work and a year later I still think it was an excellent decision. Even before I sold my car, I would frequently bike on the weekends for recreation. I love biking to the beach and biking through different neighborhoods of the city, so it was a natural consideration for me to use this not only for recreation, but also for a legitimate form of transportation. My commute surprisingly is only around 5 minutes longer without traffic, and with traffic I am faster on the e-bike. I also enjoy being outside while I’m commuting, getting exercise, and easily stopping at shops or grocery stores along the way without having to circle the block looking for parking. So no, this was not a sacrificial decision at all.

[@nicthedoor]

This 100p. There are a dozens of reasons for good urbanism long before we yalk anout the environmental benefits.

[@rileynicholson2322]

I have biked for years, since I was a kid, but it was doing the math on the cost of my car that made me go out and buy a road bike after moving to a relatively cycling friendly city with an affordability problem (Victoria, BC). It was never about the environment for me, that's just an added bonus.

[@greenmountainbrownie6473]

I am a urbanist and have become passionate about it; But these fears people have are real and I don't think its right to dismiss them. That is gaslighting. There really are indeed people, who are the elites in society, that wish to clamp down on freedom of movement, completely destroy property rights and make the populace more easily monitored than they already are. Academia, finance, government, media, etc., these people have outright said they wish to do this. Of course this doesn't mean 15-minute cities are a bad thing on their own; Rather bad actors who find themselves in elite positions in society wish to MISUSE and abuse 15-minute cities for their own perverse and nefarious ends. We should, as urbanists, recognize these fears as legitimate but reiterate that just because some people, who act in a criminal manner, wish to misuse something doesn't make the things they misuse a bad thing. Walkable, human-oriented design has been a thing since they very first cities; 15-minute cities aren't bad just because people in positions of power wish to misuse them.

[@yvan2563]

The same argument could be made about cars. Some people can be extremely dangerous and could use a car to kill people, so let's ban cars. It's the same logic as the anti-urbanism fears.

[@Meta7]

And what you've just said is fearmongering. What "bad actors" are "misusing and abusing" 15-minute cities for what "perverse and nefarious ends"? If you can't clearly answer that question, then your entire call for action is just mindless both-sidesism.

[@gencreeper6476]

@@yvan2563 Funny enough the story of cars is about the same. If the name "horseless carriage" wasnt a clue they were originally a ruralite's invention and indeed changed things mostly for the better in most ways making people out here less "isolated" saving horses and people from horrendous days long backbreaking journeys where they risked dying 100x more than any reasonably sane modern driver ever will. Then some people figured out that selling as many of them to the cities as possible was technically more profitable than using them for their intended purpose.

[@glib4233]

The fears are completely orthogonal to urban design and said people don't actually act on them unless triggered by the darn liberals.

[@bramvanduijn8086]

How is having only cars avaible more free than getting to choose your mode of transport? That freedom argument doesn't make sense. Also, you can own bicycles too, and still own a car so making walking and cycling valid options doesn't destroy property rights, that doesn't make sense either. The goal is to motivate people to more often choose not to have a car. You notice that word "choose" there? That's freedom. Car people don't want you to have that choice, I'm not sure why. It is much easier to abuse suburbs than it is to abuse walkable neighbourhoods, the social isolation of the suburbs makes everybody an easy mark, while walkable neighbourhoods promote social connection which means people can organize and resist the government much easier.

[@chrisbartolini1508]

I’ve literally explained the cycling thing at the start of this video to my girlfriend’s stepfather several times after he rages at a cyclist, and all he does is blow me off or shrugs. Thank god he’s 65 and I don’t have to deal with his willful ignorance much longer.

[@matthewconstantine5015]

Yup. I've walked, cycled, and bussed for almost my entire life, not because I was an environmentalist or an urbanist. I was just straight-up poor. I've only become an intentional urbanist for a few years.

[@kailahmann1823]

I had a very interesting conversation working at a sports event this weekend: The cleaning guys asked me for the bike route. Why? Because they've heard us talking about "10 minutes to the grocery store", while they claimed to need almost half an hour on a very complicated route. According to Google Maps it's not really half an hour, but the time is about the same - even with a part on the Autobahn. The rest is indeed complicate and clearly _not_ designed with "only cars matter": The shopping is at the S-Bahn station, while the Autobahn is on the other side of the neighborhood - and you then have to drive almost around it at a limit of 30 km/h.

[@starfilmsanimation]

Watching this just after reading the Urbanist’s article about land use and climate change

[@KJSvitko]

Riding a bicycle is a great way to exercise. Ebikes are bringing many older adults back to cycling. Cities need to do more to encourage people to ride bicycles. Safe protected bike lanes and trails are needed so adults and children can ride safely. Speak up for bicycles in your community. Bicycles make life and cities better. Ask your local transportation planner and elected officials to support more protected bike lanes and trails. Children should be riding a bicycle to school and not be driven in a minivan. Be healthier and happier. Ride a bicycle regularly.

[@JasonWood100]

I ride a bike to help me mitigate my symptoms of anxiety and depression.

[@KannikCat]

re: the bit on air travel, I see it as that if so many other (and easier) things are improved (through trains, better land use and urbanism, industry, cleaning up dirty power, etc) then it may not matter if air travel can't be fully impact free. It would be a smallish impingement for great benefit and it would still fit within the worldwide equation for the carbon cycle. It doesn't have to be all or nothing (just like having a walkable/cyclable city doesn't mean there has to be 0 personal motorized vehicles), and anyone exclaiming that might just be trying to derail (pun intended) the conversation. :)

[@andrelam9898]

My parents moved us from Amsterdam to a more modern suburb in Haarlem back in the early 1970's. Mostly because Amsterdam was so over run with cars and it just wasn't a good place to raise kids. Schalkwijk (built post WW2) pretty much was already 15 minute city. Our pediatrician, my parent's doctor, our dentist, many stores including big grocery stores, kinder garden, and elementary school, library, etc. Were all reachable within 15 minutes walking, even less when cycling. My dad did work near Amsterdam, but the company actually offered a dedicated bus. He has to walk about 10 minutes to one of central stops for the bus. After a few years a co worker nearby got a car and they car pooled. 4 years after we moved there we got our first car. It was a more convenient way to get to grand parents and other family. The were reachable by public transport, but it would take at least double the time. We still used public transport or bikes for loads of trips. In the nearly 50 years since then, the cycling infrastructure has been improved there. Amsterdam on the other hand, has been utterly transformed. Back then it was becoming really dangerous to bike in Amsterdam. It just shows that the scare tactic of 15 minute cities is totally bogus. Many places exist that already behave like 15 minute cities... It is something to emulate, not be afraid of.

[@falsificationism]

So refreshing to finally hear someone push back against the paranoid ideas floating around about cities simply following good models of urbanism. I'm so annoyed by otherwise reasonable people having really, sincerely bad takes on things like "15-minute cities" and such. Thanks so much for this!

[@anthonymorris5084]

I am a motorist, cyclist and pedestrian in the downtown of a major city. Because of this I have empathy for all three parties involved. This is what is lacking, empathy for the difficulties and stress that all three contribute to each other.

[@robertstuckey6407]

I just want to do my shopping without visiting three separate parking lots each of which are five minutes appart

[@chelseashurmantine8153]

Riding my bike to work is faster than taking the bus. That’s a true fact. The bus is 52 minutes. The bike ride is 35-40 minutes. It’s a 20 minute drive filled with red lights, stop signs, and constant lane changes. My bike route is so smooth with only a few road crossings, riverside views, a couple community gardens, and a golf course. It’s got some ugly power lines, broken glass on the trail in a few places, I must wear sunscreen, and there are zero bathrooms. But it’s easy. It’s fresh air. And I don’t have to get oil changes or stop for gas on the way home.

[@rarephoenix]

Those conspiracies make me so sad. They're surely seeded by people with big interests in oil, cars, and road construction. There's very little chance JoeFoo in their basement came up with such a damaging conspiracy. I started biking in the 1980s because I had a bike, no TV, no AC, no tech at all but a radio and turntable. Biking is the opposite of oppression, it's complete freedom. I bike because I'm free to. No gas, no taxes, only positive benefits. ❤

[@rarephoenix]

Now I insist my kids learn to bike. By age 10 I will let them turn loose free on the city. Between bikes and public transit they have no boundaries. Tell that to any kid in the suburbs getting trucked around from prison to prison. (I joke, but cars are just mobile prisons taking their kids to other prisons.)

[@koopilot90]

I personally prefer cycling because I hate wondering around for parking

[@blores95]

Environmental reasons is definitely one reason I try to bike more and drive less but it's definitely not the top or only reason. Easy exercise, way cheaper, actually enjoyable, etc. are concrete reasons that affect me day to day more than my lone contribution (or lack thereof) to climate change/pollution. I don't even mind if it takes longer as long as I don't feel like I'm gonna die on the trip. I'd honestly say the biggest, simplest reason besides just disliking driving is I enjoy being outside and feeling the air and sun on me. Living in LA it's so strange how the world sees this place as perfect weather (I think that's exaggerated) but so many people don't like to be outside and need to go from their A/C'd house to their A/C'd car to the A/C'd building and barely spend any time in the actual sun.

[@mmontgomeryy]

Interestingly, I was just speaking with someone who bought an electric car recently and they get the same “it’s not even better for the environment” comments. They constantly have to remind people that, actually, driving an EV is quite enjoyable and just another option when buying a new car. Lower emissions is an obvious perk, but it’s only one of a few good reasons to get an EV if it works for you.

[@barryrobbins7694]

At the root of civilization is the ability to share, compromise, and adapt. It is hard for some people to realize that they are already doing these things. The more people continue to do these things, the better life becomes for everyone, even for the person that doesn’t want change.

[@ShadowOfTheVoid]

A whole host of issues are connected to car-dependent cities. It's not just environmental issues like climate change. Oil dependency, gasoline price worries, urban sprawl and bad land use, traffic congestion, unaffordable housing, income inequality, municipal debt, personal debt (cars are huge money sinks), and public health issues like traffic deaths & injuries, lack of exercise, and stress all stem from overly-restrictive zoning laws as well as infrastructure that fosters car dependency.

[@stripping_architecture]

You went deeper on argumentation. Cycling has its own challenges as well but absolutely not comparable as car centric designs. Pure empirical thinking to reinforce your argumentation. Take one city and have everyone driving car - and the city will collapse. Take one city and put everyone on bike - the city still will be doing fine.

[@zenafied]

I feel like the environment is just the cherry on the top. For me, it's about how liveable it feels, how convenient and just better. I also absolutely hate the aesthetics of cities that aren't built like cities, and have no greenery in the middle, and don't know how to integrate city life into people's home lives. Also I don't drive and made the choice not to get a driver's license because honestly driving seems really scary and not really worth it. It just feels more chill to walk around, take a train, bus... at least in cities where you're left alone while doing those things

[@elliotwilliams7421]

You are not left alone in cities.

[@SnapDash]

I'm glad to report that I've never been yelled at (at least not that I have heard!) while cycling the streets of Halifax. Improvements to our cycling infrastructure are slow, but they are happening! That dystopian "we'll be locked in our neighbourhoods!" worry was on full display in Edmonton recently, while they discussed a district planning proposal. To reassure the conspiracy theorists, the city council even added a clause: "The District Policy and the District Plans shall not restrict freedom of movement, association, and commerce in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

[@AnotherDuck]

The moment most Americans don't have access to their car, they are locked into their neighbourhoods. So even with that argument, I don't see too much of a difference.

[@louisjov]

I hate it when people try to lower my standard of living! By making the city quieter, making destinations more accessible, making my transportation costs cheaper, making me healthier...

[@GraemeMacDermid]

So true. I ride a bike, walk, or take transit most places in the city (depending on distance and weather) because it is so much better than driving. Driving and searching for parking in the city and is a truly miserable experience.

[@jfmezei]

To the driver, the correct response is: My not driving a car will let you drive yorus for longer before they are banned. So you should be thanking me for allowing you to pollute for longer.

[@timpekarek9159]

I ride and use transit for a lot of reasons, but mainly, I can't afford a car.

[@professorquarter]

Another thing to consider here when arguing is that we do not necessarily need to find a green solution to something like long haul flights to reach a lofty goal like carbon net zero. You don't even need to concede that ground though it should be acknowledged.

[@wakaflocka37]

I understand that I'm an outlier, but my primary motivation in starting to bike for my commute was the environment. And before I got an e-bike, The heat and hills really could feel like a punishment. But now, anytime I see a hill I don't feel like working too hard to climb I just bump up the assist. I'm loving the bike. I genuinely miss when I don't get to bike to work or wherever. My city has almost no accomodations for me, but I still enjoy it and have found safe routes pretty much everywhere. The environment is not the best reason to ride a bike. The exercise, monetary savings, and most importantly, just how fun it is to ride are the best reasons. But the equivalent of 1500 MPG is nice too

[@DanielBrotherston]

There's a comic, it's some scientists presenting at a conference and someone in the audience asks: "What if we're wrong about climate change, and we make the world better and more liveable for nothing!"

[@haydnplus]

As soon as I finish college and get a degree in urban planning, I want to get rid of my car and start traveling everywhere without one in any way that I can. I am choosing to do this not only because there are a lot of environmental, financial, and social benefits to not owning a car, but mainly because I just want to show everyone that there should be more options for transportation other than driving. Whether it would be by walking, riding a bike, or taking buses and trains, I just want to expose the problem that we all experience every day, but never come to realize. Millions of people in America and around the world are being robbed of the opportunity to experience many benefits for themselves and others, because most of our cities have been designed only for driving. It’s not that I think that driving shouldn’t exist, I just think that it shouldn’t be the only option. Whenever I talk to any of my friends about these topics, they always laugh at me and say that my ideas are ridiculous and dangerous. Little do they know that they with their giant pickups and SUVs are literally part of the problem. Once we can finally make America a place for people and not just for machines, I will be the one laughing at them.

[@noahswatchin9308]

I feel the nthn review made a very good video and had a very good point about urbanism stopping before the politics. I live in Montreal too, and I would really like to get in the thick of helping out the city and my community. Is there anything I can sign up for, or that discord server link? Great video guys :)

[@OhTheUrbanity]

We're involved with Construisons Montréal (www.construisonsmtl.ca/). They have a Discord and host events where they organize on projects. Local engagement is absolutely important, I just don't think KZbin is the best platform to organize or spearhead it. To get involved you need to know about your local elections (when they're happening, who to vote for, campaign for, or donate to) and you need to know what other projects and policies are up for debate. Not only do we not know all these details for people living in Salt Lake City (for example), if we made a resource video for people living there it just wouldn't be interesting to 99% of our audience. Fortunately this is exactly where actual local groups shine!

[@josephcarreon2341]

He really didn't though. CityNerd made a proper rebuttal in my opinion. It was channels like NJB that orange pilled NthReview into being active in politics in the first place. The urban movement has grown drastically because of channels like these. They don't have to tell people how to do things locally. All of that occurs in the comments or forums. Even if urban channels made how-to videos for this, it wouldn't speed up the process. These things take time, serious consideration, and possibly unique answers to make proper changes. None of which is possible for channels like these that are fighting the broadest level of urbanism.

[@TomPVideo]

I feel the same way. The biggest critic of NJB these days seems to be Alan Fisher, but, honestly, as someone who does not live or hasn't been to Philadelphia I'm just not interested in learning how to advocate for transit there. And NthReview had been influenced so much by Not Just Bikes that Jason's negativity towards North America seems to have just fueled his activism (along with establishing it's going to be a tough battle)

[@noseboop4354]

@@josephcarreon2341 I still feel the video creators can make a small effort to introduce their own local groups and put links. It doesn't have to be long, just take 30 seconds at the end of the video. It will give an idea what to look for in their own local communities.

[@josephcarreon2341]

@@noseboop4354 It's very easy to recommend what others should do when it requires no effort from yourself.

[@frempy4426]

I was blabbing with people in a local Facebook group about bike infrastructure, and someone asked if I wanted a fifteen-minute city. I asked if they meant a livable city or if they were referring to the conspiracy theory. They answered the latter, unironically. Genuinely confusing lol... Does that mean they know it’s bullshit or what? Glad you addressed that one critical KZbin video; I was wondering what y’all would have to say about it

[@pineapplepizza27]

About to go on a 2 mile trip where the only cargo is a phpne charger and a bottle of vodka. Earlier in my life this would be an obvious car trip for me but instead I'm gonna save money and have fun

[@AnotherDuck]

So I live in Sweden, Stockholm specifically, and I find transit very useful. The metro is rather extensive for the population size, and to complement that we have a few other rail lines and a dense bus network. And commuter and regional rail traffic. I'll stick with this over the more car-centric America.

[@alchemist89blk]

I ride because I have a strong dislike for driving. I don't like sitting for that long, I don't like dealing with the impatient morons doing dangerous things, and I don't like the road rage I consistently see. On a bike I have more options on ways to get to where I work, I get to feel active, and for the most part I don't have to deal with morons in cars except for at intersections or on the couple miles where there is not bike path/lane. The environment is secondary for me. The physical health is secondary. The mental health is my primary reason for riding, despite negative experiences.

[@mdhazeldine]

Ironically in the UK, we're quite used to public transport, and often expect it when new developments are built (especially in London), but 29% of our power is still coming from coal or gas, nuclear is still a bit of a hot topic (only 16% of our power comes from it) and only 0.5% of our power comes from hydro electric, probably because we don't have huge waterfalls like Ontario and Quebec does.

[@lazrseagull54]

After reading the first half of your first sentence, my brain went "no. Sadly, that's just London." Compared to most of western Europe, UK public transport is god awful once you get out of London. When the Belgrade metro opens its first 2 lines at the end of this decade, Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds will be the 1st, 2nd and 3rd largest European cities without any kind of local underground rail network. It's very bus focused and where there is rail, you have to buy separate tickets for that, which are also very expensive in the UK. In Germany, a single journey within a city is usually valid on all bus and rail modes for 90mins-2hrs as long as you don't go back on yourself, a monthly ticket for all bus, tram, underground, monorail, and local and regional rail throughout the entire country costs €49/month so you can just hop on/hop off and go anywhere and change your mind and change direction at any point without having to pay extra, while in the UK, I find myself having to ration how much public transport I use. For comparison, over 20 German cities have some kind of underground rail network, compared to 4 in the UK and over 60 German cities have a tram network, compared to only 7 in the UK and the local rail in Germany often gets you to within a few minutes walk of almost any business or home in the city, while the local rail networks in the UK usually only have a few lines. Nottingham for example only has 2 and Edinburgh only has 1, leaving most neighbourhoods only accessible by bus. Even in London, I find most people who live outside of zones 1 and 2 have to get a bus to their nearest tube station.

[@mdhazeldine]

@@lazrseagull54 I am probably a bit biased because I live near a train station within 30 minutes of London, but you're right, public transport outside of London is much worse. However.....it's still better than North America by a country mile. It's all relative isn't it.

[@mindstalk]

@@lazrseagull54 "over 20 German cities have some kind of underground rail network" *cries in American*

[@thefish560]

I've been following you guys for 2 years now. Everytime you upload, I cant wait to see the video.

[@EverAfterHL]

Honestly, I am very worried about climate change and I try to limit my flights or buy used clothes, furnitures, etc and so on. However, I am not good at self sacrifice, and for me walking and taking transit is just more fun than driving most of the time in the city. Walking makes me happy. Driving doesnt. It's that simple.

[@Nomenius1]

This is a copied text i saw from another video "I've asked a number of people why they were opposed to the 15-minute city concept. I also listened. Here's what I learned: 1) They are NOT opposed to walkable neighborhoods. 2) They are (mostly) NOT anti-transit. 3) They feel they've been betrayed by politicians regarding these types of grand plans on numerous occasions -- and who in the world hasn't? 4) They ARE opposed to sweeping mandates and financial penalties. 5) They ARE turned completely off by the elitist, condescending, authoritarian attitudes exhibited by MANY of those who promote the concept. You see it on some of the urbanist channels here on YT, but this video certainly does a better job of explaining it in a non-condescending manner than most! 6) They don't necessarily believe that anthropogenic climate change is a hoax, but they cannot help but have noticed that many of the predictions made in the 90s simply did not come to pass, blatant fear-mongering has been leveraged into personal fortunes, world leaders who harp on about rising sea levels keep buying oceanfront mansions and flying around the globe in private jets while urging the middle class to make meaningful sacrifices, and a certain type of political parasite insists that they can "change the weather" if all of you plebs just surrender more of your money to them. It's not helping the urbanist cause that many of these people are the same ones promoting the 15-minute city concept. 7) They're more worried about out-of-control taxation and government spending, skyrocketing crime rates, runaway inflation, and the devaluation of their savings. They're more concerned about being forced to eat pet food in their retirement than if they can walk to the grocery store to buy it. TLDR: It isn't the concept itself that turns off some people. It's the way it's being presented and those who are presenting it!" I think that pretty much sums it up, point 5 is particularly relevant for Oh The Urbanity, that is to say, they're *not* elitist, and *do* explain things in a non-condescending way. *Cough cough* orange *cough cough*

[@jamesphillips2285]

"predictions made in the 90s simply did not come to pass" ...because things are getting worse FASTER than expected! "skyrocketing crime rates, " ... a lie pushed by Fox and friends.

[@ce6535]

WRT long haul flights, speaking as an expat urban vegetarian whose emissions are something like 60% long haul flights because it's necessary for work and seeing family, there are several technically easy but nonexistent solutions. I can (all but about a month per year) work as a digital nomad, so if low emission ferries were available at a competitive price, I would absolutely use it. It would be okay if it took 5 days to do LondonNYC, just make sure there's a good gym onboard. For people with jobs where that isn't an option they should be given more time off for this reason. It's possible someone will go "oh that totally exists!" If it does, please link it. I have researched the QE2. It is both more polluting for the same trip and out of my price range.

[@michaeltsui3435]

Perhaps its time to restart a clipper service whether all mechanical power is either by wind or by human means...

[@FullLengthInterstates]

All ground/ sea transportation can be electrified. Decarbonize everything else and planes will be able to emit as much co2 as you want. A non technological way to reduce aviation emissions is to make passengers do more layovers and transfers so planes fly shorter routes where they can carry less fuel and more passengers. You will still make it to your destination faster than ship or train, but it will just be very inconvenient.

[@michaeltsui3435]

@@FullLengthInterstates sea transport is much harder to electrify. The closest you can go is full nuclear. For flights, the most CO2-heavy part is taking off. Shortening flights for the sake of it raises emissions.

[@mindstalk]

We could simply synthesize jet fuel from CO2, water, and electricity. We know the basic chemistry and the later steps are commercialized; I don't know what the cost now would be or if there are prohibitive inefficiencies at the early steps.

[@KevinBauman]

I've used my feet and bike as my primary form of local transportation since the 90s. I have a car, I just prefer walking and riding. It's amazing how many of the folks that always accuse others of laziness attack those who are inherently not lazy. I can do a good thing for the environment (my environment), for myself (exercise and less stress), and enjoy it at the same time. I don't know what's not to like.

[@MrCyclist]

A few years before retirement in Toronto I was biking home from work at 8 pm during a small snow fall. Two teenage boys on the sidewalk said, " he mister, you can't afford a car?" My car was snugly in my condo garage. I just burst out laughing. such irony.

[@yorkshirehousewife784]

That “you must be poor if you cycle” arrogance is everywhere Ironically it’s the poorer in society that thinks it.

[@thatpersonsmusic]

For me myself, I really don’t think frequently about the environmental impacts of urbanism, but I rather tend to think about how good urbanism can improve mental health, bond communities, reduce financial stress on people, and in general just make living life more pleasant. Of course it is incredibly important to prevent climate change, but there are so many further positive externalities of urbanism that take the forefront place in my attention

[@AndrewVanBeekOttawa]

Funny, I just recognized my wife in one of your clips.

[@kevley26]

I think people believing urbanism MUST be climate masochism is part of a broader cope that people do when confronted with an objectively better system. They think that there MUST be a big trade off to have a different system and that's why we have our current car centric system, rather than the sad reality that there are little to no good reasons, and that the current reality is a result of a long string of stupid political decisions. Some people refuse to believe that some of our systems are just bad, not a choice that has as many advantages as other systems. Kind of like an ever present suspicion that the "new" thing is too good to be true, if it was true then our lives are completely messed up, an option that their brains cannot handle.

[@clobberelladoesntreadcomme9920]

Many people are extremely biased against using their bodies to do any work. I think it's because we looked down on manual labor for so long. In the old joke about how our parents had to "walk to school in the snow, uphill both ways", it's the walking that's the hardship. When you tell people they could/should walk somewhere, what they hear is "i am being forced to exercise". It's strange.

[@MrBirdnose]

@@clobberelladoesntreadcomme9920 It's also no longer culturally acceptable to show up to work sweaty and stinky. Grooming standards have changed.

[@clobberelladoesntreadcomme9920]

@@MrBirdnose I'm talking about a 30 minute walk at a moderate pace, not a jungle safari.

[@davidbrodbeck2072]

@@clobberelladoesntreadcomme9920 When it's 95F and 90% humidity, even a walk around the block is likely to have you sweating through your shirt.

[@davidbrodbeck2072]

I think the tradeoff in reality is housing costs. Walkable areas with shops nearby have massively expensive rents compared to car-dependent suburbia. In many cases this is more than enough to cancel out the savings from not owning a car.

[@James-el6lj]

This channel is great.