I don't know if you all have noticed, but I'm doing "Suburbs Spring" on this channel! I really wanted to do a series on ways to make the suburbs better. There are two more videos in the series coming, then I'm headed to Japan to do a series on Japanese planning!

Imagine living in a far flung suburb in Phoenix and walking to the nearest store in the summer. Literal chance of dying.

I don't understand why subdivisions aren't linked with footpaths. In the UK we have similar cul-de-sac patterned suburbs, but there are usually lots of footpaths providing connectivity

It will forever baffle me that we as a society decided to build cul-de-sacs because we didn't like living next to busy roads, and then proceeded to build them in a way where no one could ever go anywhere without a car and end up with even busier roads

I grew up in a 1920s suburb and while it's still car-dominated, the difference between it and what we've built since the 1960s is night and day. Newer cities are so much worse.

"I'm old, but I wasn't born in 1980." Don't make me beat you with my cane.

I've noticed in my city that new suburbs have far fewer walking trails and playgrounds. A kid in these places wouldn't have the freedom to easily go anywhere on their own.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="341">5:41</a> it's all houses, there's nowhere to go to, it's not enough to have an empty plot and call it a park, they're too spread apart from each other, it's like a giant flat desert with some bunker houses where people can hide, there's no shade on the sidewalk to protect one from the scorching sun, no tribe can live there, that is a place of death.

If I had a penny for every "access point" that hasn't been connected, i'd have a fleet of private jets on 24/7 standby

I live in a very wealthy suburb (more like a village) just outside of Los Angeles. The housing developments were designed largely in the 70's and 80's. There are lots of terrible things about how everything is spread out, but they did account for an incredible amount of walkable parks, easy access to grocery stores by foot, and most importantly, walkways and paths between developments. A lot of people gawk at where I moved, but it actually feels more urban than Hollywood in a lot of ways. It feels more like a walkable city than the flats of Los Angeles.

I honestly don’t mind loops and cul d sacs, I just think they need walking/biking paths between them. It’s not that much different than blocking urban roads to through car traffic. It’s easy to add those small paths as well, which massively increase walkability.

Can you make a video about gated communities? In North America specifically the last video is old and needs to be updated

Cul-de-sacs are awesome. All you need is an opening of 3-4 feet that allows foot/bike traffic. It will be walkable, and without through traffic kids can actually play outside with the neighbors' kids. I grew up in a European suburb that allowed by discouraged through traffic we used to play on the street.

I feel like the easiest fix to this is to incorporate pedestrian pass-throughs into current and planned developments to make it actually possible to walk/bike to retail areas from a residential area

For comparison: Very new subdivisions here in Germany usually have 1-2 access points for cars and many (!) more (in one case it's <a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="68">1:8</a>) for bikes and pedestrians. If there's only one regular car access, one other is wide enough, but blocked with a bollard - this serves as a fallback if the regular is blocked by construction or such. This secondary access is also often placed as inconvenient as possible, leading you only to the next subdivision (with the benefit of having a very wide/fast bike connection between them!).

Love that you used Wake County as your example here. The intense sprawl and lack of walk/bike-ability is one of the main reasons we left to live in a walkable town in the NE!

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="91">1:31</a> This! 🤬 It's a two-mile walk/drive to visit the neighbor behind me. And while the grocery store is 2.5 miles away, it isn't walkable unless you want to walk on a 45mph road with no sidewalks and no shoulder.

Abandoned railways need to be turned back into railways for better transportation links. I'm for trails, but not on abandoned railways.

“I’m old, but even I wasn’t born in 1980.” I felt that.

I live in Wake County NC, and growing up in the suburbs of Raleigh was what made me interested in urban planning. Your videos helped me get into it and now I’m going to school for a minor in Urban Studies.

Linking subdivisions with foot and bike paths should be mandatory. I think road access and standard intersections aren't necessarily the healthiest approach, anyone who's lived in a neighbourhood with streets parallel to a busy arterial can tell you the horrors of trying to get people not to speed through because they see your street as an alternate route and not a place where people live. It's also important because it provides a direct incentive to use other means of transportation; if it's faster to walk or bike to my favourite restaurant or library then weather permitting I'll do that instead.

Raleigh resident here, the urban planing here definitely has a long way to go and I really appreciate you bringing light to not only the issues but also solutions!!

My city designed suburbs to be walkable with shops in the centre of each suburb and sidewalks, paved footpaths and parks allowing shortcuts across the street network. The shops might be a small supermarket, a bakery, newsagent, doctor, takeaway etc around a carpatk. Plus an adjacent petrol station, sometimes a single-story office building. It mostly still works well - especially in wealthier areas where restaurants and bars became typical tenants - but some of these little shopping centres weren’t viable and lost shops and the few worst ones have boarded up shopfronts. The petrol stations mostly closed as well. A cluster of a dozen or so suburbs, about 60,000 population, would surround a mall and a light industrial/retail/office precinct, the whole gridded with dual carriageways connecting the township to adjacent towns and freeways. Then radial bus routes serving the town centres and express bus services connecting the various town centres. The city is starting the replace the express bus routes with light rail, which is expensive and controversial, but the city government has won several elections with light rail as its main policy.

I'm glad that someone has looked at positive ways to implement a cul-de-sac neighborhood... always peeved me when people rubbished them because I grew up in a 1980s neighborhood where all the culs-de-sac were joined because some of the land was a mild flood risk. Parents didn't worry about their kids biking to friends because the routes were largely car free.

US suburbs make Canadian ones look urban and functional... and ours are such depressing sprawl.

Thanks for mentioning the concept of walk/bike-ways between cul-de-sacs. Here in Mountain View and Los Altos my occasional walks are greatly facilitated by being able to avoid some of the stroads. And kids can bike to and from schools more easily and safely. That said, we have a lot of fragmentation. One reason is that we have a diversion channel that separates my neighborhood from another except on two back streets so a gridiron would have required too many bridges for the city to approve it. I'm going to hazard a guess that other cities have to deal with natural waterways as divisions as well.

I grew up in suburbs that were built in the 60's and 70's. All of the cul-de-sacs and subdivisions were connected with walking paths, so visiting my friends or walking to school was easy and I didn't have to ask my parents to drive me. It blows my mind that many newer developments don't have these paths.

People freak out when you make links that bikes can use but (cop) cars can't. In my town, the idea of connecting neighborhoods with bike paths is countered with "crime issues", as if people on bicycles were likely to ride up to suburban neighborhoods for plunder. It being Louisiana, this is all super racially coded.

all of this doesn't address the the underying problem of suburban desolation. sure, it would be a step in the right direction to increase interconnectivity between sub-devisions by modes other than cars but if you can't use this new connections for anything other than meeting up with other suburbanites in their home, you've gained very little. exclusive zoning is still your number one enemy when it comes to walkability.

I used to live in Wake County. I left in '95 or '96 and when I went back to visit about 20 years later the sprawl was just crazy. And yes, I think the suburbs *are* getting worse. These newer, denser suburbs give you the bad parts of city life (congestion, noise, traffic) without the good parts (walkable neighborhoods with things actually worth walking to).

Just thinking that I could bike to school and walk to a cafeteria or arcade from my home already screams countless benefits.

These type of developments also make public transportation basically impossible to build in an effective manor that people would actually want to use .

I see your point but I'd argue that it takes a special kind of stupid to not connect adjacent cul-de-sacs with a 3 feet wide path for pedestrians...

Having a network of footpaths beyond the roads is key. I live in York, England, which has superb walkability due its offroad paths. My family doctor is about 2.3 miles from where I live and less than half a mile is alongside a busy road, making the journey pleasant to walk despite the length. My walk to the city centre is about 1.2 miles, but I only need to cross one busy road then it's mostly a riverside stroll. I don't know how such a network can be built from scratch. It almost seems as though a different mindset is needed: that walking is its own mode of travel, that it's non--destructive and has very low intrusiveness, thus developers need to explain why they haven't included footpaths, rather than their provision being exceptional. They can even be provided at zero cost: many footpaths in England are simply dirt tracks worn by walkers: the landowner have to allow access but they don't (often) need to provide much beyond that.

This was the reason i moved to Chicago - pedestrian friendly - parking in the back alley of the houses. Unfortunately, Chicago is starting to change to a car dependent city. Much more old buildings are being torn down to build parking lots.

From a planning perspective, footpaths have to be mandated or there won't be effective connections. Cul-de-sacs usually don't run all the way to the boundary of a subdivision because that's extra pavement and other infrastructure instead of a lot. Tees that can be extended are much more flexible, but it's been a few decades since they were preferred. The size of fire trucks is one of the reasons: they can't really turn around in a tee that's only the width of a roadway.

In the UK, we moved towards cul-de-sac style development patterns in the 1960s. Many 1970s estates (subdivisions) are well laid out with quiet streets and lots of off-road paths connecting the cul-de-sacs. These '70s estates also tend to have a major footpath through the middle of them that acts as a spine in the walking/cycling network, linking the cul de sacs together with other areas of the town. Cars have to go around the edge. But I think things have got much worse since the '90s and '00s - many new housing estates are completely cut off from the surrounding town, and the only access for pedestrians is via the 1 or 2 main road access points, forcing pedestrians to take the same long routes as cars. The UK has always been much more walkable than the US, but we have been building more and more car-dependent developments in recent decades.

There is a late victorian and Edwardian suburb around the eastern end of Clifton Drive in the town of Lytham in Lancashire northwest of the UK called Lytham Avenues and it is so beautiful red brick buildings with amazing bay windows and bargeboards, stained glass and stone and terracota detailing. The amazing thing is the wider area has so many other rows of beautiful houses, but these ones stood out to me. There is even a little turret designed as an artist studio facing the estuary and sea beyond. In terms of street pattern it's in rows and all connected, no cul-de-sacs. It's also a 15 minute walk from the town centre and originally had a tramway going through the middle of it. So yeah in terms of have suburbs got worse oh yeah a lot worse if we go back to the invention of them. But as you have said luckily there might be a shift in design principles in the future.

In my neighborhood in Dublin, we have many cul-de-sacs, but they are all connected to the next cul-de-sac by a short pathway. The cul-de-sacs are often only separated by a single wall. This makes it great for kids to play in the street and a nice quiet neighborhood, but also allows people to get around on foot and by bike very easily. You will see many such examples if you look around Clontarf in Dublin.

Really need those access points to increase. Not only is it a detriment to pedestrian ease, but its just dangerous. A natural disaster happens that cuts the one road into a culdesac off and suddenly those people could be in real danger.

I grew up in a cul-de-sac-heavy subdivision built in the 1980s. At that time, there was no interconnection between streets other than trespassing between houses as my friends and I did. In the last 20 years, though, the developers of newer subdivisions nearby have built paths connecting streets to one another. It's like they realized that people actually like to walk places.

Great video, especially like the focus on "how can we improve the suburbs" rather than "burn it all down". For multi-use paths and cul-de-sac passthroughs, I find that newer subdivisions in my Northern California suburb all have these built-in, even gated neighborhoods have multi-use-path access points... I think its great and a practical solution that I appreciate about my own neighborhood. The paths are an amenity that a lot of buyers expect if they're paying $$$$ for homes. Not directly tied in, but it would be interesting to evaluate where we should re-assess how walkability is evaluated given the rise of remote work... Obviously not everyone can work remote, but a "walkable neighborhood" for someone who works from home may mean "I can walk my kids to school, walk the dog, walk to the park, do small errands on foot", whereas urban walkability is often about "can I get to work without a car".

"I'm old, but even I wasn't born in 1980." Great, and now I feel like I sipped from the wrong Grail.

There is not only the problem that suburbs are not connected for pedestrian and cyclists, but you have only houses. Allowing small businesses like a bakery, a barber, a mom&pop shop etc. inside the residential area or in a comfortable distance for a pedestrian removes the need for driving. For example having a street with limited speed (25mph) and a combined sidewalk/bike lane with a two buildings deep commercial area that builds the border to residential could be walkable from the residential side and still reachable by car. Building the street with trees on the side, bumps etc. would stop cars from speeding. Connect the commercial areas with pedestrian bridges and you are able to walk from one residential into the next crossing the road without danger. This commercial street could lead into an arterial road. Another USA problem are the stroads - getting rid of those things woulds make cities much more walkable. Stroads are death traps for pedestrians, cyclists and drivers.

I remember in school, playing SimCity, I liked to brainstorm cities where greenways and footpaths snaked through the entire town, like one continuous park connecting every neighborhood. I thought it was a pipe dream at the time. I resigned myself to the idea that my urban hikes would always be blockaded by some inhospitable five lane road. It's only in the last few years that I've learned my aspirations are shared by many people and even favored by contemporary urbanism. It gives me hope. Maybe someday I won't need my car to find new and hidden worlds within my city.

I live by a suburban neighborhood and there is only 1 entrance, unless you count the secret back entrance I can use because it's my private property. But there are like 3 roads that branch off to nowhere and only 1 even has a loop. Actually there is a 'stub' which wasn't built because guess where it led? My property

Just got back to Canada from a few weeks abroad in Taipei. The thing that kills be with Canada is that it is nearly completely un walkable. In Taipei you are at any time 5 minutes away from everything that you need.

You gotta check out the prairie path in the suburbs of Chicago. Grew up directly on it and had immediate access to multiple downtown areas, school, and a whole lot more. Cannot tell you how fantastic it was for a kid on a bike (Shoutout to Fermilab)

Hey! Raleigh, my home town!

Inner suburbs, outer suburbs, or far-flung suburbs, not all suburbs are equal. I'm sure there are nice walkable suburbs out there somewhere, Evanston Illinois comes to mind.

Shared use paths connecting cul-de-sac neighborhoods is the perfect solution. People in the suburbs want space and quiet away from busy streets, so there will always be a demand there. If you do a future video, I'd recommend researching Columbia, MD and Reston, VA, which are very old master planned communities that have neighborhoods connected by a large trail network, very cool!

The residential complex I live in is doing the opposite, there was already an existing pathway perfectly sealed and everything connecting to the neighbourhood at the back, but they have purposefully closed it with wire fencing and created a totally gated community with a single access-way(I assume it's for "security"?). Now if I wanted to access shops or parks in that direction by walking, I would have to walk all the way out to the main roads and walk a big circle beside busy multi-lane car traffic, needless to say I haven't been walking much since that happened. There was a hole ripped through it by someone with a wire-cutter for a while but unfortunately they have since fixed that...

"I'm old but even I wasn't born in 1980" =O "old"? * groans in born in 1967 *

In Europe, we would call these greenways out of town and pass-throughs or gap-in-the-walls in town. A common solution with busy roads is culverts or underpasses. You would be able to pass through on foot or by bike but not by car. it makes going to yer neighbour much easier and allows for easier mobility through the estate by means of local mobility without getting the traffic overrun. I know these don't solve the density problem, but it's putting a low-impact band aid on an existing problem. It is easy enough to create a pass-through through an estate

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="338">5:38</a> Roundabout! Yay!

I know the newer communities I've seen here in the Phoenix Area (including the one I built a house and moved into 2 1/2 years ago) have lots of walking trails, great bike lines, tons of green space, great parks etc. Part of them are "walkable" to groceries/stores etc but with delivery that's not a big deal, though they are all certainly easily bikeable to stores.

Great video, and an excellent observation regarding access points.

One thing I've noticed about trails is that they aren't all that well connected to the road networks around them either, at least in my city. Idea for another video?

"I'm old, but even I wasn't born in 1980." Ouch.

Raleigh mentioned Raleigh mentioned!! As a new construction sales person for a national builder in the Raleigh area it is fair to say a lot of neighborhoods are built along stroads and other high speed roads. Connectivity is not very sought after and the emphasis on cul de sac’s are meant to give homeowners a maximized private experience at the detriment of other development.

As a floridian I can say that the suburbs in the orlando and Miami area are bigger and more sprawling than ever before. Our governor is even overriding the will of local governments to favor H.O.A. corporations to drive the Florida Panther to Extinction. The F.D.O.T. has just recently started widening the Dade City Bypass portion of U.S. Highways 98 and 301 when in its two lane form there were no traffic jams there to begin with. A historic 1950s era sign gantry was scrapped and I would have rather seen wide median protected 2-lane bikeway, a 10 foot two way pedestrian trail on the Southbound Side and an 8 foot sidewalk added to the Northbound side with good landscaping and a 35mph speed limit. Even worse they redirected Southbound Through traffic onto Dade City's Mainstreet not to mention the unnecessary widening of the Florida Turnpike North of Orlando to 8 lanes when 4-lanes was just fine and the push to construct the unecessary Central Polk Parkway. Eastern Polk County has literally been annexed into Orlando. Also someone with ties to China are intentionally trying to destroy our great citrus industry. Someone must have brought citrus greening as a bioweapon so we are dependent on China (the Worlds largest orange producer) for oranges and orange juice. Not to mentionI was appaled that in the era we are trying to phase out plastics that Tropicana would switch from coardboard cartons to large single-use plastic bottles that pollute natural ecosystems. There are many of them in the rivers, lakes and oceans.

"I'm old, but even I wasn't born 1980" - Ouch, I felt that.

The best solution is to prevent through-traffic of cars, but create direct routes for public transport,emergency services, pedestrians and cyclists. In the Netherlands this approach was pioneered in the newly built town Houten, and later successfully retrofitted in existing towns and cities.

As always, excellent content! I've been a long-time viewer and have loved watching your channel grow over the years

Grats on publishing!

In California, in my experience, yes. The newer your house, the more likely your house is far away from shops and schools.

Used to live in Wake County, NC and chose to live there due to perceived growth opportunities. It was hands down one of the most boring, soul crushing, and cliquey places on earth. Made me realize only way to get a walkable neighborhood is to vote with your feet and pick a place that already has it. In Wake County, there’s no point in driving anywhere to do anything if all there is for hundreds of miles in any direction is YET ANOTHER sprawling big box shopping plaza with YET ANOTHER Walmart, Bojangles, Target, and/or Carrabba’s.

In my country only gated neighborhoods have so few access points to the rest of the city, normal neighborhoods are almost always grids. I currently live in what could be considered a cul de sac but it happened accidentally because a renovation a decade ago severed the street from the avenue nearby when a park was constructed, I don't complain because it's nice having a park like 20 meters away from my house.

Have to say that America has some of the worst urban planning in the western world. How is it possible to just completely omit to include a space for pedestrians to walk in, in the suburbs - when designing them???? As a Brit, this would drive me nuts - having to drive everywhere...even for a 2 minute journey... because of the absence of sidewalks. Seriously, the consideration for pedestrians is zero, outside the city centres. It's mind blowingly bad. America is far too 'car centric'. Could never live there tbh.

The county/suburbs are quiet and nice. Unlike the inner cities

Where I live they have doubled down on sprawl. For every unit going in downtown about 10 sprawl style units are being built. Traffic on the little country roads is terrible 😢

Catwalks (what we call pedestrian paths that cut between houses in my area) make a huge difference in how accessible a subdivision is. There were three developers who bought the subdivisions in my neighborhood and one of them put in catwalks to connect the loops and cul de sacs to desirable points like parks, schools, and arterial streets. I'm lucky enough to live in one of those subdivisions and it's so much more easier to walk around and bike through than the others nearby.

Talk about zoning laws or you’re not talking about the problem in which case you’re not serious.

Distance problem is how far is the school and grocery store, let me guess... car industry design suburbs

Foot/bike pathing in subdivisions would be so, so easy, but requires developers to be less greedy. They have to be willing to give up square footage for sale to be used. Or the city themselves to force it. That's what's frustrating: seeing so much potential for activity squandered.

Around here, stubs seem to have been a thing in the 70s and are absolutely ignored now. And I find, anecdotally, that home buyers do not want connectivity. Particularly focused on cars, but it extends to other modes also - neighbors want to "exclude" people that don't live there. 🤷‍♂️ The conflict in thinking is almost funny. Neighborhoods with access to greenways or other multiuse paths are more desirable and with more. But - ask homeowners to approve a new path project - even a sidewalk - through or beside, and you'll get a resounding "NO".

One big problem with one or few access points (for driving) is that that's how many access points fire trucks and ambulances have too. If there's a big and spreading fire, an entire neighborhood can be at risk if multiple fire trucks can't physically get into the space quickly.

For the suburban sprawl lobby, car-centric infrastructure is not a bug but a feature. Any walkable infrastructure is an existential threat to them.

"Cul-de-sacs are great for people who don't want cars zooming by their house." *immediately cuts to a cul-de-sac where cars zoom by everybody's houses*

I used to work designing subdivision layouts in the Atlanta area a few years ago, and aside from oddly-shaped parcels one of the other things that often resulted in us including lots of cul-de-sacs was topography. Many of remaining the parcels being developed now are very hilly, and the combination of stream-buffers and road and sewer steepness requirements often meant that the easiest layout would have the roads follow the ridgelines, creating a tree-like pattern inverse to the layout of the streams and creeks below.

You weren't born in 1980, you're not old. Probably a 7 year old will believe that you're old.

I am realizing that having just bought a house in Yonkers (which is a city, not a suburb, but I live in a suburban part) how valuable the fact that this is an old, old part of the country (well, since it was stolen) helps, because there are a lot of access points, few cul de sacs, and the town-connecting Bronx River Pathway is right there for walking, biking, running.

"I'm old but even I wasn't born in 1980" I feel attacked! Lol.

Cul-de-sac subdivisions are great for NIMBYs, karens, and developers. The suburban street pattern is actually not only anti-pedestrian but also anti-car. You may ask, "Wait . . . how can that be??". It is because it is really designed to be against _other_ people's cars since people want their exclusivity and preventing so-called "cut-through" traffic. I personally think it's a misconception that today's development patterns are car-centric at the expense of being pedestrian oriented. Its lack of connectivity is worse for pedestrians *and* automobiles. The truth is: it's not pedestrian- vs. automobile-oriented development, but the kind that's friendly to both vs. _developer_-oriented development.

One access point. What happens in the event of a bushfire and that ONE access point is blocked?

The suburbs should not exist. They are unsustainable and soulless.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="460">7:40</a> - I just wanted to say that. Keep cul-de-sacs for cars, but add pedestrian and bike paths. Crucial to that doing nay good is having basic amenities like kindergarten, primary school, gorceries/markets and public transit access within, say, 10 minute walk.

We live in a town with cul-de-sacs from the 70’s. Not that cul-de-sacs are always that good, but we have no problem walking around here. We can always find a route that is quiet and pleasantly developed. The downside is if we want to go to some major shopping or transit areas we have to go on the few busy through streets. This is less desirable but not that bad in our town. To get to the big box stores on the edge of town is not optimized-people usually take their cars. There are also paths that cut through in natural planted green belts. Better local transit would be a help. There’s no way to reasonably grab a short ride.The transit is only good for leaving town.

Suburbs were never good in the first place.

Suburbs in America were (are) built with a (racial) segregationalist mentality to keep (certain) people out. Thus the funny looking roads and scarce public transportation.

I think that it becomes walcable when the density increases, as long as there is no density everything is too far away to walk anywhere

I live in a subdivision which only has one entrance/exit. There are only two streets, with one a loop and the other has a cluster of culdesaqs. We only have 144 homes in the entire subdivision. We are not a place people can find, because the road leading to our entrance. The bonus is we can walk to shopping, house of worship and libraries. The subdivision has two one mile long walking trails which has a creek, a pond and open yard space. We are within a one mile road (busy street to drive) a gym, museum of fine arts, a mall, ball parks, basketball, tennis courts and a YMCA.

This has become very apparent to me after getting an e-bike and trying to figure out the best way to get around. The neighborhoods built before say the 1960s are way more connected than newer ones, and unfortunately where I am in our city there are mostly newer neighborhoods. Pedestrian/bike connectivity needs to be required by code.

I tried to use the light rail to visit a friend in Highlands Ranch in the south part of the Denver metro yesterday. I rode an eScooter from my apartment to the station near me, then planned to ride it from the station nearest his place (the Mineral station on the D line if you know the area.) It was supposed to be a 3 mile ride, but the single trail that "conveniently" took me to his place was closed. I had to turn around and take a huge circuitous detour of about 7 miles because none of the roads had sidewalks let alone bike lanes. My scooter died about half way there and I got to experience just how *shit* suburbs are for anyone outside a car. I finally arrived about 2.5 hours later. No wonder everyone complains about how bad the traffic is. You literally can't get anywhere without driving. Highlands Ranch is a relatively new development founded in 1981; the newest ones up by the airport that are being built now are even worse. The traffic is so bad getting to them that they've now started a two year project to widen the highway going to the airport Suburbs are definitely getting worse in the Denver metro.

The information display at the start of your video is so unique and cool!!!

Great video, love hearing you talk about your research

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="297">4:57</a> Why is a Pokemon in the bottom right corner?

I got out of the U.S. 21 years ago and have no regrets. This is one small reason among many. I fear the U.S. is irredeemable.

<a href="#" class="seekto" data-time="628">10:28</a> That picture looks like big chunks of neighborhoods in Calgary. Was always fun knowing the local trails that kept you away from the cars.

Thinking about how long it takes to "get out" actually makes me feel super uneasy