Prague is often said to have one of the best public transport systems in the world. Is that true, or is it just what Czechs like to say?

I’ve always thought you can judge a city by its transport system. People often say you judge a city by its culture, museums, art, or theatre—but for me, and maybe that’s because this is the field I work in, transport is the true measure. When you go to a place like Sydney, for example—its trains aren’t very fast, but they go across the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and you get this stunning view. It gives the city a completely different feel—very relaxed. In contrast, London feels busy and intense because the tube is underground and constantly in motion. Same with New York. How people move around really defines the city. In Los Angeles, cars dominate, and that shapes the whole experience of being there.

But Prague, with its 150 kilometres of tram lines, offers this wonderful way of getting around. It gives the city a kind of gentle, cultured backdrop. So to answer your question, I think generally it is pretty impressive. And then seeing the exhibition here in CAMP —looking at future plans for expanding the metro, building a new underground line to connect various areas—it all feels very well thought out. It’s not just about improving transport, but also about planning for where the city will grow and where new centres might develop.

It reminds me of London in a way. London was originally made up of lots of different villages that grew into neighbourhoods, and they still have very distinct characters. Chelsea is very different from Hackney, which is different from Kensington. Each area still has its own atmosphere. And now, with new transport systems coming in, you can see new developments taking shape. It gives people more choice about where to live and work. London is becoming a polycentric city again—made up of identifiable areas centred around good transport. Looking at the plans for Prague, you can see the same potential. There’s a fantastic opportunity for the city to preserve the best of its cultural heritage while also growing—within the city and beyond. It’s very impressive. And it’s a great exhibition—amazing!

At the end of the last century, big cities began adapting to car traffic. But now, with the environmental crisis and too many cars, most European cities realize that wasn’t the right path. How difficult is it today to motivate people to use public transport instead?

I think that’s a key issue. I’ve been lucky to work on a number of transport projects in London, and because of that, cities around the world have asked us to look at their challenges as well. I’ve worked in Sydney, Melbourne, and Perth in Australia, in Toronto, Canada, and in Malaysia, Singapore, and Dubai. And every city now recognises that getting people out of cars makes the city more civilised—it’s quieter, calmer, greener.

I’ve always been interested in the future and how technology affects the way we live. These days, we can work from anywhere as long as we have good Wi-Fi. That’s changed a lot since the pandemic. And then you have emerging technologies—automated vehicles, drones, all these possibilities. If people don’t own cars anymore but just use one when they need it, that could transform how cities function. I’m quite optimistic. People have often imagined the future as something dystopian—Blade Runner-style. But I think with the technology we’re developing, cities can become green and pleasant places. We won’t need wide roads anymore—we’ll have wide pavements with more trees. I think we’re already moving in that direction.

London has already made big steps—giving more space to pedestrians and cyclists, making car use a bit more difficult. Many other cities are starting to follow suit.

But what steps should a city take to make public and sustainable transport more appealing? What are the key factors for encouraging its use?

You can’t just tell people to get out of their cars—you have to make public transport better. That means improving buses, metro systems, trams—making them reliable and enjoyable to use. The Elizabeth Line for example, which we’ve just completed in London, has been incredibly popular. People feel good about using it. It’s safe, secure, clean, and comfortable. That’s what you need—make the system feel good to be in, and people will use it.

A lot of cities are now looking at London as a model and trying to replicate some of that. We’ve been fortunate to share our experience with cities around the world. Even Los Angeles is trying. They’re aiming to complete 20 major public transport projects before the 2028 Olympics—and another 20 after. People even voted for a local tax to help pay for it. That’s quite forward-thinking. But of course, they’re starting from a very car-centric culture. You can’t just copy existing road networks and expect it to work. You need an integrated system. Still, they’re trying—and they’re ambitious.

So would you say that architecture and urban planning play a key role in this matter?

Yes. Architecture and urban design aren’t just about making stations look nice. It’s about how transport shapes the way a city functions. I actually quite like Los Angeles because it has very distinct areas—it’s not just one big, sprawling city. Each neighbourhood has its own identity. You don’t have to travel far if you don’t want to—you can live locally. But then, when you do want to travel, the freeways tend to cut through and divide those areas. That’s a shame. But at the time they were built, it was seen as modern. I did my urban design master’s degree dissertation on Milton Keynes—the last large new town we built in the UK. It was designed in the 1960s and 70s, based on the assumption that car ownership was the future. They actually looked at Los Angeles as a good model.

We wouldn’t do that now. If we were planning a new town today, we’d base it on public transport. It would look completely different to Milton Keynes.

What innovations in transport have caught your attention recently, and do you think they have the potential to change how we move around cities?

So, everybody is waiting to see where automated vehicles take us and whether they could transform the city and the way we move around. I’ve always followed inventions, and if you look at something like the Hyperloop—this vacuum-sealed tube—it sounds very interesting in theory, because it hardly takes any energy. If you’ve got a vacuum in a tube, and frictionless wheels, you can push something and it could be very sustainable.

But for me, it depends on how that affects the city, and whether it’s a nice way to travel. One thing the pandemic has taught us is that if you can stay connected all the time, talk to people, and communicate, the need for speed isn’t as important as it used to be. Getting somewhere quickly was always the goal—but now, maybe comfort and connectivity matter more. That goes for air travel too. I visited a prototype recently on the outskirts of London for a modern airship that only goes about 20 miles an hour—compared to several hundred by plane. It might take you three days to get to Australia, but if it's comfortable, relaxing, and you can work on the way, it might actually be nicer than being in a cramped cabin for 24 hours.

This might also explain why people still prefer cars over public transport—especially in places like the Czech Republic where cities are car-dominated. It’s more individual, more comfortable, you can do what you want in your vehicle.

But being in a car isolates you. When you’re cycling for instance, you’re more aware of the diversity around you. I cycle a lot in London and I love it. It’s a multicultural city, and my route home takes me past mosques and synagogues. On public transport, you see different people—different races, religions—going to work together. You feel more like part of a community. You realize that people aren’t that different from you. Whereas in a car, you might pass a mosque and feel detached from it, because you’re listening to the radio or thinking about something else.

So I think that’s one of the advantages of public transport—not just for sustainability, but for social cohesion, mental and physical well-being. It helps build a more coherent city.

To what extent does human mentality—and the fact that while technology constantly evolves, people remain the same—stand in the way of change in transportation?

As I see it, people haven’t really changed much in the past 2,000 years. We're still approximately the same height—maybe a bit taller—we still die from many of the same diseases, and we still experience the same emotions. We eat similar food to what we did 2,000 years ago. We think the same. We love, we hate, we feel—just like people did back then.

But in the meantime, we've invented all these amazing technologies, and mentally, we haven’t really adjusted to them. Just because we can build taller doesn’t necessarily mean we should. Our eyesight and hearing are why streets and public squares were historically designed at certain dimensions—because they felt right to us as humans. That’s why people enjoy coming to places like Prague or Tuscany or Rome—those cities are still designed on a human scale. When you go to other places with more modern planning, it often just doesn’t feel comfortable. So while I’m interested in technology and new inventions, I’m only interested in them if they make the city better.

Just because we can do something doesn’t mean we should. But as a species, there’s something in us that pushes us to go bigger, to build differently, to chase new ideas. And sometimes, we have to stop ourselves, because it might not be the right thing to do. We need to ask: Why are we doing this? I’m all for progress, whether it’s in art or music or theatre or architecture. I think we should explore new materials and new ways of working. But we need to be mindful of why we’re doing it—not just do something because it’s new or different.

What do you think of the 15-minute city concept? Is it realistic for a large city like London?

The idea of the 15-minute city is that everything you need is within a short walk or cycle—work, school, shops, healthcare. London has developed in a way that supports this concept in many places. Even parts of Los Angeles follow a similar pattern. Milton Keynes was planned with a kilometre grid system—within each grid, you'd have a certain number of homes, a school, and so on. But the challenge with leaving development up to private developers is that they often don’t include schools, hospitals, or other public infrastructure. That responsibility then falls on the local authority, which can create tension. In London, for the past 20 or 30 years, it's often been developers—not the city—who shape urban change. I think stronger community engagement would help. It’s better to talk about what a community needs before drawing up plans, rather than reacting afterward.

Politicians also think short term—they know they’ll be voted out eventually. When we worked in Australia, transport projects often became political footballs: one party would back rail, the other roads. Projects were started, scrapped, restarted. Now there’s more consensus, but long-term planning is still crucial. You can’t make good infrastructure decisions based on short-term thinking. Singapore is a great example. They have a detailed plan for the next 20 years—and while it’s not a democracy, that stability allows for better, more coherent planning.

Which city do you consider a model of modern and sustainable transport—is it the already mentioned Singapore?

Singapore, definitely. They have a clear, long-term plan and political stability, which allows them to stick to it. Paris is also doing interesting things—becoming more pedestrian-friendly and making ambitious changes to public space. There are areas of Miami, like the Design District, where pedestrians have priority over cars.

The urbanist Jan Gehl has long argued for reversing the hierarchy between cars and pedestrians. In places like the City of London, they’ve started implementing his ideas—where the pavement continues across the road, and cars must yield. It’s a small design move but has a huge psychological impact. Copenhagen, where Gehl is from, pioneered a lot of these ideas. He’s advised cities like Sydney as well—there’s a tram route from the harbour to the central station that’s completely pedestrianized. If similar ideas take hold in places like Los Angeles, that would be a great sign of progress.

Would you say the model for a modern sustainable city involves combining all types of transportation?

Absolutely. It’s about offering people choices. On a sunny day, I’ll cycle. If not, I’ll take the train or drive if needed. People today are more selective—they want convenience. Crucially, you have to think beyond just station-to-station travel. People care about the full journey—from origin to destination. So, having electric bikes or other options available for that "last mile" is really important.

It’s also about enjoying the city. You don’t really experience a city when you’re driving—you’re too busy concentrating on the road. Walking, cycling, using public transport—these all give you a different, richer connection to the urban environment.

Watch the recording of Chris Williamson's CAMP talk: