Używasz przestarzałej przeglądarki. Może ona nieprawidłowo wyświetlać tę lub inne strony. Powinieneś zaktualizować przeglądarkę lub użyć alternatywnej przeglądarki.
r/fuckcars / Not Just Bikes / Urbanists / New Urbanism / Car-Free / Anti-Car - People and grifters who hate personal transport, freedom, cars, roads, suburbs, and are obsessed with city planning and urban design
Not to power level too much but I grew up in Santa Clara. My mom made me get a summer job at 16, her driving me was like 20 minutes but the light rail took an hour and a half. Absolute dogshit system.
The Dallas Stars (NHL team) are turning an old mall into an arena/entertainment district. The renders show them keeping some of the mall’s parking garages because a hockey arena actually has less draw than malls did before the internet:
They're leaving their downtown, transit-accessible arena located in a walkable mixed-use neighborhood because most of the bugmen who live there don't watch games and because the team owner doesn't own any of the surrounding real estate:
Attractions ALWAYS follow their customers and sports fans are mostly suburbanites with families, not childless yuppies. Random beach and ski towns have as many luxury stores and fine dining restaurants as major metropolitan cities with orders of magnitude more population because the number of actual customers is similar (they don't care about the millions of poors who can't afford their wares). Monaco (population 38,000) is the most famous example, but everywhere the rich frequent is like that.
It's strange how some of these sports arenas were put in downtowns to help revitalize them, and then get chased out because yuppies want to antagonize anyone using a car. You could say that they served their purpose but it's not a good return on investment.
Also the Shops at Willow Bend isn't that old (opened 2001), but never was that successful, partly because of a lot of other malls in the area. I visited it when it was less than three years old and the whole thing was rather empty with walled-up stores that never were occupied.
Really the Indians didn't make it as far west as Santa Clara, they're all in Milpitas/Fremont, and it'll never not be funny that the smelly immigrants generally flocked to the cities around all the salt flats that smell bad anyways.
But yeah, BART definitely has that reputation. Even as bad as my local light rail is (that I use exclusively for getting to concerts without having to pay for parking), it's more on-time and safer than BART was on a good day.
Really the Indians didn't make it as far west as Santa Clara, they're all in Milpitas/Fremont, and it'll never not be funny that the smelly immigrants generally flocked to the cities around all the salt flats that smell bad anyways.
But yeah, BART definitely has that reputation. Even as bad as my local light rail is (that I use exclusively for getting to concerts without having to pay for parking), it's more on-time and safer than BART was on a good day.
It's a hypothetical city that urban planners envision where services are distributed so you don't need to 'travel' more than fifteen minutes for most outings. The concept begins to fall apart when you ask them how, exactly, it's supposed to be created and maintained. How are you supposed to evenly distribute grocery stores, doctors offices, laundromats, clothes shops, hardware etc. in an ostensibly free country? What happens when the grocery store at 4th and Main closes down because the owners died and nobody wanted to take it over? How are the neighborhood screw-and-hammer stores supposed to compete with the Mega-Lo Mart in the suburbs? Proponents can't answer these questions without fidgeting and muttering something about 'regulations' which is where the conspiracy theory arose that 15-minute cities are about restricting travel to 15 minutes from your home.
EDIT: travel is in quotes because they're never clear about whether that's 15 minutes by foot, by e-bike or by bus, all of which would suggest seriously different planning concepts .
The big problem with 15 minute city proponents is that they're not telling the whole story. The basic concept of having everything necessary with 15 minutes is practically done almost everywhere in Europe. It's not really a big deal, so why are people still actively harping for this concept when it's already everywhere? What's the difference between what we have now and a real 15 minute city? They don't like to say it openly, but the main difference is that in a true and honest 15 minute city there'd be way fewer cars or none at all in certain areas. Some also propose that people shouldn't be allowed to travel past 15 minute districts, but that's not as big of a thing as just banning cars.
The big problem with 15 minute city proponents is that they're not telling the whole story. The basic concept of having everything necessary with 15 minutes is practically done almost everywhere in Europe. It's not really a big deal, so why are people still actively harping for this concept when it's already everywhere? What's the difference between what we have now and a real 15 minute city? They don't like to say it openly, but the main difference is that in a true and honest 15 minute city there'd be way fewer cars or none at all in certain areas. Some also propose that people shouldn't be allowed to travel past 15 minute districts, but that's not as big of a thing as just banning cars.
There's a lot of issues. There was some city in UK that proposed "travel zones" where you could be fined if you travel out of your "zone" after a certain point each year; I'm not sure if that was implemented or is to be implemented but they were seriously talking about it.
Remember, the 15-minute city concept actually hit the normiesphere and the pushback was hard enough that TPTB backpedaled and called it a "conspiracy theory".
There's a lot of issues. There was some city in UK that proposed "travel zones" where you could be fined if you travel out of your "zone" after a certain point each year; I'm not sure if that was implemented or is to be implemented but they were seriously talking about it.
Which is ironic to me because Europe used to have vagrancy laws exactly like that until the population had enough of them, but don't tell the urbanists that.
You don't realize that you are the nigger despite your skin color. You've never been to America? No wonder you post like a redditor. Maybe read about all the wonder you subhumans are experiencing from traveling in for the World Cup.
Suburbs grew from wealth despite what Reddit tells you. That's why very white cities (at the time of the 1960s-1970s) still had massive suburban growth, Canada had suburbs to an extent, Australia had suburbs to an extent. Bombed-out Europoors not so much.
Completely wrong. Most suburbs formed when the industry started croaking, rustbelts full of unemployed niggers started proliferating and people moved away from places that started detroitfying fast. Niggers are responsible for the massive white flight, the HOAs, the gated communities, the weird ass local ordnances trying to keep them out. There was also an insane lobbying push from the car industry towards suburbanization and highways too and the marketing successfully turned the lifestyle a signal of american-ness.
Europe also has suburbs, but since most of them were formed by agglomerations engulfing 1500 year old villages formed by some roaming celt tribe, they tend to be much more organic in look and zoned differently than the sleepertowns everyone thinks when american suburbs are brought up.
It's a hypothetical city that urban planners envision where services are distributed so you don't need to 'travel' more than fifteen minutes for most outings. The concept begins to fall apart when you ask them how, exactly, it's supposed to be created and maintained.
It was an ironic question, because the term does not mean the same to any two random redditors, so it is pathetically useless as a goal, or even as a concept if no can define what it means.
That's the other thing, I don't get why Europoors, Indians, and retards are so hung up over parking lots. Usually it's because it's "they take up space" that could be used to build bughives for third-worlders, but with parking lots, it's easy, you can just drive your car there, park, and walk inside. Plus, the parking lots allow ample space to load and unload cargo, which is almost never considered.
It should be blatantly obvious. Because of the idiotic laws, mentioned above IIRC parking lots are massively overbuilt in american cities, to the point that they are never getting used to capacity. Its just miles and miles of useless fucking asphalt, causing urban sprawl, lengthening commute times wasting everyone's time, forcing cost increases of emergency services, building infrastructure, literally everything. Its just basic math, if your city is 25% parking lots, you need 25% more ambulances, fire trucks, police cars, etc. on duty, 25% more subway laid to connect places, 25% more water mains and power lines, etc. You could have density instead of them, or have parks or more infrastructure using the space like rail lines or anything really. In the end, they don't even make cars easier and faster to use, but SLOWER, because of the sprawl. Also, cargo is not unloaded in parking lots.
I know that in this thread we equally laugh at the "you VILL live in a pod" crowd and agree on the superiority of living in a standalone house with a car but because of those same historical circumstances commie blocks are a genuinely fantastic option for a large portion of society here. Living in one of those neighborhoods is simply cheap and convenient. It's not perfect, but it's really damn convenient, especially when the available alternatives require a much bigger financial commitment and some significant lifestyle changes; and let's not fool ourselves- most people don't feel the need to change anything when their current situation is safe and comfortable enough
Perfect is the enemy of the good enough. well designed and well maintained commieblock districts with proper infrastructure is probably the best way for the majority of people in a city. Trying to move all of them to suburbs just makes sideways commieblocks with less density, less infrastructure and a legion of rentoids choking on debt. Again, not that European cities don't have suburbs around them or "elite" low density districts full of mansions but those merely represent an alternative, not a place where everyone must live. Well placed down commieblocks can even have competitive prices equaling family homes double their size. The market clearly thinks they are desirable.
Funniest shit is, European redditors cant stop complaining about them for some reason and keep pining for suburbs. I cant decide if they are stupid or just contrarian.
Completely wrong. Most suburbs formed when the industry started croaking, rustbelts full of unemployed niggers started proliferating and people moved away from places that started detroitfying fast. Niggers are responsible for the massive white flight, the HOAs, the gated communities, the weird ass local ordnances trying to keep them out. There was also an insane lobbying push from the car industry towards suburbanization and highways too and the marketing successfully turned the lifestyle a signal of american-ness.
Europe also has suburbs, but since most of them were formed by agglomerations engulfing 1500 year old villages formed by some roaming celt tribe, they tend to be much more organic in look and zoned differently than the sleepertowns everyone thinks when american suburbs are brought up.
Suburbs happened literally everywhere and even started in the 1910s/1920s with the streetcar suburbs because you wanted to be out of the city. "Muh white flight" is such a brainlet take that doesn't address half the cities worldwide where suburbanization actually occurred.
Its just miles and miles of useless fucking asphalt, causing urban sprawl, lengthening commute times wasting everyone's time, forcing cost increases of emergency services, building infrastructure, literally everything. Its just basic math, if your city is 25% parking lots, you need 25% more ambulances, fire trucks, police cars, etc. on duty, 25% more subway laid to connect places, 25% more water mains and power lines, etc. You could have density instead of them, or have parks or more infrastructure using the space like rail lines or anything really. In the end, they don't even make cars easier and faster to use, but SLOWER, because of the sprawl.
/r/fuckcars (and you, apparently) thinks the real world is like SimCity and treats all high-rises as they would any other lot, so that getting from your bedroom to the street is the same whether you live in a small single-family house in the suburbs to an apartment located 300 feet above ground level, and same with infrastructure costs, not only does the building require more power but the infrastructure has to better to even get there. Calling it "basic math" is like that old counter-signal meme.
Have you ever seen a truck do a delivery? In areas with no parking lot they will literally stop on the side of the road (if it's a traffic lane, so be it) and manually take stuff out of the back. Something like a fast food restaurant or large gas station, they'll have a whole parking lot to manuever around and can unload during business hours, possibly even taking in things through the back. In a modern big box store or grocery store (modern as in built or modified since the 1980s, so this wouldn't apply to mid-1970s Kmart stores), trucks will back in to a ramp toward a garage-style door, creating a seamless connection where you can load and unload things with minimal outside contact.
Older stores don't have full truck docks, they usually at best have some of elevated concrete block (which are sometimes built later) or just nothing at all (though they do have a freight door). The local Kmart which closed when I was a wee lad didn't have one, though the ones that were built later or moved into a more modern building or got some sort of retrofit later did.
Even then they can park safely on the concrete surrounding the store and don't impede anything.
Older stores don't have full truck docks, they usually at best have some of elevated concrete block (which are sometimes built later) or just nothing at all (though they do have a freight door). The local Kmart which closed when I was a wee lad didn't have one, though the ones that were built later or moved into a more modern building or got some sort of retrofit later did.
Even then they can park safely on the concrete surrounding the store and don't impede anything.
The history of logistics is interesting. It's crazy how inefficient loading/unloading used to be.
Old cargo dollies were oak with iron wheels, probably weighed 60lbs empty. The cargo pull carts they used to use were easily over 150lbs.
In the old department store here (second biggest store in the region in the early 1900s) the loading dock was for some reason a metre below the warehouse so everything had to go up the cargo elevator, but only a little bit. Crazy waste of time. Factories used to be built vertically too.
Trucking really worked miracles for warehousing/delivery
Transit throttled after Seattle World Cup match Soccer fans faced long lines and light rail delays of more than an hour after Seattle's first World Cup match , prompting transit officials to review service strategies ahead of Friday's game.
The Brief
Congestion on match day in Seattle caused long waits, crowded transit platforms, and high rideshare costs.
While some people tell FOX 13 they wished for better communication, others say the excitement and ease of the stadium experience outweighed travel complications.
Seattle leaders discussed what they will and will not be reviewing ahead of a triple-duty event day Friday.
SEATTLE - City and transit officials are calling Seattle’s first World Cup match a major success, but local soccer fans say navigating the transit system after the event required patience.
Following Monday's match between Belgium and Egypt, heavy demand for public transportation left thousands of attendees waiting in massive lines outside stadium exit points. Some fans reported waiting for over an hour just to board the local light rail system, prompting both commuters and operations officials to evaluate lessons learned ahead of upcoming matches.
Fans turn to social media, alternative transport
The transit bottlenecks became a major talking point online, with videos circulating widely on TikTok showing massive crowds trying to access the Link light rail lines.
The congestion drove some travelers to seek alternative transport, resulting in steep surge pricing from rideshare applications. Boston resident Mark Khalil chose to take an Uber away from Seattle Stadium to escape the crowds, only to be charged $45 for a two-mile trip.
"It was just, like, we just hoped for more clarity," Khalil said. "So, just to plan that out better in the future."
Transit agencies defend post-game flow
Big picture view: Sound Transit officials confirmed that light rail operations ran as scheduled on Monday. However, the agency acknowledged that access to train platforms was intentionally throttled, a standard safety strategy utilized to prevent dangerous overcrowding on the active tracking platforms.
To ease future bottlenecks, transit representatives are advising passengers to "spread out" across different arrival and departure stations rather than converging on a single hub. Some local fans are already adapting their post-game habits to avoid the peak rush entirely.
"I'd leave. I'd go, like, maybe eat something," Seattle resident Kavi Fraser suggested. "Just, like, burn an hour. If you have nowhere to be."
Other regular attendees, like Mathieu Gaultier of Seattle, plan to alter their arrival times for the next match. "I will be down here again on Friday to catch the game, so, probably going to leave a couple of hours earlier than I normally would just to be safe," Gaultier said.
Major gridlock test expected Friday
The city's infrastructure will face an even larger test on Friday, when a massive influx of visitors is expected downtown. The U.S. Men's National Team is scheduled to take the pitch against Australia, a high-stakes match that officials anticipate will draw a significantly larger crowd than Monday's opener.
Local perspective: Compounding the transit demand, Friday’s schedule features a rare tri-event surge. The World Cup match directly coincides with federal Juneteenth holiday observations as well as a scheduled Seattle Mariners baseball game at nearby T-Mobile Park.
Despite the looming logistical challenge, the Seattle Office of Emergency Management reports that the broader city framework experienced few issues. Kenneth Neafcy, the agency's operations manager, indicated that sweeping changes to the city's current transit and security blueprints are unlikely.
"At this point, I'm not anticipating any major changes to our strategies," Neafcy said.
Sound Transit added that it is actively reviewing Monday's performance data and will implement adjustments where possible. For most fans, however, the stadium experience eclipsed any transport frustrations.
What they're saying: "The World Cup was such an amazing experience that nothing else mattered once we got into the stadium," Khalil said.
The Source: Information in this story came from original FOX 13 Seattle reporting.
Redditors are baffled:
How dare you expect the high density mode of transportation to transport large numbers of people:
The train is too successful: Source(Archive)
NFL games don’t have problems like this but people are allowed to drive to the stadium for them.
/r/fuckcars (and you, apparently) thinks the real world is like SimCity and treats all high-rises as they would any other lot, so that getting from your bedroom to the street is the same whether you live in a small single-family house in the suburbs to an apartment located 300 feet above ground level, and same with infrastructure costs, not only does the building require more power but the infrastructure has to better to even get there. Calling it "basic math" is like that old counter-signal meme.
This is a GREAT point that I never see brought up. When I want to be out of my front door I want to be out of it right now. I don't want to have to spend 5 minutes waiting around for an elevator that may or may not contain a creep, a brown, a misbehaving child. I don't want to have to traverse a bunch of interior mezzanines and atria and plazas to reach the actual exit. You can spend ten minutes out of your allotted fifteen before you even see daylight.
This is a GREAT point that I never see brought up. When I want to be out of my front door I want to be out of it right now. I don't want to have to spend 5 minutes waiting around for an elevator that may or may not contain a creep, a brown, a misbehaving child. I don't want to have to traverse a bunch of interior mezzanines and atria and plazas to reach the actual exit. You can spend ten minutes out of your allotted fifteen before you even see daylight.
If an adult can walk up one story per minute on a staircase that's considered to be a good benchmark for cardiovascular health. So use that as a rule of thumb whenever someone tries to sell you on high-rises.
This is a GREAT point that I never see brought up. When I want to be out of my front door I want to be out of it right now. I don't want to have to spend 5 minutes waiting around for an elevator that may or may not contain a creep, a brown, a misbehaving child. I don't want to have to traverse a bunch of interior mezzanines and atria and plazas to reach the actual exit. You can spend ten minutes out of your allotted fifteen before you even see daylight.
Of course they're not going to bring up because a) it's not immediately obvious especially if you compare transit times on maps since it makes the assumption that you are on the street, and b) it worsens their case.
Anyone who does delivery or did do delivery knows that there's a big difference between parking on the street or the driveway and waltzing up to the front door versus having to futz around with gate codes and climb three flights of stairs.
The history of logistics is interesting. It's crazy how inefficient loading/unloading used to be.
Old cargo dollies were oak with iron wheels, probably weighed 60lbs empty. The cargo pull carts they used to use were easily over 150lbs.
In the old department store here (second biggest store in the region in the early 1900s) the loading dock was for some reason a metre below the warehouse so everything had to go up the cargo elevator, but only a little bit. Crazy waste of time. Factories used to be built vertically too.
Trucking really worked miracles for warehousing/delivery
I think we discussed railroads and which industries/products it still works in and which ones it does not. For people who are obsessed with efficiency, you can move a lot more product in and out at a given time with a bunch of truck docks than a rail spur, and the sheer amount of abandoned spurs (even for industries that are still functioning) are a testament to this.
Completely wrong and reddity, trying to deny how people fled from the niggers. Just because some suburbs existed before Rome has been founded, it doesn't mean that the big suburbanization wave did not happen post-WW2. That is also the era where the shitty sideways commieblocks that look like a shitty Simcity clone using a single house asset were built too. There is an entire separate topic here about Lustron/General Panel Corporation/etc. housing here but its tangential already
/r/fuckcars (and you, apparently) thinks the real world is like SimCity and treats all high-rises as they would any other lot, so that getting from your bedroom to the street is the same whether you live in a small single-family house in the suburbs to an apartment located 300 feet above ground level, and same with infrastructure costs, not only does the building require more power but the infrastructure has to better to even get there. Calling it "basic math" is like that old counter-signal meme.
That's nice, but completely irrelevant to how much of a shithole of a city is that is over 25% parking lots. There are a few steps between a parking lot and a high-rise to built that you have missed. And yes, realizing that 25% more ground to cover means 25% effort from services is just absolutely basic math and in the end inefficiency always turns into money to be paid by the taxpayer(you). The worst thing is that those parking lots are not even needed, they are never full, they are well overbuilt and even the businesses know it, but they are legally mandated to because of shitty laws.
Have you ever seen a truck do a delivery? In areas with no parking lot they will literally stop on the side of the road (if it's a traffic lane, so be it) and manually take stuff out of the back
Finally, some good fucking content. Really shows how reddit is just a bunch of contrarian leftist faggots who want to spread The Message and say the "correct" things without actually understanding any of it. Now even trains are bad. I wonder what they would have been recommending, everyone to arrive on bikes?
