You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly. You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
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
They're calling them "rain gardens" and they're supposed to be a permeable surface to help flooding, but as you can see from the video, they don't help but they do look an awful lot like traffic bulbs-outs.
They're calling them "rain gardens" and they're supposed to be a permeable surface to help flooding, but as you can see from the video, they don't help but they do look an awful lot like traffic bulbs-outs.
They've done this is loads of cities, someone must be making loads of cash off of this and should be held accountable. But they won't be.
They are also a magnet for trash and are weirdly built in places where Muslims are. They just see them as handy dumping grounds for their trash. They do look like the kind of hole you'd see 3rd worlders use as a dumping ground in their village back home though.
They aren't old traffic bump outs, these were either parking spaces or side walk previously, usually parking though.
It's a dumbass plan that just adds more commuter rail into the suburbs. Oh and for no reason at all, he made the new commuter rail line run directly into the ghetto in Maryland. Exactly what commuters want - a shuttle service directly from the ghetto to their neighborhoods.
Pink is also retarded. I took a job in Bush's department of defense just for the story and transferring at Roslyn is super easy, that line makes zero sense. Makes way more sense to build up along existing rail lines than to try to density Virginia suburbs by building these out. This is about trying to destroy nice normal suburbs around Arlington.
The traffic calming came first, they alternated the streets every other one being a one way in the other direction. with the way the parking is in the earliest pictures only one car could pass at any time anyway
the "gardens" are abysmal though, just looks like weeds.
In the Midwest when it snows they've taken to doubling up locomotives, and often throwing the GE engines that the Charger is replacing on one end so you have something that won't go 'mein gott' and break down when it sees some powder.
At least in Canada they're using actual diesel engines and not electrified lines. Electric lines for wide-scale transportation (not in-city light rail or short lines) seems unnecessary. I wonder how much of India's trains fall off schedule because of their electric-based system; one of the hallmarks of a third-world country is not being able to maintain their electric grid and it seems to dangerous to have your city's main logistics and transportation to be entirely at a power grid's mercy, because it means that even for short outages you're in trouble.
I mentioned my big road trip last year and how I was able to carry anything, but the other thing about vehicles that don't rely on a power grid is that they can go through areas that don't have power; there was a tornado warning during my trip and a small town I passed through (I can't recall it off-hand) was still out of power as the tornado had blown through an hour or so earlier, so they had no power. The stoplights weren't working, so I had to be a little more careful there, and the Exxon was closed (no problem because I had gas earlier). But if an electric train traveled through an affected area, they just might get stuck...and I don't know how much battery they have (if any).
It's odd that they obsess over using trains as an evacuation method in a natural disaster but then insist that trains in a "proper" country should use electric. (I'm not sure if this is Europeans, Americans idolizing Europe, or Indians pretending to be European--possibly a mixture of all three).
It's odd that they obsess over using trains as an evacuation method in a natural disaster but then insist that trains in a "proper" country should use electric. (I'm not sure if this is Europeans, Americans idolizing Europe, or Indians pretending to be European--possibly a mixture of all three).
Oh god trains as an evacuation option would be nightmarish. A small select few routes and only enough train cars to try and save a few thousand people? And this assumes all the trains are near or within the city to begin with. Never mind that people would likely try and run along train tracks because rails are usually on a flat and open corridor of land, leading trains to either become stuck behind crowds of people ot turning the tracks into a gorey mess.
Urbanists- particularly those with a grudge against American urban development screech about American suburban sprawl, cars, and highways seem to fail to understand the development and spread of most American suburbs for this purpose. The spread of suburbia wasn't because of General Motors or Ford, it was fears of the atomic bomb. Nuking a city becomes less effective if a large portion of its city lives outside the blast radius and can escape the fallout zone via large amounts of cars and exit routes. When you only have ~10 minutes to leave, driving down the highway at 50-60 mph puts you comfortably 5-6 miles away in the best-case scenario. America didn't build itself after the car, it built itself to survive a hypothetical war that for all practical purposes is a natural disaster, it's every disaster and some rolled into one.
The big push to do all this was done during the 50's when fears of nuclear war were beginning to take shape, and this culminated in "The National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956". The interstates being great for civilian commerce is a nice addition to the country, but these were (along with many other highway and road construction projects throughout the Interwar period) designed to facilitate the easy movement of the USAF across the country and civilians away from potential blast zones. Because ideally the best way to win a nuclear war is to survive it with the most amount of population and facilities intact, and the US aimed to do just that.
Im sorry but that's not true. Suburbanization started during the great migration because of nigs. I really don't think there was some great plan to decentralize the US. It was just white people getting away from blacks.
Im sure it's been said a hundred times in this thread before, but the fundamental problem with urbanization in this country is blacks in the city. I remember going to Eastern Europe and just being amazed at how they had 10x nicer cities with probably 1/3 of the taxes.
In St. Louis in the 90s around 100k Bosnian refugees came over and were moved into the South of the city which was totally desolate. At the time it wasn't even a ghetto anymore, just empty because there was literally no wealth left to steal and fight over. In 5 years it was one of the nicer parts of the city, and they had built that shit up from nothing. The problem with American cities is literally just blacks.
Im sorry but that's not true. Suburbanization started during the great migration because of nigs. I really don't think there was some great plan to decentralize the US. It was just white people getting away from blacks.
That is somewhat true, but there was a somewhat coordinated plan to 'decentralize' the US. There was natural suburban growth, largely spurned on initially by the 'Great Migration' of Southern blacks northward to become cheap labor in northern factories. However suburbia really began to kick off following World War 2 where the US invested in granting returning soldiers new homes, access to education, and access to jobs. Inner city wartime industry devolved into a spread out civilian industrial complex.
And I'll argue the problem isn't so much 'blacks' as it is ghetto culture (you can see this with the wiggers of Tennessee and Alabama or the cartel fascination of Mexican-Americans on the West Coast), black areas were poor thanks to the general segregation from city centers and segregationist policies- from the South and from the North where segregation was more cultural and informal than the South's efforts. Where the South learned to 'live with it' on both sides, the North's 'we're not segregationist but we just don't like your kind' attitude led to large ethnic gulfs and splits within urban areas. Then when integration came around black intellectuals in the North argued that instead of 'integration' and 'acting white' the black communities should 'act black' and were more contrarian to the ideas of 'moderate' integration put forward by MLK.
Im sorry but that's not true. Suburbanization started during the great migration because of nigs. I really don't think there was some great plan to decentralize the US. It was just white people getting away from blacks.
Im sure it's been said a hundred times in this thread before, but the fundamental problem with urbanization in this country is blacks in the city. I remember going to Eastern Europe and just being amazed at how they had 10x nicer cities with probably 1/3 of the taxes.
In St. Louis in the 90s around 100k Bosnian refugees came over and were moved into the South of the city which was totally desolate. At the time it wasn't even a ghetto anymore, just empty because there was literally no wealth left to steal and fight over. In 5 years it was one of the nicer parts of the city, and they had built that shit up from nothing. The problem with American cities is literally just blacks.
Suburbanization started with streetcars, that is, the first technology that gave people beyond just the gentry class the choice between being in the city or out in the country. The "streetcar suburbs" as Jason and co. have idolized for being "proper" still originally had deed-oriented residential development and single-family tract housing developments much like modern suburbs do, it's just that the deeds have long since expired and most of the original lots have been redeveloped.
The South's cities (and California's, for that matter) didn't experience the radical demographic shifts of the North and still developed suburbs anyway; they all did.
The South's cities (and California's, for that matter) didn't experience the radical demographic shifts of the North and still developed suburbs anyway; they all did.
Well segregation laws started to go away at the same time. Maybe your right, cars + infrastructure gave people the ability to leave the cities, but blacks were the cause for people wanting to do so. If suburbs were just an inevitable result of cars, then the entire world would have developed suburbs like America.
Well segregation laws started to go away at the same time. Maybe your right, cars + infrastructure gave people the ability to leave the cities, but blacks were the cause for people wanting to do so. If suburbs were just an inevitable result of cars, then the entire world would have developed suburbs like America.
I have to argue that it's more wealth than black people, as suburbs even developed in some of the whitest cities in America (at least into the 1980s). Brazil has a range of people from White Hispanic to black people who speak Portuguese (I've heard the black people aren't well-liked there either) but they really don't have suburbs because they're poor.
Europe may have a few pre-war suburbs but they were doing a lot of rebuilding in the center core, no extra money for suburbs. Australia built suburbs in a mostly-white area but they had money and enough money to also build freeways closely resembling America's (they also have right-hand turn lanes, something the Isles never figured out).
Even if one argued "but CARS", the answer is yes, because every society on Earth will start to convert to automobile-based transportation the minute they stop being poor (as in wealth). The reality is there are billions of people on this planet that want or have cars. No paid propaganda is that powerful.
Im sorry but that's not true. Suburbanization started during the great migration because of nigs. I really don't think there was some great plan to decentralize the US. It was just white people getting away from blacks.
Nope, the actual reason is that the car enabled people to travel longer distances and the GI bill allowed a large portion of the population to buy a place of their own. Arguably, suburbanization started even before the car; streetcars enabled the original sprawl, though at a smaller scale.
Suburbanization started decades before the Civil Rights Act and was already underway long before the Soviets stole the bomb (which is when the government started taking nuclear defense seriously), so neither explanation makes sense. Both also assume that people naturally want to live in dense cities but were forced out instead of choosing to live in less dense areas. If White Flight was the reason for suburbs and people liked the cities they were forced out of, why aren’t they all blocks of walkable apartment buildings?
Fundamentally, most people prefer open space and having a house on their own land. Cities used to be much smaller before the Industrial Revolution when they got a massive influx of people who moved there to work in factories. The workers went from living in a house on numerous acres to living in a single room in a tenement which is a massive downgrade in quality-of-life that was only tolerated due to the high pay of factory jobs (relative to subsistence farming). As soon as they got the opportunity to keep their city job but live “rurally”, they took it.
This is also why urbanists hate remote work. Even today, given the choice, the office workers that fill up the downtown buildings prefer to stay in their suburbs. Cities need suburbanites and rural people to survive as urbanites are unproductive and anti-natalist.
The r/fuckcars folks think the car itself is propaganda. Like, how they think pickup trucks have magic brainwashing powers and need to be kept out of Europe at all costs, lest the majority of European drivers suddenly decide to purchase Ford F-150's.
The r/fuckcars folks think the car itself is propaganda. Like, how they think pickup trucks have magic brainwashing powers and need to be kept out of Europe at all costs, lest the majority of European drivers suddenly decide to purchase Ford F-150's.
Oh god trains as an evacuation option would be nightmarish. A small select few routes and only enough train cars to try and save a few thousand people? And this assumes all the trains are near or within the city to begin with. Never mind that people would likely try and run along train tracks because rails are usually on a flat and open corridor of land, leading trains to either become stuck behind crowds of people ot turning the tracks into a gorey mess.
Imagine the kvetching if they used trains (cattle cars) to ever evacuate Miami / Palm Beach during a hurricane. It would be treated as another Shoah by Kikes.
Imagine the kvetching if they used trains (cattle cars) to ever evacuate Miami / Palm Beach during a hurricane. It would be treated as another Shoah by Kikes.
We'll see exactly how many people you can fit in one of those cars though. Kind of like how Covid demonstrated exactly how many bodies you can cremate at a time.
The r/fuckcars folks think the car itself is propaganda. Like, how they think pickup trucks have magic brainwashing powers and need to be kept out of Europe at all costs, lest the majority of European drivers suddenly decide to purchase Ford F-150's.
in other words it's the same reason why Communists cannot handle having a capitalist neighbor or even stand the idea that there could be a capitalist society. Envy breeds jealousy. And the offer of different options means that 'paradise' is challenged.
At least in Canada they're using actual diesel engines and not electrified lines. Electric lines for wide-scale transportation (not in-city light rail or short lines) seems unnecessary.
Well, the electric motor is simply better and more efficient than a diesel engine, and most diesel locomotives are diesel-electric for that reason. But I get that in places like Canada where there are vast stretches of nothing between places, putting up overhead power lines for freight trains would be expensive to maintain. But in more densely populated countries it sure makes sense, even though the power lines are susceptible to damage and cause delays. Not just in third World countries, here in Germany we also get occasionally massive delays when something goes wrong and a power line is damaged.
We also got Tractor Pulling here, which was sorta invented in the US, but I think it's more popular here. The open classes have hilarious contraptions where people just mount all the WW2 tank engines and helicopter turbines to their tractors as they can find. It's the closest we get to Top Fuel Dragsters here.
