# Public Transportation, free travel, and the Cult of the Urbanite



## Flaming Insignias (Apr 4, 2022)

Over the past few years, I've seen a massive rise in posts about how awful the existence of America's car culture is, and with that calls for railways covering the country. So the question is: why? Is it really that bad for development to be spaced out, and is this some sort of scheme to convince people to give up their freedom of movement under the auspices of having things "closer" and being able to move "in a greener way." Photo attached to give an idea of some common anti-car talking points, and consider looking at r/fuckcars for car-haters in the wild.


----------



## ShortBusDriver (Apr 4, 2022)

Because the far left hates the idea of an independent population that doesn't need the government and a car is the ultimate freedom.


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (Apr 4, 2022)

What do you need to go outside for? Everything you need is in your pod.


----------



## I Love Beef (Apr 4, 2022)

Car culture isn't inherently bad, it's the fact that urban infrastructure lives on Cold War standards to "lessen casualties" (lol downwinders), spacing out everything miles away and exploitation lives through making everyone a wagie by levying huge debts and interest rates on cars while parroting freedom and the amurican way to sucker in more suckers.

True freedom would be to allow a way for everyone to live in peace and harmony, not just public transit riders or car owners.


----------



## Colon capital V (Apr 4, 2022)

I'd rather go through public transport than having to inevitably deal with "self-driving" cars in the future.


----------



## Beautiful Border (Apr 4, 2022)

Most people aren't anti-car, they're anti-car dependency. Most cities in North America have been designed so that there is no viable transport option for most people other than driving. In the rest of the world you still have the option to drive, but you can also choose to walk, cycle, or take public transport. Americans are the only people on planet Earth who think they are more free because they have less choice.

I would recommend you check out the youtube channel Not Just Bikes, it points out the many ways that car dependency has a negative effect on both cities and society as a whole.


----------



## Vingle (Apr 4, 2022)

Having a car is expensive as fuck, and it's not like I want to stay in traffic or have an considerable risk of fucking dying because of some random retard.


----------



## Save the Loli (Apr 4, 2022)

People are salty about getting stuck and traffic and having to deal with car maintenance. Which to be fair, really fucking sucks, and we can do a lot better on public transportation. Car-centered cities in America are frustrating and full of unnecessary traffic. Thank god I don't live in LA, because I sat in the average traffic there once on vacation and found it an unforgettably nightmarish experience.

Unfortunately, this makes them easy recruits to the creepy technocratic social engineers, the live in a pod types who really do hate free movement. Therefore, they never really bother to understand the problems inherent in public transit projects and just go with stupidity and evil instead.


Colon capital V said:


> I'd rather go through public transport than having to inevitably deal with "self-driving" cars in the future.


It'll be the same thing anyway. You'll call up your car on future Uber, and you will get in that car to your destination and never see it again. If some junkie was shooting up in there while jerking it to porn on his phone, too bad, you're still getting in there.


----------



## quaawaa (Apr 4, 2022)

Beautiful Border said:


> Most people aren't anti-car, they're anti-car dependency. Most cities in North America have been designed so that there is no viable transport option for most people other than driving. In the rest of the world you still have the option to drive, but you can also choose to walk, cycle, or take public transport. Americans are the only people on planet Earth who think they are more free because they have less choice.
> 
> I would recommend you check out the youtube channel Not Just Bikes, it points out the many ways that car dependency has a negative effect on both cities and society as a whole.


Can you urbanists ever cite a source besides Strong Towns or NotJustBikes? You guys act more like a cult led by those two than a serious intellectual movement. NotJustBikes is just an opinion blog by someone who really loves Amsterdam. If you really just want to have a non-car option to get around and aren’t anti-car, then urbanists would not enact policies like urban growth boundaries, parking maximums, and bans on new automotive infrastructure in order to force people to have the lifestyle they prefer. Stop it with the motte-and-bailey arguments.


----------



## Psychotron (Apr 4, 2022)

I think the biggest issue with highways is how quickly they get ripped by big load. 
Commuting more is better, Like if there where democratized bus lines that just ran where people mostly needed to go. 

There really is a stronk argument for VR when you consider the energy cost of being in VR office vs energy of being in real office.


----------



## Kendall Motor Oil (Apr 4, 2022)

The issue is the US has been centralizing its economy to a small amount of cities while the rest of the country plunges into poverty. Before highways(and even a little after) there were small businesses closer to residential areas which served neighborhoods with common goods. Over time these businesses could not compete with larger chains and closed. The US was fairly decentralized before the 1940s and the centralization occurred rapidly soon after.
There are cultural issues at play, particularly corporate culture. Large corporations want the prestige of having offices in cities, much like retailers want a flagship store in times square. They are also hostile to remote work due to the inability to micromanage employees and the fear they aren't getting every hour of work out of them. So people are forced to move to cities if they want better economic opportunities. There is also this newish "Progressive" urbanite culture that has a romanticized view of Europe and Europeans and a desire to live that lifestyle merged with their own decadence.
There are parts of cities where in the US where people can take public transport, bike, and walk but fanatics want to force it culturally so entire cities fit their ideal. These people seem little different from vegans trying to force their moralism onto others.
Also crime. No one wants to live near crime and cities have a nigger crime problem so its better to live away from it.

Somewhat relevant video.







quaawaa said:


> If you really just want to have a non-car option to get around and aren’t anti-car, then urbanists would not enact policies like urban growth boundaries, parking maximums, and bans on new automotive infrastructure in order to force people to have the lifestyle they prefer.


The power of urban planning attracts people with these beliefs. As mentioned above, they are like vegans who feel it morally acceptable to force their lifestyles on others. "Liberals" have the same mentality of using government to force people to behave in the way they want(the firm but gentle hand). They see complex systems as static and make assumptions in their planning and view of human behavior.


----------



## Bonesjones (Apr 4, 2022)

Neigh said:


> The issue is the US has been centralizing its economy to a small amount of cities while the rest of the country plunges into poverty. Before highways(and even a little after) there were small businesses closer to residential areas which served neighborhoods with common goods. Over time these businesses could not compete with larger chains and closed. The US was fairly decentralized before the 1940s and the centralization occurred rapidly soon after.
> There are cultural issues at play, particularly corporate culture. Large corporations want the prestige of having offices in cities, much like retailers want a flagship store in times square. They are also hostile to remote work due to the inability to micromanage employees and the fear they aren't getting every hour of work out of them. So people are forced to move to cities if they want better economic opportunities. There is also this newish "Progressive" urbanite culture that has a romanticized view of Europe and Europeans and a desire to live that lifestyle merged with their own decadence.
> There are parts of cities where in the US where people can take public transport, bike, and walk but fanatics want to force it culturally so entire cities fit their ideal. These people seem little different from vegans trying to force their moralism onto others.
> Also crime. No one wants to live near crime and cities have a nigger crime problem so its better to live away from it.
> ...


They also just externalize and ignore the reasons city centers were abandoned in the past. It doesn't matter how walkable or biking friendly your city is when it's filled with crazy homeless people or gangs of black teenagers threatening to mug you or steal your bike as soon as you leave it somewhere. No one is willingly going to do that but the most soyed individuals. This isn't even including the modern lockdown crazy idiots these days. We were never forced to wear masks in my small city but places like Atlanta still do. Who wants to deal with that shit 2 or 4 years down the line?


----------



## Beautiful Border (Apr 4, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> Can you urbanists ever cite a source besides Strong Towns or NotJustBikes? You guys act more like a cult led by those two than a serious intellectual movement. NotJustBikes is just an opinion blog by someone who really loves Amsterdam. If you really just want to have a non-car option to get around and aren’t anti-car, then urbanists would not enact policies like urban growth boundaries, parking maximums, and bans on new automotive infrastructure in order to force people to have the lifestyle they prefer. Stop it with the motte-and-bailey arguments.


See, I'm not an "urbanist" in the sense that it's an ideology I feel the need to passionately defend with well-sourced arguments. My opinions on the matter simply come from personal experience - growing up in a large European city, followed by spending some time in the US and being shocked by how limiting it is in comparison. If you're someone who has experienced both North American and European cities, it's obvious that one is a worse experience than the other (unless you _really_ like being stuck in grid-locked traffic five days a week and the ever-present possibility of being involved in a car crash or dealing with someone else's road rage, I guess). Not Just Bikes is just someone who had the same experience I had, only in reverse.


----------



## Queen Elizabeth II (Apr 4, 2022)

Because Americans are fat fucks who need to stop driving two minutes down the road and walk for fucks sake. 

The environment, economy and choice aside; the rest of us find it funny


----------



## quaawaa (Apr 4, 2022)

Beautiful Border said:


> See, I'm not an "urbanist" in the sense that it's an ideology I feel the need to passionately defend with well-sourced arguments. My opinions on the matter simply come from personal experience - growing up in a large European city, followed by spending some time in the US and being shocked by how limiting it is in comparison. If you're someone who has experienced both North American and European cities, it's obvious that one is a worse experience than the other (unless you _really_ like being stuck in grid-locked traffic five days a week and the ever-present possibility of being involved in a car crash or dealing with someone else's road rage, I guess). Not Just Bikes is just someone who had the same experience I had, only in reverse.


In a car dependent city that has developed its infrastructure as its population has grown (e.g. Phoenix, not Los Angeles), you can get to any point in the city in a relatively short amount of time, typically under half an hour. That time could easily be spent waiting for a bus headway in a transit dependent city, which is why the average American commute is shorter than the average European commute. Transit dependent cities feel incredibly limiting to someone used to a car dependent city as going to any place outside of walking distance and not on the same line as you live on is a hassle that requires planning and waiting. Sprawling cities also let everyone own a house instead of just the rich like in dense cities.


----------



## Beautiful Border (Apr 4, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> In a car dependent city that has developed its infrastructure as its population has grown (e.g. Phoenix, not Los Angeles), you can get to any point in the city in a relatively short amount of time, typically under half an hour. That time could easily be spent waiting for a bus headway in a transit dependent city, which is why the average American commute is shorter than the average European commute. Transit dependent cities feel incredibly limiting to someone used to a car dependent city as going to any place outside of walking distance and not on the same line as you live on is a hassle that requires planning and waiting. Sprawling cities also let everyone own a house instead of just the rich like in dense cities.


I'd like to hear an example of what you would consider a "transit dependent" city, because I can't think of any. Cities with good public transport also tend to be more walkable/cyclable in general. Like I said, it's about how much choice in transportation a city offers, and car-dependent cities offer considerably less.


----------



## quaawaa (Apr 4, 2022)

Beautiful Border said:


> I'd like to hear an example of what you would consider a "transit dependent" city, because I can't think of any. Cities with good public transport also tend to be more walkable/cyclable in general. Like I said, it's about how much choice in transportation a city offers, and car-dependent cities offer considerably less.


Any city that is difficult or expensive to drive around in. No city beyond small town size is walkable, unless you're using a definition of walkable so broad that Houston is walkable. What people call "walkable" cities are actually transit dependent cities, because you need to take transit if you want to go anywhere beyond a few blocks in a reasonable amount of time. Remember, the average walking speed is 3 mph, so that means that if you live in a "15 minute city" you can't go more than 3/4 of a mile without taking some form of transit. Bikes are useless for carrying things (even "cargo" bikes) and suck in bad weather and in hilly environments (and before you say e-bikes fix this, congrats, you've reinvented the third world's motorcycle culture).

You can take transit or walk or ride a bike in a car-dependent city, just like you can drive in a transit dependent city. It just sucks to do that, but in both cases you have the option of taking whichever form of transportation you prefer. The difference is in a car dependent city you can go *ANYWHERE *on a whim in a fixed period of time. As an example, Dallas-Fort Worth and Tokyo are about the same physical size.
This is an absolute worse case route in DFW:

Versus Tokyo:

Notice that it takes over twice as long to cross Tokyo than to cross Dallas? It is a lot easier to go to a random place in Dallas than it is to go to a random place in Tokyo.
Tokyo, unlike most American and European urbanist cities, believes in urban expressways, so if you drive, it actually takes the same amount of time as in Dallas to cross the city:

but highways in Tokyo are highly tolled, so it is a lot more expensive to do that trip in the same amount of time than it is in Dallas, so fast travel is a luxury for the rich.


----------



## Beautiful Border (Apr 4, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> Any city that is difficult or expensive to drive around in. No city beyond small town size is walkable, unless you're using a definition of walkable so broad that Houston is walkable. What people call "walkable" cities are actually transit dependent cities, because you need to take transit if you want to go anywhere beyond a few blocks in a reasonable amount of time. Remember, the average walking speed is 3 mph, so that means that if you live in a "15 minute city" you can't go more than 3/4 of a mile without taking some form of transit. Bikes are useless for carrying things (even "cargo" bikes) and suck in bad weather and in hilly environments (and before you say e-bikes fix this, congrats, you've reinvented the third world's motorcycle culture).


Have you ever lived in one of these "transit dependent" cities? Because I do and you're talking nonsense. You're trying to draw an equivalent where none exists - a car-dependent city is one where you have no viable alternative to driving, in a "transit dependent" city you can still drive if you want to, it's just not the most ideal option. The only cities I can think of where cars aren't an option at all are unusual places like Venice. If you _have_ to own a car to get from A to B, then you are objectively less free than a person who drives by choice. “A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars, it’s where the rich use public transportation".


----------



## quaawaa (Apr 4, 2022)

Beautiful Border said:


> Have you ever lived in one of these "transit dependent" cities? Because I do and you're talking nonsense. You're trying to draw an equivalent where none exists - a car-dependent city is one where you have no viable alternative to driving, in a "transit dependent" city you can still drive if you want to, it's just not the most ideal option. The only cities I can think of where cars aren't an option at all are unusual places like Venice. If you _have_ to own a car to get from A to B, then you are objectively less free than a person who drives by choice. “A developed country is not a place where the poor have cars, it’s where the rich use public transportation".


I have in fact lived in one of the most transit dependent American cities. I've since moved out of it, and I find that I spend *significantly *less time running errands than before. One missed bus or having to switch lines added more travel time than my average total trip time nowadays. Under your definition, there is no such thing as a "car-dependent" city because even in the most sprawling and car-friendly cities, there is a bus system, it just isn't the most ideal option. You still have the choice of taking transit, so you don't _have_ to own a car.

Regarding your quote, why do the vast majority of the rich choose to drive or be driven then? You don't see Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos taking advantage of Seattle's extensive transit system to get around.


----------



## Hair and Nails (Apr 4, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> Any city that is difficult or expensive to drive around in. No city beyond small town size is walkable, unless you're using a definition of walkable so broad that Houston is walkable. What people call "walkable" cities are actually transit dependent cities, because you need to take transit if you want to go anywhere beyond a few blocks in a reasonable amount of time. Remember, the average walking speed is 3 mph, so that means that if you live in a "15 minute city" you can't go more than 3/4 of a mile without taking some form of transit. Bikes are useless for carrying things (even "cargo" bikes) and suck in bad weather and in hilly environments (and before you say e-bikes fix this, congrats, you've reinvented the third world's motorcycle culture).
> 
> You can take transit or walk or ride a bike in a car-dependent city, just like you can drive in a transit dependent city. It just sucks to do that, but in both cases you have the option of taking whichever form of transportation you prefer. The difference is in a car dependent city you can go *ANYWHERE *on a whim in a fixed period of time. As an example, Dallas-Fort Worth and Tokyo are about the same physical size.
> This is an absolute worse case route in DFW:
> ...


Great job comparing skirting the edge of Dallas — a mid-sized city even for Texas — on a controlled access road to driving directly through literally the largest city on earth. If you think those two examples are comparable at all, you have nothing to add to this discussion.


----------



## quaawaa (Apr 4, 2022)

Hair and Nails said:


> Great job comparing skirting the edge of Dallas — a mid-sized city even for Texas — on a controlled access road to driving directly through literally the largest city on earth. If you think those two examples are comparable at all, you have nothing to add to this discussion.


I compared getting from one edge of the Dallas metro area to the other with getting from one edge of the Tokyo metro area to the other. They are perfectly comparable, and I picked those two metro areas because they are very similar in size (the maps are at the same scale). DFW is also the most populous metro area in Texas, so I don't know why you think it is "mid-sized".


----------



## Hair and Nails (Apr 4, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> I compared getting from one edge of the Dallas metro area to the other with getting from one edge of the Tokyo metro area to the other. They are perfectly comparable, and I picked those two metro areas because they are very similar in size (the maps are at the same scale). DFW is also the most populous metro area in Texas, so I don't know why you think it is "mid-sized".


I know the maps are the same scale. Tokyo is built like a city, and has 27 million people in it. Dallas has a small downtown in the center surrounded by a suburban sprawl that stretches to the size of Tokyo, but that doesn’t make them comparable. Not in the slightest. Unless you think a stretch of interstate in one of the Great Plains states in the greatest work of mankind because you can cross 100 miles in that hour thirty. Density matters. Tokyo is more populous, has more built up area, has multiple business districts that dwarf Dallas in size. The fact that you can find a comparable (tolled) route through Tokyo with a similar time as taking a ring road through some American suburbs is impressive on its own.


----------



## Flaming Insignias (Apr 4, 2022)

I want to jump back into my own thread and say that I don't care how "walkable" something is when I need to move things around in quantities larger than what my arms can hold. It doesn't matter if it's a block away from my pod in your urban dreamland, I want to be able to buy at lot of stuff at a store and safely bring it home in one trip.


----------



## gang weeder (Apr 4, 2022)

I lived in a big city without a car and relying on public transit for 6 years. Public transportation fucking sucks. If you actually want to be a bugman and live in the pod, go for it, but let the rest of us drive a car if we want.


----------



## quaawaa (Apr 4, 2022)

Hair and Nails said:


> I know the maps are the same scale. Tokyo is built like a city, and has 27 million people in it. Dallas has a small downtown in the center surrounded by a suburban sprawl that stretches to the size of Tokyo, but that doesn’t make them comparable. Not in the slightest. Unless you think a stretch of interstate in one of the Great Plains states in the greatest work of mankind because you can cross 100 miles in that hour thirty. Density matters. Tokyo is more populous, has more built up area, has multiple business districts that dwarf Dallas in size. The fact that you can find a comparable (tolled) route through Tokyo with a similar time as taking a ring road through some American suburbs is impressive on its own.


Both Dallas and Tokyo have several "downtown" areas that are distributed throughout the metro area, so they are actually more similar to one another in that regard than to cities built around a central core like NYC. Tokyo is midrise sprawl, and Dallas is low rise sprawl. The whole point is that the cities are designed differently, but a citizen of Dallas can go anywhere in their city without paying a fortune in tolls/parking or spending hours on transit, and a citizen of Dallas can actually live in a house instead of an 800 sq ft apartment (the median living space for a family in Tokyo; the government recommends 25 sq m per person, which is out of reach for the bottom 70%). A citizen of Tokyo can walk to more restaurants than a citizen of Dallas can, but to many that benefit isn't worth the tradeoffs.


----------



## gang weeder (Apr 4, 2022)

Beautiful Border said:


> Most people aren't anti-car, they're anti-car dependency. Most cities in North America have been designed so that there is no viable transport option for most people other than driving. In the rest of the world you still have the option to drive, but you can also choose to walk, cycle, or take public transport. Americans are the only people on planet Earth who think they are more free because they have less choice.
> 
> I would recommend you check out the youtube channel Not Just Bikes, it points out the many ways that car dependency has a negative effect on both cities and society as a whole.



This very well may be true, I don't know, but it doesn't matter for the US. Public transportation here sucks ass because it is run by fat black women. And it will always suck ass so long as that is the case. So us burgers are fucked in this regard. I can believe that maybe it works better in places that are less "diverse," so to speak.


----------



## Deadwaste (Apr 4, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> Can you urbanists ever cite a source besides Strong Towns or NotJustBikes? You guys act more like a cult led by those two than a serious intellectual movement.


i mean i can name a few, but mostly because i fell down a rabbit hole of this kind of stuff all because i wanted to play cities skylines better:
city beautiful, alan fisher, michael beach, adam something (though his videos sometimes cover this topic it isnt the main point of the channel), rmtransit, then theres the books i can recommend like better buses better cities, crabgrass frontier, suburban nation, the death and life of great american cities, walkable city, etc.

like i said, i went down a rabbit hole on this stuff because of a city sim game


----------



## gang weeder (Apr 4, 2022)

Deadwaste said:


> i mean i can name a few, but mostly because i fell down a rabbit hole of this kind of stuff all because i wanted to play cities skylines better:
> city beautiful, alan fisher, michael beach, adam something (though his videos sometimes cover this topic it isnt the main point of the channel), rmtransit, then theres the books i can recommend like better buses better cities, crabgrass frontier, suburban nation, the death and life of great american cities, walkable city, etc.
> 
> like i said, i went down a rabbit hole on this stuff because of a city sim game



If you are an "urbanist" how do you overcome the problem that in the US the cities are inhabited and largely run by, niggers? All the theorysperging in the world goes straight out the window once you introduce niggers to the equation.


----------



## Deadwaste (Apr 5, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> If you are an "urbanist" how do you overcome the problem that in the US the cities are inhabited and largely run by, niggers? All the theorysperging in the world goes straight out the window once you introduce niggers to the equation.


if what youre trying to say is how do you reduce crime happening in these areas, i dont fucking know. i have a moderate passion for better urban planning and design, not a passion for criminology and law enforcement.


----------



## DiscoRodeo (Apr 5, 2022)

Beautiful Border said:


> I'd like to hear an example of what you would consider a "transit dependent" city, because I can't think of any. Cities with good public transport also tend to be more walkable/cyclable in general. Like I said, it's about how much choice in transportation a city offers, and car-dependent cities offer considerably less.


Could comment here about East Asia and Japan + Korea. Similar background, in that I've lived across the US, East Asia, and now am in Europe.


quaawaa said:


> I have in fact lived in one of the most transit dependent American cities.


I've seen the majority of major American metropolitan cities, none of them I would consider transit dependent.


quaawaa said:


> I compared getting from one edge of the Dallas metro area to the other with getting from one edge of the Tokyo metro area to the other. They are perfectly comparable, and I picked those two metro areas because they are very similar in size (the maps are at the same scale). DFW is also the most populous metro area in Texas, so I don't know why you think it is "mid-sized".


Dallas is not like Tokyo. Not sure where to begin to explain that, but I'll try. Fort Worth is also a city where you will be getting around via car, not sure if you had problems there, but while the traffic wasn't necessarily pleasant, I didn't see any decent public transit, saw everyone using cars, and used one myself. Dallas, while it has public transit, its still largely a car city, with public busses, just with worse traffic.

Tokyo, on the other hand, is a city that you are able to walk around in (partially, anyways), but you are going to pretty much be 100% dependent upon the subway and trains there, there are neighborhoods where it is basically impossible to drive a car around in, and otherwise you will be, at best, driving to a subway and using it to travel around the city, where you will then walk until you want another subway.


quaawaa said:


> The whole point is that the cities are designed differently, but a citizen of Dallas can go anywhere in their city without paying a fortune in tolls/parking or spending hours on transit


I did find that parking was pretty expensive in Dallas and you regularly saw parking lots. You don't see many parking lots in Tokyo, and you don't spend hours on transit, it is quite fast.

I think that the other thing to comment on is that Japan has possibly the best rail system in the world. If you want to leave DFW, you need a car. If you want to get essentially anywhere in Japan, you hop on a train. Japan, and Korea, are nations that you could frankly live without ever getting into a car.

Why I'd actually say that these may be "transit dependent" has more to do with the issue that almost everything there is designed around transit (whereas in the US, things are designed around roads), and Europe has a mix of all three, but the best way to sum it up would be "pedestrian cities with transit and roads to supplement getting between areas".

Even then though, the only quantifier I would give to "transit dependent" would just be the issue that there are legitimately certain areas in Tokyo or Seoul where you actually can't really get around with a car, because there are maze like parts of these cities that are just very, very old. Otherwise, that label, I don't really understand it.

For the OP: I think that giving up your car in North America is ridiculous. If the United States had good transit, that would be one thing, but it frankly does not. Almost everything is built around roads, and unless we basically rebuilt our cities from ground zero, this would not change. Whereas in Korea or Tokyo, if I want to get across the city, there are regular trains every 5-10 minutes and its maybe a 15 minute trip to where I want to go, that is not the case in most American cities. In East Asia, you can set your watch to a T to catch any train at the exact time advertised. Its not just subways, its trains to various small towns, cities, airports, etc.

If you want to only live in NYC, with its subway system, thats fine. Its dirty as hell and I don't advocate it, and you'll basically be trapped in the city without a car. Anyone saying to ditch their car in its entirety for transit in North America is mad. I do agree that we need to probably look to rely more on public tranist, but our cities just arent built with that in mind, and push to demand people adapt to that is seriously flawed. Any bugmen trying to convince someone from a rural town to ditch their car, or even a smaller city, has probably never had to commute from a suburb or small town into a large metro area.

I would be cool with railways across the country, but its just never going to happen. Look at commiefornia, they pledged to build rails at the same time that China did. 


Which then turned into complete cope.


Like it or not, saying we should build rail in the US is a pipe dream. Its not impossible, but with the way that our government functions (badly), its just not a current solution. If someone says that we should build rail, theyre not wrong and I agree in spirit, but theyre just super naïve to the fact that noone in America will actually commit to any project like that, and the moment that you get past state borders, it just becomes an even more convoluted and complicated mess.


----------



## quaawaa (Apr 5, 2022)

DiscoRodeo said:


> I've seen the majority of major American metropolitan cities, none of them I would consider transit dependent.


Clearly you haven't, or you'd know that several American cities are anti-car by deliberate actions of their urban planners and are difficult/expensive to get around by car. Not going to go into detail about which specific cities I've lived in.


DiscoRodeo said:


> Dallas is not like Tokyo


I didn't claim anything you say after this quote. You just went on a transit design spergout. What I said is that both Dallas and Tokyo have their job centers distributed throughout the city, in contrast to a city like NYC where a plurality is concentrated in one spot (Manhattan).


DiscoRodeo said:


> I did find that parking was pretty expensive in Dallas and you regularly saw parking lots. You don't see many parking lots in Tokyo, and you don't spend hours on transit, it is quite fast.


Outside of the city core in American cities, parking tends to be free. Tokyo has a ton of parking lots, but most are underground/part of buildings and cost money. Not a problem for the rich, but it makes it difficult for the lower classes to drive. You don't spend hours on transit (outside of commuting, which many do) because you only go to a small part of the city. If you actually tried to go to a random point in the city, like the entire point of my post, you would have to spend hours on transit.


----------



## DiscoRodeo (Apr 5, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> Clearly you haven't, or you'd know that several American cities are anti-car by deliberate actions of their urban planners and are difficult/expensive to get around by car. Not going to go into detail about which specific cities I've lived in.


Name one.


quaawaa said:


> I didn't claim anything you say after this quote


Then Im not sure why you would even mention Tokyo as being similar if you are just going to say that they are perfectly comparable in terms of how you get across either city because both are big cities. 


quaawaa said:


> Outside of the city core in American cities, parking tends to be free.


Yeah, try parking in the actual city/areas of business.


quaawaa said:


> Tokyo has a ton of parking lots


Compared to the average global metropole? No, not at all.


quaawaa said:


> You don't spend hours on transit (outside of commuting, which many do) because you only go to a small part of the city.


No, Tokyo is huge, and people will commute across it, into it, or into the surrounding suburbs and towns daily.


quaawaa said:


> If you actually tried to go to a random point in the city, like the entire point of my post, you would have to spend hours on transit.


In Tokyo? No, lol


----------



## quaawaa (Apr 5, 2022)

DiscoRodeo said:


> Yeah, try parking in the actual city/areas of business.


That's the whole point of the American urban design! The city core isn't the place of business for the vast majority of people who live there. It makes the city much more scalable because not everyone has to go to the same place. Tokyo is designed in a similar way, just at a much higher density, but most urbanist plans tend to favor a Manhattan style design with one central business district that large numbers of people go to. The multi-'city" growing into one giant sprawl approach scales way better. Since the US doesn't have a shortage of space like Japan, there is no reason for us to be at their level of density.


DiscoRodeo said:


> No, Tokyo is huge, and people will commute across it, into it, or into the surrounding suburbs and towns daily.


Can you not read? I said outside of commuting.


quaawaa said:


> You don't spend hours on transit* (outside of commuting, which many do)* because you only go to a small part of the city





DiscoRodeo said:


> In Tokyo? No, lol


Yes, you would if that point was on the other side of the city. This is also a contradiction with your previous statement where you claimed that people do spend hours commuting.


----------



## kim foxx (Apr 5, 2022)

The car = freedom shit is hilarious because of the upfront and ongoing costs involved with keeping an automobile. The average white man with a truck also has a 60-month loan to the automotive jew for a vehicle that  will lose more than half its value by the time the loan is paid off.


----------



## DiscoRodeo (Apr 5, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> Can you not read? I said outside of commuting.


And I said, no to implying that people only spend their time in one part of the city, and also that commuting in Tokyo doesn't take hours lol.


quaawaa said:


> This is also a contradiction with your previous statement where you claimed that people do spend hours commuting.


Can _you_ read? 

Also, are you able to go to google for like 2 seconds? You can literally get across the _entire_ city in under half an hour.


----------



## NevskyProspekt (Apr 5, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> Clearly you haven't, or you'd know that several American cities are anti-car by deliberate actions of their urban planners and are difficult/expensive to get around by car. Not going to go into detail about which specific cities I've lived in.


If you can't even name them, then I can't trust your argument.  Having lived on both sides of the Atlantic (and being a Texan) I can say that I much prefer the variety of travel options in Europe (where - shocker - huge numbers of people still own cars as well) and quality of rail and urban public transit than the U.S., which shattered its greatest cities during the mid-century 'urban renewal' experiment that resulted in the hyper-dependance on cars that we see today. The U.S. used to have the most advanced public transit and urban tram system on earth prior to the Cold War. I agree with @DiscoRodeo that high speed rail _should _be possible in the U.S. (the argument that the U.S. is too big is bullshit - if Russia, China, even India can do it, so can we) the problem is our officials are so fucking incompetent and corrupt that it'll end up stuck in the water for ages and wildly over budget with conglomos and corpos trying to get their hands in the pot. Most American cities are an embarrassment in comparison to many other industrialized nations.

Your argument for Dallas doesn't make sense. Having previously lived in the DFW metro area for more than a decade I can say that the public transit is horrendous outside of a few localized DART stops and you're going to end up stuck in traffic for hours anyway if you're trying to cross from Dallas to Fort Worth or head down I-35. Most people who advocate for better transit options aren't seeking to eliminate cars altogether. They just want more options - one option of which being a vehicle.


----------



## quaawaa (Apr 5, 2022)

DiscoRodeo said:


> And I said, no to implying that people only spend their time in one part of the city, and also that commuting in Tokyo doesn't take hours lol.
> 
> Can _you_ read?
> 
> ...


LMAO SHIBUYA TO UENO. Did you even look at a map? That is only across part of the 23 wards, not across the entire metro area! It's also a distance of 5 miles! So transit is 6 mph, or running speed.


----------



## gang weeder (Apr 5, 2022)

Deadwaste said:


> if what youre trying to say is how do you reduce crime happening in these areas, i dont fucking know. i have a moderate passion for better urban planning and design, not a passion for criminology and law enforcement.


Did I say crime? No, I said niggers, although it's true that they typically go hand in hand. How is better urban planning and design going to cope with niggers? Because if it can't then no amount of it will make people want to live in cities in the US.


----------



## kim foxx (Apr 5, 2022)

If your only choice is choosing between GM and Toyota and not between taking the train or driving your car, then you don't really have a choice. Especially as Americans get poorer and get thrown down the subprime auto loan well. Keep up with your weekly payments or the interlock shuts your car off and it gets repoed back on the lot for the next sucker.



gang weeder said:


> Did I say crime? No, I said niggers, although it's true that they typically go hand in hand. How is better urban planning and design going to cope with niggers? Because if it can't then no amount of it will make people want to live in cities in the US.


Your leaders have been working hard on that since after the 1960s. The old way of doing it would be a massacre at the hands of outraged citizens, the new way is slow ethnic cleansing and reclaiming the city block by block. St. Louis is on track to have a white majority for the first time in nearly a century by 2024.


----------



## DiscoRodeo (Apr 5, 2022)

NevskyProspekt said:


> If you can't even name them, then I can't trust your argument.  Having lived on both sides of the Atlantic (and being a Texan) I can say that I much prefer the variety of travel options in Europe (where - shocker - huge numbers of people still own cars as well) and quality of rail and urban public transit than the U.S., which shattered its greatest cities during the mid-century 'urban renewal' experiment that resulted in the hyper-dependance on cars that we see today. The U.S. used to have the most advanced public transit and urban tram system on earth prior to the Cold War. I agree with @DiscoRodeo that high speed rail _should _be possible in the U.S. (the argument that the U.S. is too big is bullshit - if Russia, China, even India can do it, so can we) the problem is our officials are so fucking incompetent and corrupt that it'll end up stuck in the water for ages and wildly over budget with conglomos and corpos trying to get their hands in the pot. Most American cities are an embarrassment in comparison to many other industrialized nations.
> 
> Your argument for Dallas doesn't make sense. Having previously lived in the DFW metro area for more than a decade I can say that the public transit is horrendous outside of a few localized DART stops and you're going to end up stuck in traffic for hours anyway if you're trying to cross from Dallas to Fort Worth or head down I-35. Most people who advocate for better transit options aren't seeking to eliminate cars altogether. They just want more options - one option of which being a vehicle.


I actually do like the concept of having an independent car, honestly. I think it fits America more, because it does speak to a sense of individualism that the nation has, and the notion that maybe you want to go off the beaten path to see something new. Rather than having fixed stops, having cars allows you to tread your own path much more easily.

The problem is always the price of gas and overreliance on cars for daily activities, like commuting.

In an ideal situation, you have a mix of both where people can commute into work (if commuting is still a thing) via transit, or work in their own city, and you can have a car for personal trips afterwards as needed.


----------



## quaawaa (Apr 5, 2022)

NevskyProspekt said:


> Your argument for Dallas doesn't make sense. Having previously lived in the DFW metro area for more than a decade I can say that the public transit is horrendous outside of a few localized DART stops and you're going to end up stuck in traffic for hours anyway if you're trying to cross from Dallas to Fort Worth or head down I-35. Most people who advocate for better transit options aren't seeking to eliminate cars altogether. They just want more options - one option of which being a vehicle.


Are you talking about commuting? I'm not talking about commuting, I'm talking about going to do things outside of work. It is a lot more difficult to go to random places outside of rush hour in transit dependent areas than in car dependent areas.


NevskyProspekt said:


> If you can't even name them, then I can't trust your argument.


Portland, Seattle, San Francisco (the part where people live, not the rich neighborhood to the west), NYC, etc.


NevskyProspekt said:


> The U.S. used to have the most advanced public transit and urban tram system on earth prior to the Cold War


The tram system was replaced with buses. That GM streetcar conspiracy is a myth; GM bought out the failing streetcar companies because they wanted to sell buses, not cars. It is still there, just no one uses it outside of a few areas because cars are better.


DiscoRodeo said:


> In an ideal situation, you have a mix of both where people can commute into work (if commuting is still a thing) via transit, or work in there own city, and you can have a car for personal trips afterwards as needed.


Work from home is going to kill the white collar commute for a lot of people. Can't beat a zero minute commute, and congestion disappears even with hybrid work (if everyone only comes in 3 days a week, that is a 40% decrease in commuters even if no one is fully remote).


----------



## DiscoRodeo (Apr 5, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> Portland, Seattle, San Francisco (the part where people live, not the rich neighborhood to the west), NYC, etc.


None of these cities are anti-car. They just have bad traffic.


----------



## quaawaa (Apr 5, 2022)

DiscoRodeo said:


> None of these cities are anti-car. They just have bad traffic.


Clearly you've never lived in one, listened to their city councils, or looked at their development plans. The government is incredibly anti-car and does not even try to hide it.
From Portland's comprehensive plan:


> By 2025, increase the percentage of new mixed use zone building households not owning an automobile from approximately 13% (2014) to 25%, and reduce the percentage of households owning two automobiles from approximately 24% to 10%.


The way they do that is by making it illegal to build parking in new buildings and forbidding the development of rural land.
They also want to tax people out of cars instead of building infrastructure.


> Rural, urbanizable, and urban land. Preserve the rural character of rural land outside the Regional Urban Growth Boundary. Limit urban development of urbanizable land beyond the City Limits until it is annexed and full urban services are extended.





> Parking management. Reduce parking demand and manage supply to improve pedestrian, bicycle and transit mode share, neighborhood livability, safety, business district vitality, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction, and air quality. Implement strategies that reduce demand for new parking and private vehicle ownership, and that help maintain optimal parking occupancy and availability.





> Off-street parking. Limit the development of new parking spaces to achieve land use, transportation, and environmental goals, especially in locations with frequent transit service. Regulate off-street parking to achieve mode share objectives, promote compact and walkable urban form, encourage lower rates of car ownership, and promote the vitality of commercial and employment areas. Use transportation demand management and pricing of parking in areas with high parking demand. Strive to provide adequate but not excessive off-street parking where needed, consistent with the preceding practices.


They say limiting parking demand, but they mean parking supply.


----------



## DiscoRodeo (Apr 5, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> Clearly you've never lived in one, listened to their city councils, or looked at their development plans.


----------



## NevskyProspekt (Apr 5, 2022)

DiscoRodeo said:


> I actually do like the concept of having an independent car, honestly. I think it fits America more, because it does speak to a sense of individualism that the nation has, and the notion that maybe you want to go off the beaten path to see something new. Rather than having fixed stops, having cars allows you to tread your own path much more easily.
> 
> The problem is always the price of gas and overreliance on cars for daily activities, like commuting.
> 
> In an ideal situation, you have a mix of both where people can commute into work (if commuting is still a thing) via transit, or work in there own city, and you can have a car for personal trips afterwards as needed.


This is essentially where I stand on the issue. Cars are wonderful devices which have allowed us to do amazing things, but American hyper-dependence on them makes it an extremely overpriced weight hung around people's necks.

Diversifying transit options doesn't even mean people are forced to live in small apartments - you also have a larger variety of housing stock, among them single-family detached houses, high-rise flats, mixed use mid-rises and so on - and living in an apartment doesn't even necessarily mean you're renting, it's entirely possible to own a flat as property too (home ownership in Russia, where most of the urban population lives in apartments, is far higher than the U.S.). If you want to live in the countryside, feel free to do so and enjoy your car. No issue with that!


----------



## quaawaa (Apr 5, 2022)

DiscoRodeo said:


>


Your point? Manhattan's transit system is mostly underground and the sidewalks are quite large. They also have a lot of bike and bus lanes on major streets there.


----------



## gang weeder (Apr 5, 2022)

kim foxx said:


> If your only choice is choosing between GM and Toyota and not between taking the train or driving your car, then you don't really have a choice. Especially as Americans get poorer and get thrown down the subprime auto loan well. Keep up with your weekly payments or the interlock shuts your car off and it gets repoed back on the lot for the next sucker.
> 
> 
> Your leaders have been working hard on that since after the 1960s. The old way of doing it would be a massacre at the hands of outraged citizens, the new way is slow ethnic cleansing and reclaiming the city block by block. St. Louis is on track to have a white majority for the first time in nearly a century by 2024.



Wait really? Based, maybe I will look into St. Louis if I ever want to live in a city again.


----------



## quaawaa (Apr 5, 2022)

NevskyProspekt said:


> Diversifying transit options doesn't even mean people are forced to live in small apartments


It does if they make it illegal to build new houses and the population keeps growing. Only the rich can afford to live in houses then. Example in the US is Seattle, which has an urban growth boundary greatly reducing the construction of new houses and several large employers who continually import people from other states and countries. The only thing permitted to be built is large apartment buildings (mostly one bedrooms for all the college hires) and townhouses on existing land. So the price of houses keeps rising and rising. Since they force people who want houses into apartments, the price of apartments hasn't fallen as much as the construction would have implied. The reason for the urban growth boundary is to deliberately increase density and force people to use transit, because in a free market, they wouldn't choose the urban planner's preferred lifestyle in sufficient numbers for it to be viable.


----------



## DiscoRodeo (Apr 5, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> Your point? Manhattan's transit system is mostly underground and the sidewalks are quite large. They also have a lot of bike and bus lanes on major streets there.


My point is, if you want to say a city is anti-car; take a look at Europe or some Asian cities, where they have large quadrants of the city that essentially bar cars from entry and massive pedestrian only spaces.

That is not the case in any American city, save maybe one like New Orleans.

Just because you have bad traffic in a city like NYC (meme of NYC cabbie being true and all) _and_ a subway system, does not make your city anti-car.


----------



## kim foxx (Apr 5, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> Wait really? Based, maybe I will look into St. Louis if I ever want to live in a city again.


its not like blacks are the only people whites have problems with. 

the white flight from cities gets retconned as a response to blacks but really by the 60s and 70s white ethnics were sick of not only black desegregation but also their little ethnic enclave beefs. one of my coworkers grew up in a polish neighborhood in chicago during the 60s and he would get his ass kicked by irish kids if he wandered into their neighborhood. the irish mayor of chicago hated italians so much he had I-90 run straight through little italy just to teach them a lesson. car suburbs give people a huge amount of land and privacy so your neighbors being micks or guineas no longer makes you want to take a baseball bat to their face.


----------



## gang weeder (Apr 5, 2022)

kim foxx said:


> its not like blacks are the only people whites have problems with.


Yeah, blacks have lots of problems with each other too. Most victims of black murderers are black.



kim foxx said:


> the white flight from cities gets retconned as a response to blacks but really by the 60s and 70s white ethnics were sick of not only black desegregation but also their little ethnic enclave beefs. one of my coworkers grew up in a polish neighborhood in chicago during the 60s and he would get his ass kicked by irish kids if he wandered into their neighborhood. the irish mayor of chicago hated italians so much he had I-90 run straight through little italy just to teach them a lesson. car suburbs give people a huge amount of land and privacy so your neighbors being micks or guineas no longer makes you want to take a baseball bat to their face.


Weird how white flight overlaps perfectly with the civil rights + integration movement and none of this inter-white ethnic bullshit you're making up seemed to cause any white flight before then, despite y'know, Italians and Irish and w/e obviously still existing for the previous ~175 years of US history before that. Definitely had nothing to do with blacks.


----------



## BelUwUga (Apr 5, 2022)

Spoiler: Beeg image- Global Population Density (fine granularity)



View attachment 1649178274120.png


You can pretty much guess people's opinions on mass transportation by how dark the area they come from is and how competent their public transportation system is. People who have an extreme opinion one way or the other are either very poorly traveled or simply exceptional.


----------



## Wesker (Apr 5, 2022)

kim foxx said:


> its not like blacks are the only people whites have problems with.


But the interracial crime statistics between all other races almost look normal in comparison to the 10/1 ratio of Black on White crime.


----------



## NevskyProspekt (Apr 5, 2022)

kim foxx said:


> its not like blacks are the only people whites have problems with.
> 
> the white flight from cities gets retconned as a response to blacks but really by the 60s and 70s white ethnics were sick of not only black desegregation but also their little ethnic enclave beefs. one of my coworkers grew up in a polish neighborhood in chicago during the 60s and he would get his ass kicked by irish kids if he wandered into their neighborhood. the irish mayor of chicago hated italians so much he had I-90 run straight through little italy just to teach them a lesson. car suburbs give people a huge amount of land and privacy so your neighbors being micks or guineas no longer makes you want to take a baseball bat to their face.





gang weeder said:


> Yeah, blacks have lots of problems with each other too. Most victims of black murderers are black.
> 
> 
> Weird how white flight overlaps perfectly with the civil rights + integration movement and none of this inter-white ethnic bullshit you're making up seemed to cause any white flight before then, despite y'know, Italians and Irish and w/e obviously still existing for the previous ~175 years of US history before that. Definitely had nothing to do with blacks.


Same thing happened in cities all over what is currently the Rust Belt. The construction of the inner-city highway systems were often quietly manipulated to run through 'white ethnic' areas the rival ethnicities who happened to be in power had a beef with. Youngstown, OH is a major example of this, with the Italians (and their associated mafia) basically plowing through the Puerto Rican, Polish, Slovak and Irish neighborhoods. The black-white racial issues are but one segment of the wider socioeconomic dynamics going on at the time.


Wesker said:


> But the interracial crime statistics between all other races almost look normal in comparison to the 10/1 ratio of Black on White crime.


In this particular instance we're talking about the inter-ethnic issues of the 1950's-1960's, not modern day crime statistics of which American Blacks (different from recent mainland African immigrants like Nigerians) are undeniably overrepresented to a wild degree.


----------



## gang weeder (Apr 5, 2022)

NevskyProspekt said:


> Same thing happened in cities all over what is currently the Rust Belt. The construction of the inner-city highway systems were often quietly manipulated to run through 'white ethnic' areas the rival ethnicities who happened to be in power had a beef with. Youngstown, OH is a major example of this, with the Italians (and their associated mafia) basically plowing through the Puerto Rican, Polish, Slovak and Irish neighborhoods. The black-white racial issues are but one segment of the wider socioeconomic dynamics going on at the time.


Why did whites all of a sudden pick the 60's and 70's to start hating each other? Is it supposed to just be a coincidence that it overlaps with forced integration of blacks?


----------



## NevskyProspekt (Apr 5, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> Why did whites all of a sudden pick the 60's and 70's to start hating each other? Is it supposed to just be a coincidence that it overlaps with forced integration of blacks?


They didn't start hating each other in the 60's and 70's. That time period just presented a unique opportunity to use the force of local and state governments (with enormous federal subsidies) to take care of what various groups perceived to be 'their problem'. The changing approaches to urbanism (not to mention the rising prominence of the Modernism - big 'M' - movement in city design and architecture) in the context of the Cold War happened to give these groups an opportunity to either a) move further away from each other or b) screw each other over. Tensions and violence between various European ethnicities in the U.S. had existed for at least a century up to that point. This happened to Italians in New Orleans, Greeks in Omaha, Poles in Chicago, Portuguese in California's central valleys, and many, many industrial communities in the mill towns of Ohio and Pennsylvania.


----------



## Deadwaste (Apr 5, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> Did I say crime? No, I said niggers, although it's true that they typically go hand in hand. How is better urban planning and design going to cope with niggers? Because if it can't then no amount of it will make people want to live in cities in the US.


well there are a few ways to design your cities to reduce crime through CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design)


----------



## gang weeder (Apr 5, 2022)

Deadwaste said:


> well there are a few ways to design your cities to reduce crime through CPTED (crime prevention through environmental design)



Interesting. Case study where this worked on niggers?


----------



## Deadwaste (Apr 10, 2022)

gang weeder said:


> Interesting. Case study where this worked on niggers?


this thread forgot to update me for some reason. i assume most of those reports mainly exist pre 1980s/1990s because nowadays its considered racist to call the cops on black people and people dont want to get cancelled on twitter for being a snitch


----------



## Kung Pow Cream (Apr 10, 2022)

Personally I just hate planes. The entire thing just keeps getting worse and worse as companies try to pack more people with less room and quality things.

I like the idea of just being on high speed rail with more room and food that isn't shit. I'm even planning on eventually doing a cross-country train trip as a vacation.

Also I used to use public transportation and the only thing I wished was that there were more routes. Busses would take forever but it's getting better because I think my area is starting to realize that traffic is getting worse.


----------



## Sad Crusader (Apr 10, 2022)

Vingle said:


> Having a car is expensive as fuck, and it's not like I want to stay in traffic or have an considerable risk of fucking dying because of some random retard.


You will own nothing, and you will be happy.


----------



## Inu Shiba (Apr 20, 2022)

Public transport is so bad in the United States because it was completely ignored after WW2 when the US was in love with car culture and trains were seen as outdated, and now it's often seen as more like social security system for those who can't - or can't afford to - drive, not a vital neccessity everyone needs.


> Because the far left hates the idea of an independent population that doesn't need the government and a car is the ultimate freedom.


Roads are maintained by the government and drivers aren't at the mercy of petrol companies under socialism.


----------



## TurdFondler (Apr 21, 2022)

I dream of a libertarian approach to transport. I think the status quo has been largely determined by the Big 3, and they muscle out any options besides 3 ton retard carts with built in food and entertainment systems.

I want to see rules loosened and people allowed to drive alternatives. I want the Tata Nano, San Fran electric cuckmobiles, cargo trikes and auto rickshaws. There's no reason to ban horse and buggy, either. 

Just blows my mind I can't buy a 125cc cargo trike with a dump deck. I don't need a fucking half ton to haul random bullshit 3 months of the year. 

I think the car vs. bike argument is set up as a dichotomy on purpose. A mom's supposed to cart three kids 25 miles one way on a bike? And public transit won't work until we get homeless crackheads off the streets.


----------



## Ser Prize (Apr 21, 2022)

Public transport simply isn't economically feasible for places like US and Canada. These countries are absolutely massive and getting anywhere is a huge pain.

Unfortunately they seem to want us priced out of having independent travel.


----------



## NevskyProspekt (Apr 21, 2022)

Ser Prize said:


> Public transport simply isn't economically feasible for places like US and Canada. These countries are absolutely massive and getting anywhere is a huge pain.
> 
> Unfortunately they seem to want us priced out of having independent travel.


The size of a country is irrelevant for public transport or even long-distance rail, and I don't want people priced out of affording cars either. Russia is twice the size of the U.S. and has a far more advanced passenger railway system than the U.S. The issue being debated here is the unique hyper-reliance on vehicles in the US and Canada as the _only_ reasonable means of travel even for basic daily tasks. I just want more choices and options for travel to be made available for ordinary Americans. Did you consider that getting anywhere is a huge pain because there are so few means of transport and our infrastructure is still based on a mid-twentieth century experiment? American cities weren't always structured the way they are today - it's primarily a post-WWII phenomenon.

This also doesn't mean suburbs are abolished, or the single-family home. The U.S. had those before the second world war, and they were wonderful. They're called streetcar suburbs. People still had cars, and detached houses, but good access to transit lines within a walkable distance and small business - lined streets which kept a decent amount of commerce within the neighborhood. It built a strong sense of community and local kinship. The houses looked better too - made to last, elegant and lacking all the excess of cheap, tacky, mass-produced McMansions. The streetcar suburb is far more classic Americana than the post-WWII sprawling boxes ever will be. It's all about balance.

Edit: I've said it before and I'll say it again - cars are amazing, wonderful machines that have done us a great service and there's great joy to be had in the great American road trip. I also think they don't need to be the sole means of transport for ordinary tasks and it's really dumb and short-sighted for our entire infrastructure to be designed around a single mode of transportation. One can hold both opinions at the same time without it being doublethink.


----------



## TurdFondler (Apr 21, 2022)

With what the average person spends on their car yearly, in some utopia where embezzlement and corruption didn't exist, we could pay more in taxes and fund decent public transit with it.

Losing your car would free up, like an average of $500 USD a month per person. Giving even a third of that to Uncle Sam could give you luxury gay space transport.

Also can someone explain the "car = personal freedom" argument to me? Legitimately don't understand it. You're usually beholden to a bank, completely reliant on a network of roads and gas stations and parts suppliers. To me, a radically free vehicle would he an electric converted dirt bike charged via solar.


----------



## quaawaa (Apr 21, 2022)

TurdFondler said:


> Also can someone explain the "car = personal freedom" argument to me? Legitimately don't understand it. You're usually beholden to a bank, completely reliant on a network of roads and gas stations and parts suppliers. To me, a radically free vehicle would he an electric converted dirt bike charged via solar.


With a car, you can go anywhere in your city/country with zero planning. No looking at routes, no waiting for transfers, no service degradation outside of rush hour, you have the ability to carry stuff. The “15 minute city” idea pushed by urbanist planners has already been reality in car dependent cities for decades, just its 15 minutes of travel time by car, not by transit/bike. Businesses have to compete with nearly every other business in the city, because people aren’t restricted to going to the handful that are close to them.


NevskyProspekt said:


> It built a strong sense of community and local kinship. The houses looked better too - made to last, elegant and lacking all the excess of cheap, tacky, mass-produced McMansions. The streetcar suburb is far more classic Americana than the post-WWII sprawling boxes ever will be. It's all about balance.


Single family neighborhood have strong community ties, and everyone knows everyone else on their street unless they are a recluse. If that isn’t happening today, it is more likely due to the internet than urban design.

Los Angeles proper is sprawling because of streetcars. Streetcars were never a viable transport option in the US, they were subsidized by real estate developers to get people to/from their newly built neighborhoods. Once the funding dried up, they went bankrupt and were replaced with buses. Your “durable” house isn’t any more durable than a “McMansion” (99% of houses called McMansions aren’t), and is in fact worse in areas that are earthquake prone. There are elegant looking “McMansions” and horrendously ugly “streetcar houses”. That statement reeks of a European who thinks brick/stone=good and wood=bad and lives in an ugly house like this:

Most new apartment buildings in the US look like this and are incredibly cookie cutter:

The reason why people act so defensive when urbansists claim they just want to build the “missing middle” housing is because that isn’t what happens in reality. What it looks like in reality is a ban on new houses, ban on new roads (sometimes roads are shrunk for no reason), ban on building parking for new buildings, increased gas taxes/car registration, etc. These policies deliberately designed to make it so that someone’s only option is to live in dense housing. This policies also greatly increase housing prices, they do not lower them since what is built doesn’t match demand (way too many studio/1 bedrooms apartments, way too few 3 bedroom single family houses). In a sprawling city, an urbanist could buy unincorporated land and develop it however they want. They never do that though, for the same reason that socialists keep preaching for worldwide revolution even though they could set up a commune within the capitalist system.


----------



## TurdFondler (Apr 21, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> With a car, you can go anywhere in your city/country with zero planning.


I guess it's a fair point. But most people don't just travel around. 9-5 workday commuting and errands are the bulk of travel experience for most people. The freedom to possibly travel sometimes for the massive trade off of being shackled to a cucked driving appliance and hellish urban road systems doesn't seem worth it to me.


----------



## A Rastafarian Skeleton (Apr 21, 2022)

Public transportation is for blacks.


----------



## Synthetic Smug (Apr 21, 2022)

A Rastafarian Skeleton said:


> Public transportation is for blacks.


Technically it's for schizos and addicts as well.


----------



## Deadwaste (Apr 21, 2022)

A Rastafarian Skeleton said:


> Public transportation is for blacks.


i'll have you know that public transportation is very diverse and lgbt friendly


----------



## Bonesjones (Apr 21, 2022)

TurdFondler said:


> I guess it's a fair point. But most people don't just travel around. 9-5 workday commuting and errands are the bulk of travel experience for most people. The freedom to possibly travel sometimes for the massive trade off of being shackled to a cucked driving appliance and hellish urban road systems doesn't seem worth it to me.


What kind of boring hellworld do you live in? I live less than a tank of gas from like 6 major metropolitan areas and a variety of mountains, lakes, beaches.

For less than the price of a train ticket, I can have a weekend trip to anywhere I want. The great thing about cars is not only do they travel but you can also sleep in them if needed. Good luck doing that on public transportation.


----------



## beet644 (Apr 21, 2022)

you can still have private homes with good public transit. I am a truck driver and wish we had better public transit. More people off the road would make my job better.  I drive 90 percent of the time but when I bought my house I got one close to a metro station just to give me the choice.  We don't need pods we just just need houses in places that don't force you to drive all the fucking time.


----------



## TurdFondler (Apr 21, 2022)

Bonesjones said:


> What kind of boring hellworld do you live in? I live less than a tank of gas from like 6 major metropolitan areas and a variety of mountains, lakes, beaches.
> 
> For less than the price of a train ticket, I can have a weekend trip to anywhere I want. The great thing about cars is not only do they travel but you can also sleep in them if needed. Good luck doing that on public transportation.


My brother in christ I live 6 hours from _anywhere. _There exists that vast, boring and endless swath of North America that is comprised of nothing but fields, shitty towns and awful cities with some lakes and forests here and there. There's nothing really _good _for hours, and I'm not driving all day to see slightly different lakes and water. 

Making cities less car centric would make my life probably 100% more enjoyable.


----------



## kim foxx (Apr 21, 2022)

A Rastafarian Skeleton said:


> Public transportation is for blacks.


only after forced desegregation. before that white people loved taking the bus and streetcars. virtually all of america's "public transportation" was profitable before desegregation and only after did the government take over failing bus and train companies


----------



## Ughubughughughughughghlug (Apr 22, 2022)

Nobody has ever taken away somebody’s transportation for benevolent reasons.

Examples:
Masters and slaves
Muslims and dhimmi
Samurai and peasants (in particular, shogun banning non-military wagons)
Limitations on peasants having horses in general


----------



## Flaming Insignias (Apr 22, 2022)

Ughubughughughughughghlug said:


> Nobody has ever taken away somebody’s transportation for benevolent reasons.
> 
> Examples:
> Masters and slaves
> ...


Never let anyone focus purely on city planning when talking about transit. Force them to answer the question on whether or not people would be allowed to travel by car, and see whether or not they are simply naively trying to support more means of travel, or if they are tyrants trying to trap you in the hive.


----------



## NevskyProspekt (Apr 22, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> Your “durable” house isn’t any more durable than a “McMansion” (99% of houses called McMansions aren’t), and is in fact worse in areas that are earthquake prone. There are elegant looking “McMansions” and horrendously ugly “streetcar houses”. That statement reeks of a European who thinks brick/stone=good and wood=bad


lol I'm a Texan, and Texans sure as hell know a McMansion when they see one. I never mentioned construction materials, but since you brought it up, both wood and stone have their advantages and drawbacks. Stone construction - particularly loose brick, is less resistant to earthquakes than wood, but far safer and sturdy in the event of a fire. In non-earthquake prone areas this isn't an issue. Wood permits better flexibility in earthquake prone environments, and is better used in seismically active areas like Japan, Nepal, California, etc. However, it requires more regular upkeep long-term compared to stone construction. Stone construction, on the other hand, is far better in hurricane and storm-prone areas due to its sturdiness when faced with high speed winds, snow, rain, hail, etc.


quaawaa said:


> In a sprawling city, an urbanist could buy unincorporated land and develop it however they want. They never do that though, for the same reason that socialists keep preaching for worldwide revolution even though they could set up a commune within the capitalist system.


Some urbanists _DO _do this. Seaside, Florida is a prominent example. So is Celebration in the same state, as well as Prospect New Town in Colorado. The Cotton District in Starkville, Mississippi applies these principles as does Mesa del Sol in New Mexico, the Mueller Community in Texas, I'On in South Carolina, Glenwood Park in Georgia and the revitalized Over-the-Rhine district in Cincinnati. There are many, many more which I didn't mention.

Edit: Clarity


----------



## Xarpho (Apr 25, 2022)

Oh man, oh _man_, I'm so glad that someone made a thread on this, it could probably be a Community Watch thread. The whole thing is an absolute mess, a lot of autism, unironic "live in the pod" shills, bored suburbanite teenagers idolizing Europe and Japan, with a lot of parroted talking points, most of which range from "misrepresentation of data" to "outright fabrications".

Spend some time on /n/ to witness spergery to no ends.


----------



## Marley Rathbone (Apr 25, 2022)

Queen Elizabeth II said:


> Because Americans are fat fucks who need to stop driving two minutes down the road and walk for fucks sake.
> 
> The environment, economy and choice aside; the rest of us find it funny



What if you are too fat to walk?


----------



## Screamer (Apr 25, 2022)

I suspect the goal is that only the rich own cars. Everyone else uses ride share, car rental but is mostly limited by public transport. It'll be a way to manage overpopulation. Keeping people within their areas.

I see crap where I live about apartments being made with no carparks and how great it is. All I see is that it means is so much of your choice is limited by where you can get to on public transport. Where you shop, work, get education, where you eat and drink will all be limited by not having a car. Urban design will control it. There'll be a giant urban spawl but everyone in a little town with in it.


----------



## TurdFondler (Apr 26, 2022)

Screamer said:


> There'll be a giant urban spawl but everyone in a little town with in it.


Honestly I wouldn't mind this. Instead of having to go miles and miles for some shit ass store in a strip mall I could just walk down to my own hellish and shitty strip mall. It's about the little victories.


----------



## Screamer (Apr 26, 2022)

TurdFondler said:


> Honestly I wouldn't mind this. Instead of having to go miles and miles for some shit ass store in a strip mall I could just walk down to my own hellish and shitty strip mall. It's about the little victories.



It's probably somewhat reversing all the horrible urban design cars created. European cities destroyed in the war are apparently a good example of this. Those that rebuilt on the old urban design plans, versus those that didn't. Before cars, everything was built to be within a certain walking distance. Something like 35 minutes. This is why in Italy or France you have lots of little groceries, cafes and shops. You can just pick up what you need for dinner while walking home from work. Or it's just on your doorstep. As opposed to the car model where you drive once a week somewhere for everything.

While the walking model is more appealing, that came about organically, not enforced by the state. In many cases, these cities based on non-car urban design opened up with large thorough public transport networks. The problem is that no one is building something like the Metro or London Underground anymore. They don't want you to be able to move around. Where I live public transport is awful. I think in part because the urban sprawl made population density too low for the bean counters to justify spending the money to make an underground train station within 15 min walk from everywhere.

So you end up where somewhere that in light traffic is 15 min drive away, sometimes 50 min drive away in traffic. If you're taking public transport it's over an hour away at the best of times.
It's miserable. Nothing is being done to address that. So the freedom the walking cities got as they expanded will not be coming here. Especially now as the work from home thing will become a thing, there'll be even less of a need. It's just progress to dystopia.


----------



## kim foxx (Apr 27, 2022)

Screamer said:


> While the walking model is more appealing, that came about organically, not enforced by the state. In many cases, these cities based on non-car urban design opened up with large thorough public transport networks. The problem is that no one is building something like the Metro or London Underground anymore. They don't want you to be able to move around. Where I live public transport is awful. I think in part because the urban sprawl made population density too low for the bean counters to justify spending the money to make an underground train station within 15 min walk from everywhere.


without the state there would be no car infrastructure, period. left to their own devices no private sector business wants parking minimums or other unfunded mandates from the government that raises costs and provides little utility. 15% of the land use in los angeles is in parking spaces. there's no way that the free market would set aside such a large portion of land for something as unproductive as parking a car.


----------



## quaawaa (Apr 27, 2022)

kim foxx said:


> without the state there would be no car infrastructure, period. left to their own devices no private sector business wants parking minimums or other unfunded mandates from the government that raises costs and provides little utility. 15% of the land use in los angeles is in parking spaces. there's no way that the free market would set aside such a large portion of land for something as unproductive as parking a car.


In a free market, you aren't restricted to a small portion of the available land like every single high density city is (either by natural boundaries like oceans/mountains or by political ones like urban growth boundaries/greenbelts). That makes land a lot cheaper, so cheap in fact that you don't have to care about hyperoptimizing land usage. If what you said is true, no building would have more parking than is legally mandated (most have more) and there would be no need for mandatory parking maximums in cities whose governments are forcibly trying to densify them. If the only thing that matters is maximizing the number of people per square mile, then you should also get rid of other "unproductive" land uses like rail yards, parks, and single story warehouses/factories. You can't just get rid of roads, parking lots, and houses because you like parks, trains, and living in a pod and hate cars and houses.


----------



## Maurice Caine (May 3, 2022)

I don't get where the whole 'public transportation is for niggers' spiel comes from, I make regular use of the bus services in my county and it's quite disputed.


----------



## vanilla_pepsi_head (May 3, 2022)

Maurice Caine said:


> I don't get where the whole 'public transportation is for niggers' spiel comes from, I make regular use of the bus services in my county and it's quite disputed.



It's probably just recall bias. No one notices the college student not making a peep or the middle aged guy headed to work, you're too focused on the niggers screaming vulgar shit into their phones and blasting shitty music or the contact-starved schizophrenics who talk at you while you're their captive audience. Normal inner city bullshit only you're stuck in close quarters. The reality is that people don't usually take the bus because of some retard ideological reason, they do it because they're fucking broke. Exceptions exist obviously but when it comes time to hoof all your shit to the laundromat, I bet the people who sing public transit's praises the loudest can suddenly afford to cough up for a fucking Uber, which wouldn't exist if not for private car ownership.


----------



## Wormy (May 6, 2022)

I like my car and am fine with car culture even, but I wouldn't mind the option being there.  Not going to happen of course. Nobody's going to do anything more than a shitty token bus service out in the boonies here.


----------



## Non-breath oblige (May 6, 2022)

Maurice Caine said:


> I don't get where the whole 'public transportation is for niggers' spiel comes from, I make regular use of the bus services in my county and it's quite disputed.



It's a YMMV on area.

In my bus commuting experiences, the routes that pass through the suburbs or generally nice residential areas or are commuter routes are generally fine. It's when you're on the routes that frequently pass through low-income or ghetto areas or high populations of homeless is where the reputation comes from, especially at night. Even worse when the buses on said routes are ones that are ""free"" to ride.


----------



## Velvet Sedan (May 6, 2022)

My town has a pretty extensive bus service for its size. But it's clearly made for college students coming and going from campus and not all that practical for work, especially the hours it operates, so in the end a car is preferred if not needed.
I imagine other places wanting to add or expand public transit run into something similar; who will use it to justify the cost? Even here with the couple practical routes (low income residences to grocery stores etc) you'll maybe see a handful of people the whole day even use it. Hell, the one bus route I use to get downtown from my place it's not unusual to be the first rider the driver has seen in hours.
Hard to justify the route outside political browbeating and racism claims with that.


----------



## mario if smoke weed (May 6, 2022)

I'm all for cars, but we produce way too many of those damn death machines. People should be able to own (NOT rent, actually own) their own cars if they really want to. On the other hand, I like the idea of shifting towards more bike-friendly urban planning. Less gas used, less weight on the bones.


----------



## malapropism (May 10, 2022)

glad i found this thread, i was just about to workshop an OP for something similar.

This is one of the more annoying grifts, as a serious topic that also infects light bar talk with friends. Its always come off as whiny, especially when it comes from generally lazy people who couldn't handle a more active lifestyle anyways. It comes down to "why won't the government have a bigger play in my life, and do x and y for me!" instead of a more proactive approach to making our communities safer and easier to access, but this same sentiment is also shared with those against gentrification. The videos use specific examples of the extreme (Copenhagen, Houston on the other side) to paint a wide picture and gaslight viewers that you can have a city of millions and have a magical ability to cross it without seeing a single automotive-based road.

To PL I've used Japanese intra and intercity transit daily for months and though amazing, these systems weren't cheap or built easily, and rely on a social code far beyond the already terrible lane etiquette in US/Canada. The history isn't simple, and the Japan Railways Group (JR) is a privatized collection of 7 companies that came out of the government run JNR. The quickest meme is >no minorities, but I'm sure some of these agoraphobes would have a wonderful anxiety ridden time in Umeda station on a friday evening; rush hour. I really saw how the grass was greener for the first time seeing how poor the UK's setup was, let alone most of western Europe (Vienna was great though! Friends in the US who watch too many videos think i'm insane that i wanted a car in Japan! They don't believe me when most of America (because few americans ever travel intrastate outside of tourist traps) has walkable cities outside of the sunbelt.

I really like the New England downtown concept in theory, walkable sidewalks infront of buildings, all kinds of parking in rear. Greed and terrible curb design results in street parking being preferred, and that's when problems start. Despite me opposing intervention, paid parking outside of very prime real estate or secure lots only encourages the building of larger, cheaper lots and further spreading things out. If i had a struggling retail business downtown with only paid parking,  I'd rather move to a commercial pass so my customers don't get fucked anymore beyond the markups currently in place. Zoning issues in the states are real, and few places worse than northern California for maintaining that where people live and do business must be separated by miles, but i'm sick of hearing Bay area people speak for the rest of the the US and even the world.


----------



## Xarpho (May 10, 2022)

kim foxx said:


> without the state there would be no car infrastructure, period. left to their own devices no private sector business wants parking minimums or other unfunded mandates from the government that raises costs and provides little utility. 15% of the land use in los angeles is in parking spaces. there's no way that the free market would set aside such a large portion of land for something as unproductive as parking a car.


The worst thing about bitching about parking minimums is it's usually framed in the disingenuous "anti-free market" terminology. This falls apart when they want so many other things provided by the government--non-car infrastructure, forcing high density/mixed development, "smart growth", low-income housing....


----------



## ToroidalBoat (May 10, 2022)

I like how one can get along without a car in Europe or Japan fine.

But in America, one of the crappiest experiences of living in a crappy city is having to ride the bus every weekday to a crappy job.

Getting there can take much, much longer than it does by car.


----------



## Flaming Insignias (May 10, 2022)

ToroidalBoat said:


> I like how one can get along without a car in Europe or Japan fine.
> 
> But in America, one of the crappiest experiences of living in a crappy city is having to ride the bus every weekday to a crappy job.
> 
> Getting there can take much, much longer than it does by car.


Cramped conditions, slowness, and having to plan your day around the arrival schedule are all major flaws in most public transit systems. Compounded with the fact that busses and trains are regularly used by violent miscreants, and you have a very good reason for why most Americans are content to drive rather than make those wonderful "walkable cities"


----------



## ToroidalBoat (May 11, 2022)

Flaming Insignias said:


> having to plan your day around the arrival schedule


>tfw it's "the future" yet no flying cars

Also they joked about how crappy public transit is on The Simpsons (episode 9, season `18`).



			
				Gil Gunderson on going across Springfield by bus said:
			
		

> Well, let me check the bus schedule here.
> 
> If I get it...make a transfer there.
> 
> Well, I could be there by 2:00 a.m.


----------



## Grub (May 11, 2022)

Fuck that gay shit. You can pry my truck from my cold dead hands. I will not live in the pods, take the bus, share a coop scooter or be driven around by a self driving computer car.

I enjoy being able to go wherever I want, whenever I want.


----------



## kim foxx (May 13, 2022)

Xarpho said:


> The worst thing about bitching about parking minimums is it's usually framed in the disingenuous "anti-free market" terminology. This falls apart when they want so many other things provided by the government--non-car infrastructure, forcing high density/mixed development, "smart growth", low-income housing....


I'm not sure there is an argument here outside of the pot nigger attack. No zoning and minimal government ends up looking like this:
View attachment 5bb2249327ca742e4e8b4571.webp

still dense and walkable. incredible amounts of money were spent to rebuild cities around cars.


----------



## FlipTopBox (May 13, 2022)

I support public transit but loathe the smug urbanite Europhiles who also support public transit.


----------



## Flaming Insignias (May 13, 2022)

This is how a lot of Trainfuckers sound like when I read and listen to what they say.


----------



## Xarpho (May 13, 2022)

kim foxx said:


> I'm not sure there is an argument here outside of the pot nigger attack. No zoning and minimal government ends up looking like this:
> View attachment 3277178
> 
> still dense and walkable. incredible amounts of money were spent to rebuild cities around cars.



I'm not even sure what you're trying to say, bro. I see horrific-looking slums on one side and some lushly surrounded but vaguely dystopian-looking apartment blocks on the right. Is the idea that without government intervention you get shit like that, and we need zoning and more government to prevent that? Or are you seriously suggesting that slums are "dense and walkable", and that's unironically a good thing?


----------



## Nate Higgers (May 14, 2022)

TurdFondler said:


> Just blows my mind I can't buy a 125cc cargo trike with a dump deck. I don't need a fucking half ton to haul random bullshit 3 months of the year.


You can buy kei trucks in the US, they’re just “for farm use only”


----------



## TurdFondler (May 14, 2022)

Nate Higgers said:


> You can buy kei trucks in the US, they’re just “for farm use only”


I mean domestically. In Canada we can run kei trucks but they are at least 6 grand for a 25 year old model, due to import rules.

We can sell all kinds of retarded boomer sports trikes but anything with actual utility is missing. There's no cheap car with a box or flat deck. Even the 80s had the fuckin Plymouth rampage. Just slap a fuckin flat deck on a 250cc Indian and sell it to me, dammit.


----------



## Nate Higgers (May 14, 2022)

TurdFondler said:


> Just slap a fuckin flat deck on a 250cc Indian and sell it to me, dammit.


That’s a good reason to learn how to weld


----------



## Duke Nukem (May 14, 2022)

Colon capital V said:


> I'd rather go through public transport than having to inevitably deal with "self-driving" cars in the future.


The moment you insult dear leader, a hidden computer program overrides the controls and redirects the exhaust into the car while locking you inside long enough for the carbon monoxide to do its job.

By the way, that would be a brutally efficient way for a regime to deal with its dissidents. You could even save money on gas by not driving them all the way to the re-education camps.


----------



## ToroidalBoat (May 14, 2022)

possible example of propaganda: In Civilization 2, the Mass Transit "city improvement" eliminates pollution caused by population.


----------



## Alex Yiik (May 14, 2022)

ToroidalBoat said:


> A possible example of propaganda:
> 
> In the game Civilization 2, the Mass Transit "city improvement" eliminates pollution caused by the population.


I remember in Sim City on the SNES, it was optimal to only have railroads and zero regular roads. Either type of road worked identically; the game only cared if you had some form of transportation touching a zone. Rail cost more but didn't produce any pollution for some reason. Also, no roads = no traffic, which cut out an entire metric that your citizens could complain about.

I hesitate to call it propaganda, it's more likely just immature game design from the '90s.


----------



## Flaming Insignias (May 14, 2022)

Alex Yiik said:


> I remember in Sim City on the SNES, it was optimal to only have railroads and zero regular roads. Either type of road worked identically; the game only cared if you had some form of transportation touching a zone. Rail cost more but didn't produce any pollution for some reason. Also, no roads = no traffic, which cut out an entire metric that your citizens could complain about.
> 
> I hesitate to call it propaganda, it's more likely just immature game design from the '90s.


Some of it is probably just simplistic game design, but it definitely feels like the people that dream up "walkable cities" use video games as inspiration for why they need to get rid of automobiles. They only seem to consider the statistical aspects of their plans rather than the on-the-ground realities of "green" initiatives.


----------



## Osmosis Jones (May 18, 2022)

Why can't you car-less non-American plebs not wrap your head around how spaced out things tend to be over here? How close do you eurofags even work to your jobs? Have you considered that _ none_ of the American infrastructure in places dense enough to warrant [new or expanded] public transit would be able to support it?

Many people I know have to commute over 40km to work and 40km back. These are two points where the connection via transit would result in a commute two to three hours longer than driving. Look, if everyone could have a bus or train that effectively connected their job to their home, it would be awesome, but you're even more at the mercy of the government and their funding (@turd Fondler). Your bus route may be rerouted or cut out completely due to low ridership. If it's not well maintained, it's not going to be sanitary or safe (lol New Yorkers). If you have to work early or late, a lot of routes aren't available in the evenings or at dawn. Crime is pretty bad, too. I've never been caught in a fight, screamed at, pushed, robbed, or held at knifepoint while driving. Sure I've had a couple close calls in the automobile, but nothing that would have killed me or anyone else, and this goes for the majority of drivers. 

Cyclists can fuck right off. If you're a cyclist - like put on the spandex and the wraparounds and ride next to cars to work - please unironically off yourself. I don't know if bikes just attract extremely faggoty douchebags or if having a rail up your ass all morning just makes you mad, but I've never in my life heard such vitriolic and evil shit come out of the mouth of anyone but a cyclist time and time again. I unapologetically hate anyone on a bike. If there were a cyclist hate group, I would be the head of it.


----------



## ArnoldPalmer (May 18, 2022)

TurdFondler said:


> Also can someone explain the "car = personal freedom" argument to me? Legitimately don't understand it. You're usually beholden to a bank, completely reliant on a network of roads and gas stations and parts suppliers. To me, a radically free vehicle would he an electric converted dirt bike charged via solar.



"You're usually beholden to a bank"
Only retards buy new. Big gorilladick gigachads like me buy a $500 beater, do the brakes, sell it for $2000, and buy something nice for a grand or two more, or just keep the beater. You are literally a fucking sucker if you buy a new car, and that comes from someone who worked in the industry. Anything other than "I'm a millionaire and I waste more money than a new car on adrenochrome in a week" is not a justifiable reason for buying new. It's a scam.

"Completely reliant on a network of roads and gas stations and parts suppliers"
Yeah, and? Working on cars is fun, and a sign that you're not a completely useless soymale. Mechanical ability is in the same tier as plumbing and carpentry. You should not be a useless ladyboy. If you don't know at least three tradeskills, you might as well have a vagina. Also Jeeps, Trucks, and other 4x4s eliminate the need for roads, or even flat-ish surfaces.

"To me, a radically free vehicle would be an electric converted dirt bike charged via solar"
While that is cool, tell me how you're gonna move a couch or a family around with a dirt bike. A Jeep can do that.


----------



## TurdFondler (May 19, 2022)

ArnoldPalmer said:


> While that is cool, tell me how you're gonna move a couch or a family around with a dirt bike. A Jeep can do that.


Dirt bike pulling a conestoga wagon. QED


----------



## Clown Baby (May 19, 2022)

When I lived in NYC it took 2 and a half hours to travel less than 5 miles by bus and train. I could have driven to my job in probably 30 minutes with traffic but there would have been nowhere to park, so the train was my only option. If you like waking up 3+ hours before you need to be at work and giving up about 25 hours of your week to your commute, then I guess public transport is the tits?


----------



## ArnoldPalmer (May 19, 2022)

TurdFondler said:


> Dirt bike pulling a conestoga wagon. QED


Very pioneerpilled.


----------



## TurdFondler (May 19, 2022)

Clown Baby said:


> When I lived in NYC it took 2 and a half hours to travel less than 5 miles by bus and train. I could have driven to my job in probably 30 minutes with traffic but there would have been nowhere to park, so the train was my only option. If you like waking up 3+ hours before you need to be at work and giving up about 25 hours of your week to your commute, then I guess public transport is the tits?


Much like communism,  Real Public Transport has "never been tried" and exists only in theoretical arguments


----------



## vern (May 20, 2022)

I do recall a group that seemed to be against car culture and for transit not for typical liberal reasons, but for more conservatives ones.

The group was/is called the American Rail Club and I know they where one of the bigger channels on jewtube that talk about this stuff like 5-6 years ago, but kind of stagnated for various reasons, and now mainly does a low effort streams and shills a project called Brightline, a private rail system that  runs for 60-70 miles in south Florida/Miami and might go all the way Orlando some time next year.
Its been a long time since I looked at them but trying to remember/summarizs the founders main talking points, I recall
>Saying American was at its peak as a society in-between the early 1920s and early 1950s when rail travel was at its peak
>Puts the decline of mass transit systems in the US completely to the street car conspiracy where Standard Oil ,GM, and I think Firestone where convicted and fined $5k in 1949
>Argues that the federal government killed private passenger trains in the mid 1950s by taxing them to hell and back and using said tax revenue to subsidies interstates and airlines
>Somewhat thinks that modern American car companies are part of the globohomo agenda to make sure its next to impossible to buy a car without taking a loan from the bank 

I also found these little nuggets scrolling through some of their community posts




I can probably try and find more stuff about them buy I don't think this thread is the best place be to dump random shit from one person/group.


----------



## Maurice Caine (May 20, 2022)

Times were good back in the days they took railways seriously but I doubt society suffered too greatly from their decline.


----------



## Flaming Insignias (May 20, 2022)

Maurice Caine said:


> Times were good back in the days they took railways seriously but I doubt society suffered too greatly from their decline.


American Rail is a victim of technological advancement rendering it less relevant than it used to be. The US is just too spread out and geographically diverse to make rail feasible to the average farmer living 50 miles from the nearest major city, and most rural Americans get more benefit from their truck and the highway system than they would trying to move by rail. After all, it's a lot easier to ferry your own goods and animals with a trailer attached to a pickup than try to organize it be moved from multiple stations and then ferried off to the homestead.


----------



## Deadwaste (May 20, 2022)

Flaming Insignias said:


> American Rail is a victim of technological advancement rendering it less relevant than it used to be. The US is just too spread out and geographically diverse to make rail feasible to the average farmer living 50 miles from the nearest major city, and most rural Americans get more benefit from their truck and the highway system than they would trying to move by rail. After all, it's a lot easier to ferry your own goods and animals with a trailer attached to a pickup than try to organize it be moved from multiple stations and then ferried off to the homestead.


you say that, but then i bring up, of all countries, china building over 40k kilometers of high speed rail track throughout the country by the end of 2021.



if bugpeople can get this shit done, americans can too


----------



## Bonesjones (May 20, 2022)

Deadwaste said:


> you say that, but then i bring up, of all countries, china building over 40k kilometers of high speed rail track throughout the country by the end of 2021.
> View attachment 3303235
> if bugpeople can get this shit done, americans can too


Yeah let's just rip up all the interstates so we can put down railroad tracks, that way we can get places slower with less convenience than airlines.


----------



## Flaming Insignias (May 20, 2022)

Deadwaste said:


> you say that, but then i bring up, of all countries, china building over 40k kilometers of high speed rail track throughout the country by the end of 2021.
> View attachment 3303235
> if bugpeople can get this shit done, americans can too


If you seriously believe that China's rail system is going to be successful or used benevolently, then you are an absolute fool. The CCP's rail program is exactly the kind of public transit system I fear, where the government keeps you trapped in a hive system and can even prevent you from leaving your hive if they don't like you.


----------



## quaawaa (May 20, 2022)

Deadwaste said:


> you say that, but then i bring up, of all countries, china building over 40k kilometers of high speed rail track throughout the country by the end of 2021.
> View attachment 3303235
> if bugpeople can get this shit done, americans can too


China has a trillion dollars in debt they can’t service (interest payments on China State Railway debt are greater than their revenues) thanks to their brilliant move of building high speed rail that no one asked for. To try and combat this they have raised freight rail rates to such a high amount that it is cheaper to ship bulk goods by truck than by rail, which is absolutely insane. Freight is a much more efficient and better use of rail than passenger service.


> To help pay for high-speed rail, China State Railways raised freight rates 11 times since 2005. Today, shipping by rail costs twice as much, per ton-mile, as shipping by truck, where in the United States shipping by rail costs less than one-fourth as much as shipping by truck. By 2016, rail’s share of China’s freight had declined to 17 percent, and it is probably even less today.





> China’s solution is to spread the pain by selling its high-speed rail technology to other countries, putting them heavily in debt.


We’d be absolute fools to copy China, especially considering how much more expensive government construction projects are in the US.

High speed rail is obsolete and outclassed by the plane in every way. The only arguments I’ve ever heard in favor of it are climate change (irrelevant), security requirements ballooning trip time for flights (will only be a benefit on trains until the first terrorist attack. China has security checks more stringent than the TSA on their HSR trains, and many countries like Japan don’t have an equivalent of the TSA for domestic flights), and that airports are located on the outskirts whereas train stations are located in the city center (only true for cities that built their train stations in the 19th century, many cities do have airports near the center, and having the train station in the city center is disadvantage for anyone who lives in the suburbs).


----------



## Tacitus Kilgore (May 21, 2022)

Mass transport will never work in the US for two reasons. The US is too damned big and the other is niggers. European countries are smaller than the US. No one is going to pay to use public transport with niggers. With niggers comes the crime. Also white Americans out in the suburbs don't want niggers hopping on trains and heading out to their nice safe clean suburbs. Since no one would use it they would resent having to pay for it. Kind of like how working class whites hate paying for the mass transit that we have now. 

If the US was mostly white it might work. But defeating the car culture wouldn't be easy. Another obstacle would be the big oil companies and car companies. 

If you don't believe me about niggers just go into your nearest city and start riding the bus around or the light rail system. You will see why it would never work. Niggers would ruin it.


----------



## quaawaa (May 21, 2022)

Tacitus Kilgore said:


> Mass transport will never work in the US for two reasons. The US is too damned big and the other is niggers. European countries are smaller than the US. No one is going to pay to use public transport with niggers. With niggers comes the crime. Also white Americans out in the suburbs don't want niggers hopping on trains and heading out to their nice safe clean suburbs. Since no one would use it they would resent having to pay for it. Kind of like how working class whites hate paying for the mass transit that we have now.
> 
> If the US was mostly white it might work. But defeating the car culture wouldn't be easy. Another obstacle would be the big oil companies and car companies.
> 
> If you don't believe me about niggers just go into your nearest city and start riding the bus around or the light rail system. You will see why it would never work. Niggers would ruin it.


The main obstacle is that no one except for childless urban "professionals" actually likes public transport and it is enormously expensive whilst offering no benefits over a car and a lot of downsides. Even London can't afford its transit system despite its density without taxing drivers (only around a third of taxes on cars/fuel in the UK is spent on roads, and 12% of TfL's revenue is from congestion charges, and over a third is from grants paid for by the aforementioned taxes on cars). The same is true pretty much everywhere.
Here is the how much money the British government either spends or taxes per trip for each mode of transport (10 year old data but the situation hasn't changed):




> Total spending on roads in 2012/13 was £7.5 billion (having reduced from £9.7 billion in 2009/10) and £31.6 billion was raised in direct road user taxes. Of the £23.6 billion spent on public transport (excluding non-local buses and taxis), approximately £13.6 billion was paid by passengers and £10 billion by government. When other buses and taxis are included, total household spending on public transport amounts to about £16 billion a year.


Transit just isn't economically viable, not at rates people are willing to pay with the current costs that governments and their contractors run up. I picked London at random, but the same fact holds true for every first-world city (e.g. NYC subways are subsidized by bridge tolls that drivers pay).

So the proposition transit offers to to no longer be able to go anywhere without checking a schedule, spend more time traveling, pay more money to get anywhere (or mooch off of others who have to pay more taxes), invite crime into your neighborhood (in diverse cities), and not be able to afford a house due to the density required, all so that some bugmen can walk home drunk from the bar and some globalists can cream themselves thinking about tightly they can cram people together and how "efficiently" space can be used, despite there not being a shortage of land in most places. It's a real wonder why the working class isn't on board with it, and crime is only one of the factors. Car companies and big oil didn't propagandize anyone; no one makes pro-car propaganda unless you count ads to buy a specific car as propaganda, and the WEF types have produced tons of anti-suburb and anti-car propaganda.

The easiest way to reduce congestion, commute times, and housing costs is free: stop all immigration except in cases of actually highly-skilled individuals (i.e. 1% of current skilled visa applicants) and deport illegal immigrants/refugees. You never hear the "live in the pod" people in Davos talking about the need for strong borders though; just lots of talk about how you need to give up your house and your car to fight "climate change".


----------



## Tacitus Kilgore (May 21, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> The main obstacle is that no one except for childless urban "professionals" actually likes public transport and it is enormously expensive whilst offering no benefits over a car and a lot of downsides. Even London can't afford its transit system despite its density without taxing drivers (only around a third of taxes on cars/fuel in the UK is spent on roads, and 12% of TfL's revenue is from congestion charges, and over a third is from grants paid for by the aforementioned taxes on cars). The same is true pretty much everywhere.
> Here is the how much money the British government either spends or taxes per trip for each mode of transport (10 year old data but the situation hasn't changed):
> View attachment 3304693
> 
> ...



The way you get around that is car ownership becomes too expensive. It would just not be economically viable to own a car anymore. With the rising prices of gas and declining wages. Car ownership is already costly. A lot of states require you to have insurance to even drive. Then you have the cost of the car itself, the fuel and all the maintenance. 

Also, if the mass transit system was efficient more people might be willing to use it. 

The main reason that people use cars is because the US doesn't have an efficient mass transit system available all over the country. Then you have the fact that people won't want to use it because of all the bums, poor people and especially all the niggers and beaners causing crime. 


It doesn't really matter because niggers would ruin it. Just like they ruin everything.


----------



## vern (May 22, 2022)

Flaming Insignias said:


> American Rail is a victim of technological advancement rendering it less relevant than it used to be. The US is just too spread out and geographically diverse to make rail feasible to the average farmer living 50 miles from the nearest major city, and most rural Americans get more benefit from their truck and the highway system than they would trying to move by rail. After all, it's a lot easier to ferry your own goods and animals with a trailer attached to a pickup than try to organize it be moved from multiple stations and then ferried off to the homestead.


I don't think the US is as spread out as people think it is after all there where able to run fine when the US had a fraction of its population and the cost of a model T adjusted for inflation was around $5,000 in current year money.

Although I do agree American rail is a victim of technology advancement but for slightly different reasons. For the past few decades freight railroads have been discouraged from maintain their systems let alone improving them to the point that they where more technologically advanced in the middle of last century then they are today. The way most have survived is by scraping most of their infrastructure and make do with the bare bones, running longer and slower trains that pisses of everyone, defer maintenance until something derails, and bulk 90% of the time when ever your forced to upgrade something (case and point look at how PTC has been implemented).
They are still able to turn a profit in most cases due to economies of scales, and with regards to farming I've heard they may be gaining on trucking since a lot of family/independent farmers are being priced out by large scale corporate farming who can afford to ship things in bulk on a few rail cars and being forced to sell to either said corporation or to land developers wanting to make a new subdivision or Walmart a few miles outside the towns limit.


----------



## Badungus Kabungus (Jun 7, 2022)

I specifically moved somewhere without public transit to keep poors (er, sorry, "urban professionals") off the property. Having public transit is a sign of poverty.


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 2, 2022)

I fucking hate car dependency.  That is all.


----------



## Bonesjones (Aug 2, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> I fucking hate car dependency.  That is all.


So sell all your shit and move to a big city and spend 2k a month to rent a closet. No one is stopping you.


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 2, 2022)

Bonesjones said:


> So sell all your shit and move to a big city and spend 2k a month to rent a closet. No one is stopping you.


The funny thing. None of that is required to have decent transit.

Most American cities were walk able for the majority of their existence. 

Tons of rural communities could have decent transit with the right investment.


----------



## Accidental Racism (Aug 2, 2022)

Because with a car you can go wherever you want...


----------



## WelfareNiggerQueen (Aug 2, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> The funny thing. None of that is required to have decent transit.
> 
> Most American cities were walk able for the majority of their existence.
> 
> Tons of rural communities could have decent transit with the right investment.


How much are you willing to pay to put rail on my land?


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 2, 2022)

xXxFat_CuntXxX said:


> How much are you willing to pay to put rail on my land?


Trillions of tax pay dollars, boy-o.

Lol.


----------



## Xarpho (Aug 2, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> The funny thing. None of that is required to have decent transit.
> 
> Most American cities were walk able for the majority of their existence.
> 
> Tons of rural communities could have decent transit with the right investment.



You can walk in tiny, podunk towns. If you live on a farm or ranch, you can’t. That’s why horses and other pack animals have been used since the beginning of civilization.


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 2, 2022)

Xarpho said:


> You can walk in tiny, podunk towns. If you live on a farm or ranch, you can’t. That’s why horses and other pack animals have been used since the beginning of civilization.


People who live in small dense clusters that were 5-10 miles away from one another. Small pockets of density is the natural state of humanity.


----------



## Chuck McGill (Aug 4, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> I fucking hate car dependency.  That is all.


So do a lot of us. Unfortunately until they start throwing crazy people in institutions again and actually enforce the law on violent joggers it's the best solution we have. Sorry but I'm not going to listen to mumble rap at 120 decibels and smell piss and burnt crack rocks on a bus all day.


----------



## Penis Drager (Aug 4, 2022)

A relevant video by one of my favorite YouTubers with an unfortunately bad take on the matter:


----------



## Willie B. Hardigan (Aug 4, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> I fucking hate car dependency.  That is all.


Faggot in 1886: "I hate horse dependency. That is all."


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 4, 2022)

Willie B. Hardigan said:


> Faggot in 1886: "I hate horse dependency. That is all."


Lol. Most people walked everywhere back then, you stupid nigger.


----------



## Tacitus Kilgore (Aug 4, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> Lol. Most people walked everywhere back then, you stupid nigger.


They walked if the distance was a reasonable walking distance if not, they rode a horse.


----------



## Flaming Insignias (Aug 4, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> Lol. Most people walked everywhere back then, you stupid nigger.


Maybe if you lived in some developed city, but those were few and far between unless you lived in territory settled in the Colonial Era. The average farmer absolutely needed a horse, and probably a wagon to take wares to town with, because trying to walk to places was liable to get you killed either from exhaustion or wildlife. Why do you think horse theft was a capital crime in the West, because some rich guys got mad at people taking things they didn't need?


----------



## Markass the Worst (Aug 4, 2022)

Chuck McGill said:


> So do a lot of us. Unfortunately until they start throwing crazy people in institutions again and actually enforce the law on violent joggers it's the best solution we have. Sorry but I'm not going to listen to mumble rap at 120 decibels and smell piss and burnt crack rocks on a bus all day.


This is how I know all the urbanist bugmen channels are full of shit, they never talk about hiring more police or arresting criminals, I never see them going up against BlackLivesMatter and insane ACAB defund the police types. When Chesa Boudin got recalled I didn't see any of them make a video how this will lead to better urban planning in San Francisco. Urban planning without considering police and crime is like running a bank without considering fraud or money laundering. They just want people's freedom removed and living in the hives, nothing else.


----------



## ZazietheBeast (Aug 4, 2022)

As someone who had to deal with the public transportation in Commiefornia, it is currently not viable for a few reasons.

-Niggers : Not Black people who are just trying to go about their day, but the stereotypical feral nogs whose job is to make riding busses and trains awkward at best, dangerous at worst. Nigga moments are real and an actual problem. To a greater extent, people who want to cause shit or simply can't fit in society.
-Homeless: The end result of several bad policy decisions + the high price of living anywhere + drugs has guaranteed your public transpo will have these out of their mind near-feral humans who will harangue you for money for "food" aka drugs and do crazy shit on your transpo.
-Inefficient: Many workplaces in the US are dotted all over the area. Public transport can only cover so much and when you are forced to use them, you are effectively giving up large swathes of your time just so you could toil to make a living. This is why many work places despite the high gas prices DEMAND that you have a car. Again, this really stems from bad policies.
-No Hauling: Like it or not, your ability to move yourself, your cargo and others is dependent on a vehicle. Public transpo looks down upon anyone trying to move bulk cargo through its system. As it inconveniences everybody. Now if you remember the first two, many of them haul recycling goods through public transportation and I have rarely seen drivers tell them to fuck off. 

Long story short, much like the "green" initiatives proposed by our rulers, its simply another means of control. And they wonder why people aren't playing along as much as they used to anymore.


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 4, 2022)

Flaming Insignias said:


> Maybe if you lived in some developed city, but those were few and far between unless you lived in territory settled in the Colonial Era. The average farmer absolutely needed a horse, and probably a wagon to take wares to town with, because trying to walk to places was liable to get you killed either from exhaustion or wildlife. Why do you think horse theft was a capital crime in the West, because some rich guys got mad at people taking things they didn't need?


Probably because most people lived in rural areas far away  from population centers. Now most Americans live in suburbs or cities.


ZazietheBeast said:


> As someone who had to deal with the public transportation in Commiefornia, it is currently not viable for a few reasons.
> 
> -Niggers : Not Black people who are just trying to go about their day, but the stereotypical feral nogs whose job is to make riding busses and trains awkward at best, dangerous at worst. Nigga moments are real and an actual problem. To a greater extent, people who want to cause shit or simply can't fit in society.
> -Homeless: The end result of several bad policy decisions + the high price of living anywhere + drugs has guaranteed your public transpo will have these out of their mind near-feral humans who will harangue you for money for "food" aka drugs and do crazy shit on your transpo.
> ...


So why not work towards those 3 problems instead of maintaining an inefficient and unsustainable alternative?


----------



## ZazietheBeast (Aug 4, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> Probably because most people lived in rural areas far away  from population centers. Now most Americans live in suburbs or cities.
> 
> So why not work towards those 3 problems instead of maintaining an inefficient and unsustainable alternative?


Because that requires practical solutions and the leadership has clearly chosen inconvenient delusion just so they can keep lining their pockets. California is a land of state-mandated retardation after all.

Otherwise, they would get rid of the feminist bullshit that has turned many blacks into niggers and be honest about them shitting up society (never gonna happen), they would stop importing immigrants 24/7 which would increase wages as well as drop the prices of rent which are the leading cause of homelessness and would do proper zoning. All of these are not something our coporatocracy wants.


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 4, 2022)

ZazietheBeast said:


> Because that requires practical solutions and the leadership has clearly chosen inconvenient delusion just so they can keep lining their pockets. California is a land of state-mandated retardation after all.
> 
> Otherwise, they would get rid of the feminist bullshit that has turned many blacks into niggers and be honest about them shitting up society (never gonna happen), they would stop importing immigrants 24/7 which would increase wages as well as drop the prices of rent which are the leading cause of homelessness and would do proper zoning. All of these are not something our coporatocracy wants.


So to you, public transit is an irrelevant non solution until we get rid of immigrants / niggers?


----------



## ZazietheBeast (Aug 4, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> So to you, public transit is an irrelevant non solution until we get rid of immigrants / niggers?


As well as other retarded problems such as the almond farms draining most of the water, but that's a start.


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 4, 2022)

ZazietheBeast said:


> As well as other retarded problems such as the almond farms draining most of the water, but that's a start.


What about removing obstructive zoning laws (ie banning people from building multi-use / multi family zoning)


----------



## ZazietheBeast (Aug 4, 2022)

Not too sure, actually. I'm certain that law was initially made to stop an exploit only for them to find a loophole or a way to exploit that law.


----------



## Flaming Insignias (Aug 4, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> Probably because most people lived in rural areas far away from population centers. Now most Americans live in suburbs or cities.


Okay, but a lot of people still do live in rural areas hours away from major population centers, myself included. Are they irrelevant in your retarded bughive world? Are they just supposed to be pushed off their land for your precious hyperrails, and are they supposed to try walking for days, with precious cargo, just to get to where they need to be?

No, fuck your bughive, and fuck you!


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 4, 2022)

Flaming Insignias said:


> Okay, but a lot of people still do live in rural areas hours away from major population centers, myself included. Are they irrelevant in your retarded bughive world? Are they just supposed to be pushed off their land for your precious hyperrails, and are they supposed to try walking for days, with precious cargo, just to get to where they need to be?
> 
> No, fuck your bughive, and fuck you!


Who tf talked about pushing people off their rural lands? If you want to live in rural areas and own a car that is fine. 

I LITERALLY don't care what happens in rural communities.

I just want less restrictive zoning laws in cities / suburbs. 

If your talking about the government buying rural land to build HSR ( which I never advocated for directly in this thread.) We've bought plenty of rural land to build the highway system, yet you don't seem upset about that?

Its about CHOICE. Let people CHOOSE.


----------



## Chuck McGill (Aug 4, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> Its about CHOICE. Let people CHOOSE.


No. Because if we let you morons choose, the people with land are inevitably going to choose the hyperdense apartments with 6 spic/nig families over single family homes. Better to have six rent checks than one. You talk of choice but the only choice in play is the choice for Blackrock to cram us 5 to a 1 bedroom apartment and make us wait for the bus in a minority-infested hellhole. Giving bugmen like you a choice will only fuck us all over in the long run. Try making choices that don't benefit globohomo every single time and we'll talk, you fucking cockroach.


----------



## DDBCAE CBAADCBE (Aug 4, 2022)

Public transportation is universally a terrible experience. Public transportation is crowded, smelly, and a general health risk on any given day for a slew of reasons.

Cars are just better in every aspect. Private, comfortable, quiet, customizable, generally safe, and most importantly they go wherever you want and not just where they are scheduled to go.

Public Transportation people are just sniveling cucks.


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 4, 2022)

Chuck McGill said:


> No. Because if we let you morons choose, the people with land are inevitably going to choose the hyperdense apartments with 6 spic/nig families over single family homes. Better to have six rent checks than one. You talk of choice but the only choice in play is the choice for Blackrock to cram us 5 to a 1 bedroom apartment and make us wait for the bus in a minority-infested hellhole. Giving bugmen like you a choice will only fuck us all over in the long run. Try making choices that don't benefit globohomo every single time and we'll talk, you fucking cockroach.


Lol how tf is not artifically limiting the supply of housing and driving up the price, whilst also making everyone a slave to the auto jew not in favor of black rock? The way people used to live for centuries is not "bugmen" shit. 

You're a retarded nigger.


----------



## Car Won't Crank (Aug 4, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> Lol how tf is not artifically limiting the supply of housing and driving up the price, whilst also making everyone a slave to the auto jew not in favor of black rock? The way people used to live for centuries is not "bugmen" shit.
> 
> You're a retarded nigger.


If you're a slave to extremely long auto payments and have the risk of missing payments, then you're probably not financially responsible enough to own a car. In the US, it's extremely cheap to own a car compared to other countries even taking into account insurance and consumables though lately inflation and supply issues are making it a bit more costly.


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 4, 2022)

Car Won't Crank said:


> If you're a slave to extremely long auto payments and have the risk of missing payments, then you're probably not financially responsible enough to own a car. In the US, it's extremely cheap to own a car compared to other countries even taking into account insurance and consumables though lately inflation and supply issues are making it a bit more costly.


Lol you're telling me someone driving 12-15K miles a year ( the average ) could keep one car their entire life? 

And even if thats true, that is still HUNDREDS of dollars a month with just insurance and gas.


----------



## Skitarii (Aug 4, 2022)

I wish small towns actually fixed their roads so I can use my car for its intended purpose


----------



## Deadwaste (Aug 4, 2022)

Skitarii said:


> I wish small towns actually fixed their roads so I can use my car for its intended purpose


lol just buy an off roader


----------



## Car Won't Crank (Aug 5, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> Lol you're telling me someone driving 12-15K miles a year ( the average ) could keep one car their entire life?
> 
> And even if thats true, that is still HUNDREDS of dollars a month with just insurance and gas.


Listen mate, it's clear you don't actually own a car. My fleet of cars is on average 19 years old and they're still on the road. If the original owners wanted to, they certainly could do the maintenance and keep them running for years to come until parts dry up. A lot of people trade them in for the newest for various reasons, some financially retarded, others actually financially sound. I don't want to deal with new car hassles nor do I like new cars, so all of mine are what they call modern classics, before screens took over the dashboards. Incidentally, someone with limited finances is in the same demographic for such a car.

If we take the upper bound of 15k miles a year, that's about 1250 miles/month. That's about 4 tanks of gas if we assume we get about 450-500 miles a tank with an average sedan and crossover and the owner fills up  around or just under the quarter tank mark meaning ~400 miles driven. In a typical, modern car, that would be ~$50 to fill, $60 if 93 octane. So let's say ~$250 in fuel a month, and assuming the car is old and paid off, you can bypass the need for full coverage insurance and pay just what you need at ~$200 every 6 months given your record is good. But wait, let's also assume said owner is diligent about maintenance and performs oil and filter changes every 5k miles. Typical cars have about 6 quarts of oil. Using the basic bitch brand of oil and filter that's about $35 for oil and $10 for the filter. Do this 3 times a year is $135. 

So, annually the running costs would sum to approximately $3535 +/- 100. I'd say that's very reasonable for keeping a car running and the freedoms that come with it.


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 5, 2022)

Car Won't Crank said:


> Listen mate, it's clear you don't actually own a car. My fleet of cars is on average 19 years old and they're still on the road. If the original owners wanted to, they certainly could do the maintenance and keep them running for years to come until parts dry up. A lot of people trade them in for the newest for various reasons, some financially retarded, others actually financially sound. I don't want to deal with new car hassles nor do I like new cars, so all of mine are what they call modern classics, before screens took over the dashboards. Incidentally, someone with limited finances is in the same demographic for such a car.
> 
> If we take the upper bound of 15k miles a year, that's about 1250 miles/month. That's about 4 tanks of gas if we assume we get about 450-500 miles a tank with an average sedan and crossover and the owner fills up  around or just under the quarter tank mark meaning ~400 miles driven. In a typical, modern car, that would be ~$50 to fill, $60 if 93 octane. So let's say ~$250 in fuel a month, and assuming the car is old and paid off, you can bypass the need for full coverage insurance and pay just what you need at ~$200 every 6 months given your record is good. But wait, let's also assume said owner is diligent about maintenance and performs oil and filter changes every 5k miles. Typical cars have about 6 quarts of oil. Using the basic bitch brand of oil and filter that's about $35 for oil and $10 for the filter. Do this 3 times a year is $135.
> 
> So, annually the running costs would sum to approximately $3535 +/- 100. I'd say that's very reasonable for keeping a car running and the freedoms that come with it.


Totally fine. Again, nothing I said is about restricting people from owning cars.

Even in a place where I don't need a car, I'd LIKE to own a car. Hell, I'd want a motorcycle too while I'm at it.

I just hate being DEPENDENT on it. 

And even with the numbers you suggested, it would still be a third of the cost of car ownership.

I just don't want obtrusive zoning laws to prevent people from being able to build more walk-able communities. That way, everyone gets what they want.

Japan is a country that is every easily navigable by public transit , and they still have a booming car culture. 

Also, I do own a car BTW.I live in an area where I practically have to.


----------



## Car Won't Crank (Aug 5, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> Totally fine. Again, nothing I said is about restricting people from owning cars.
> 
> Even in a place where I don't need a car, I'd LIKE to own a car. Hell, I'd want a motorcycle too while I'm at it.
> 
> ...


Those are all valid points. I was only responding to your point about people who opt for cars as being slaves to the jews on their insane finance payments and how it's something that can be avoided with some forethought and planning.

I don't know why Japan is relevant unless that was the country in question. I thought it's common knowledge cars ownership is expensive in those countries? I don't understand the relationship you're trying to make between people being enthusiastic about cars there despite there being other forms of transport or why that's an issue.


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 5, 2022)

Car Won't Crank said:


> Those are all valid points. I was only responding to your point about people who opt for cars as being slaves to the jews on their insane finance payments and how it's something that can be avoided with some forethought and planning.
> 
> I don't know why Japan is relevant unless that was the country in question. I thought it's common knowledge cars ownership is expensive in those countries? I don't understand the relationship you're trying to make between people being enthusiastic about cars there despite there being other forms of transport or why that's an issue.


Alot of people in this thread have this dichotomy  that its on or the other, when really both would be beneficial. Kinda why I used Japan as an example.

Less people driving cars = less congested roads and less retarded drivers. We could even require higher standards for licensing since the need for a car isn't necessary. (Granted, I don't think we HAVE to do that, but that option would be on the table.)

And I don't wanna rip the keys out of someone's hands who wants one. I know plenty of people who can't get ahead due to lack of transportation ,or take shitty loans JUST to have some car to function. 

Plus your example requires you have the time/energy/mechanical know how to work on your own car. Alot of people are busy with work/kids/not really good at mechanical things. It just seems so stupid to force people into this.

Ultimately, I want everyone who drives a car to be because they REALLY want to, and not because they have to.


----------



## quaawaa (Aug 5, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> Ultimately, I want everyone who drives a car to be because they REALLY want to, and not because they have to.


81% of Americans prefer the suburban or rural lifestyle over the urban one:


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 5, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> 81% of Americans prefer the suburban or rural lifestyle over the urban one:
> View attachment 3565050


You known you can have a non car dependent suburb right? 

Also, if people wanna live in rural environments so be it. 

Just in cities / suburbs don't impose artificial restrictions.


----------



## quaawaa (Aug 5, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> You known you can have a non car dependent suburb right?
> 
> Also, if people wanna live in rural environments so be it.
> 
> Just in cities / suburbs don't impose artificial restrictions.


Every demographic except for Asians and people with graduate degrees (heavy overlap there) prefers non-walkable neighborhoods with large houses over walkable neighborhoods with small houses:

If the question was instead “Would you prefer a neighborhood where you can walk to stores an you live in muti-family housing or a neighborhood where you have to drive to stores and you live in a house?” the answers would have been even less favorable towards the walkable neighborhood.

More people moved out of urban areas than suburban areas, and urban areas are only being kept afloat by immigration:

More urban residents want to move to the suburbs or to a rural area than vice versa:



> About three-in-ten adults in urban areas who say they would want to move (28%) say they would want to stay in an urban area, while 48% would want to move to the suburbs and 23% say they would want to move to a rural area. These responses have not changed significantly from 2018.
> 
> Among suburban residents who say they would want to move if they could, 37% would want to stay in the suburbs, while 43% would want to move to a rural area and just 19% would want to move to an urban community. The share saying they would want to move to a rural area (among those who would want to move) is up from 35% in 2018, while there was no significant change in the shares saying they’d want to stay in the suburbs or move to an urban area.
> 
> Rural dwellers who say they would want to move are the most likely to say they’d want to stay in the same community type: 46% would want to stay in a rural area. A third of rural residents who would move if they could say they would want to move to a suburb, while 19% would move to an urban area.



Face it, most people don’t want to live in a bug hive and either don’t mind or like cars, which is why anti-car urbanists like yourself are a strong minority and are only found online.


----------



## Bonesjones (Aug 5, 2022)

I live in a very walkable old city. No one walks more than a few blocks. It's too hot, humid, and there's homeless people to bother you everywhere you go. The only time people actually walk more than a block or two is on drinking nights to go from one end of the bars to the others.

I talked to a guy who is a bicyclist and rides hundreds of miles a week, how much did he walk in the area. He said not much. Weird, all the people who would be inclined and would love to live in a "walkable" city, don't walk even when they have the option.

Its almost like for all the griping people do about wanting to not have a car or be able to just do stuff. Don't actually focus on living that lifestyle. Probably because it actually sucks ass, good luck carrying your groceries home while dealing with kids. Or doing it in heavy rain. Or the other normal daily obstacles people deal with on a regular basis that they would pay not to.


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 5, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> Every demographic except for Asians and people with graduate degrees (heavy overlap there) prefers non-walkable neighborhoods with large houses over walkable neighborhoods with small houses:
> View attachment 3565081
> If the question was instead “Would you prefer a neighborhood where you can walk to stores an you live in muti-family housing or a neighborhood where you have to drive to stores and you live in a house?” the answers would have been even less favorable towards the walkable neighborhood.
> 
> ...


"Oh my god! Look at this bughive of a town! I don't need a car to get everywhere!"


----------



## quaawaa (Aug 5, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> "Oh my god! Look at this bughive of a town! I don't need a car to get everywhere!"
> View attachment 3565106


What is that on the left side of the picture?


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 5, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> What is that on the left side of the picture?


Cars.

I don't hate cars man. I hate being DEPENDENT on them. 

Even in walk-able areas with good transit, there are still places for roads / cars. 

Earlier in this thread I even mentioned as much I enjoy having a car. I just hate having to rely on it.

I only want to drive a car when I want to. Not everywhere. Sometimes I wanna walk a few blocks and grab some stuff.


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 5, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> What is that on the left side of the picture?
> 
> Also, that town (Stroudsburg, PA judging by the file name) is anything but walkable:
> Whole city:
> ...


Your point? 

If you want to drive everywhere, so be it. Just don't restrict my ability to NOT drive everywhere.


----------



## quaawaa (Aug 5, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> Cars.
> 
> I don't hate cars man. I hate being DEPENDENT on them.
> 
> ...


Then why'd you post an example of a car-dependent city as an ideal?

Stroudsburg, PA judging by the file name, is anything but walkable:
Whole city:

Main street from your pic:

They seem to have an awful lot of parking lots/garages for a town where people walk everywhere.

Just buy a house/rent an apartment within walking distance of some stores. I guarantee you there is housing near stores in literally every city in the entire country.


----------



## Bonesjones (Aug 5, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> Your point?
> 
> If you want to drive everywhere, so be it. Just don't restrict my ability to NOT drive everywhere.


You can just walk, no one can stop you. I do it all the time. Sometimes I'll park at Target and walk all the way down the street just to look in the different stores, crazy I know.


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 5, 2022)

Bonesjones said:


> You can just walk, no one can stop you. I do it all the time. Sometimes I'll park at Target and walk all the way down the street just to look in the different stores, crazy I know.


Good for you.

I've lived in areas where "walking" meant going 5 miles up a road  full of dense traffic with no sidewalk 80% of the time.

That would be like me expecting you drive solely on dirt paths with the traffic throughout of a 50k+ city.

Usually when I talk about restricting people, I mean banning dense housing and stores/shops amongst single family homes (You should be able to do with your property as you see fit.)


----------



## Bonesjones (Aug 5, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> Good for you.
> 
> I've lived in areas where "walking" meant going 5 miles up a road  full of dense traffic with no sidewalk 80% of the time.
> 
> That would be like me expecting you drive solely on dirt paths with the traffic throughout of a 50k+ city.


I did that my whole childhood. Maybe stop being a pussy?


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 5, 2022)

Bonesjones said:


> I did that my whole childhood. Maybe stop being a pussy?


Lol.


----------



## Bonesjones (Aug 5, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> Usually when I talk about restricting people, I mean banning dense housing and stores/shops amongst single family homes (You should be able to do with your property as you see fit.)


You act like these things just happened and aren't the result of it being allowed and it causing so many issues its disallowed.

People don't want dense housing in the middle of a neighborhood because it just ends up a bunch of people renting and having no attachment to the neighborhood. So you bring in more crime and problems due to the extra population density, with the added benefit of subsidizing it with your taxes. Since now all the utilities have to be sized for the extra potential density whether it's used or not. Or you deal with your bathroom flooding with sewage because it's too small. I'm sure everyone will help out with that and you definitely won't just pay more in insurance to cover it. So now your sweet multifamily home drives down property values, increases crime and taxes. What do you get in return? If you are lucky you keep a stable neighborhood, if you aren't you get everyone leaving, your property value tanks, so now you live in a very walkable slum you can't walk in because of all the crime. Good job, you reinvented the 80s.


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 5, 2022)

Bonesjones said:


> You act like these things just happened and aren't the result of it being allowed and it causing so many issues its disallowed.
> 
> People don't want dense housing in the middle of a neighborhood because it just ends up a bunch of people renting and having no attachment to the neighborhood. So you bring in more crime and problems due to the extra population density, with the added benefit of subsidizing it with your taxes. Since now all the utilities have to be sized for the extra potential density whether it's used or not. Or you deal with your bathroom flooding with sewage because it's too small. I'm sure everyone will help out with that and you definitely won't just pay more in insurance to cover it. So now your sweet multifamily home drives down property values, increases crime and taxes. What do you get in return? If you are lucky you keep a stable neighborhood, if you aren't you get everyone leaving, your property value tanks, so now you live in a very walkable slum you can't walk in because of all the crime. Good job, you reinvented the 80s.


Jesus this is delusional. 

Increasing density increases property values, if anything, since it makes it more desirable to most people. 

Also, you can proove your other claim. How did density cause problems in the 80's


----------



## Bonesjones (Aug 5, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> Jesus this is delusional.
> 
> Increasing density increases property values, if anything, since it makes it more desirable to most people.
> 
> Also, you can proove your other claim. How did density cause problems in the 80's


Then every apartment complex must be worth way more than anywhere else, right? They are incredibly dense compared to single homes.

I was off on the date but here's a key example.









						Pruitt–Igoe - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org
				




Dense, walkable, it must have been amazing? Oh it was a total shithole that had to be torn down.


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 5, 2022)

Bonesjones said:


> Then every apartment complex must be worth way more than anywhere else, right? They are incredibly dense compared to single homes.
> 
> I was off on the date but here's a key example.
> 
> ...


The failure of the fed's "urban renewal program" has nothing to do with density issues. 

Also, cherry picking a random apartment complex and comparing it to anything is also stupid. The factors that determine the value of a home is multi-faceted. 

Per unit, on average, yes obviously. But the entire building is probably worth more than a single family home. 

Honestly most of the stuff I've seen suggests that increased density increases home values.


----------



## Willie B. Hardigan (Aug 5, 2022)

A guy who will continue to use cars and will never make any proposition of public transportation to his city continues to argue pretending he is doing something important because doing something actually important is just too hard .


----------



## Bonesjones (Aug 5, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> The failure of the fed's "urban renewal program" has nothing to do with density issues.
> 
> Also, cherry picking a random apartment complex and comparing it to anything is also stupid. The factors that determine the value of a home is multi-faceted.
> 
> ...


So some density is good and other density is bad? How the goalposts move.

The point I'm making is that density doesn't intrinsically increase value. It's that value and density increase in a well corolated fashion. People move to places where natural beauty, jobs, safety, etc are combined into a metric that they find suitable.

Single young people love living in cities, since they care less about space or convenience as long as they have stuff to do and people to meet. Married people with kids pretty much always leave for places more suburban, it's safer, there is more space and less hassle, the schools tend to be better.

Roads enable massive economic increases over public transit. The USA has the most extensive rail network for cargo in the world. We still ship a shitload of stuff using trucks. 

You point out that walking on the side of the road is too much of a hassle, it sounds like you want everyone else to subsidize your convenience, since you don't want to deal with shit yourself.

So maybe either get richer or be less of a pussy, either way I don't care.


----------



## Deadwaste (Aug 5, 2022)

Bonesjones said:


> Then every apartment complex must be worth way more than anywhere else, right? They are incredibly dense compared to single homes.
> 
> I was off on the date but here's a key example.
> 
> ...


tbf high rise public housing was a bad idea to begin with, especially when the architecture for it looks unsafe and hostile to begin with. most public housing projects now in the us are lower density and are no higher than 5 floors, but they can still get away with duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, or just small apartment buildings so are moderately dense anyway. even some of the shittier looking ones look more inviting than those high rises

edit: i should probably add the only place i know of that really pulled off high rise public housing is singapore, and thats because they generally look nice and i'd probably live there


like cmon this has some advantages compared to those other houses posted and looks livable


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 5, 2022)

Bonesjones said:


> So some density is good and other density is bad? How the goalposts move.
> 
> The point I'm making is that density doesn't intrinsically increase value. It's that value and density increase in a well corolated fashion. People move to places where natural beauty, jobs, safety, etc are combined into a metric that they find suitable.
> 
> ...


Lol your absolutely a fucking dipshit.

I didn't move any goal posts pointing out it isn't just ONE thing that determines home value.Being near the water makes your property more valuable . Does that mean I can't find some land locked property that is more valuable than water side property? of course not. Doesn't make the previous statement untrue.

Alot of the car dependency of the US started in the 30's when we started to make historical zoning illegal to PUSH people into car ownership. 

Walk-ability / transit is in no way contradictory to single family homing or small towns. You can have BOTH. You can have safe suburbs with good schools AND decent walk-ability.

Also, if you claim me wanting sidewalks is someone having to subsidize  my convenience, then every American who relies on the Federal Government to give them funding for their highways are even MORE entitled. 



Willie B. Hardigan said:


> A guy who will continue to use cars and will never make any proposition of public transportation to his city continues to argue pretending he is doing something important because doing something actually important is just too hard .



I never argued I want to go on some holy crusade. I do plan on making some personal decisions that would allow me to live the life style I find more appealing. Doesn't mean I can't come into a relevant thread to discuss it with you dipshits.

Just another anon screeching into the void.


----------



## Chuck McGill (Aug 5, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> Japan is a country that is every easily navigable by public transit , and they still have a booming car culture.
> 
> Also, I do own a car BTW.I live in an area where I practically have to.


Yeah, and Japan is also a culturally homogenous, high-trust country. If our government didn't force the melanin-enriched on us every minute of every day at gunpoint if necessary it might be feasible in the US. If you really want shit like public transit you should be advocating closing the borders and enforcing the laws rather than trot out your same tired arguments that boil down to "SUBURBS BAD"


----------



## Markass the Worst (Aug 5, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> Walk-ability / transit is in no way contradictory to single family homing or small towns. You can have BOTH. You can have safe suburbs with good schools AND decent walk-ability.


So if we can have both, why do you keep asking for "restrictive" zoning laws (that enforce single-family housing) to be repealed?


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 5, 2022)

Markass the Worst said:


> So if we can have both, why do you keep asking for "restrictive" zoning laws (that enforce single-family housing) to be repealed?


Im not asking to "repeal" single family zoning. Single family zoning ONLY allows single family homes. We shouldn't artificially restrict people to have to have single family housing. 


Chuck McGill said:


> Yeah, and Japan is also a culturally homogenous, high-trust country. If our government didn't force the melanin-enriched on us every minute of every day at gunpoint if necessary it might be feasible in the US. If you really want shit like public transit you should be advocating closing the borders and enforcing the laws rather than trot out your same tired arguments that boil down to "SUBURBS BAD"


Never said suburbs were bad, car DEPENDENT suburbs are bad.


----------



## Bonesjones (Aug 5, 2022)

Deadwaste said:


> edit: i should probably add the only place i know of that really pulled off high rise public housing is singapore, and thats because they generally look nice and i'd probably live there


Its also a small island country, so the expectations are entirely different. Not physically being able to sprawl out is entirely different than not wanting to.


Deadwaste said:


> cmon this has some advantages compared to those other houses posted and looks livable


Yeah that looks nice from 200 feet up but what is the boots on the ground experience?


RandomFaggot said:


> Being near the water makes your property more valuable . Does that mean I can't find some land locked property that is more valuable than water side property? of course not. Doesn't make the previous statement untrue.


I live in a house approximately 100 feet from a river, it is barely worth 6 figures. You constantly make causation/correlation errors.


RandomFaggot said:


> Alot of the car dependency of the US started in the 30's when we started to make historical zoning illegal to PUSH people into car ownership.


Or mass transit brought crime into formally peaceful neighborhoods, so they did the needful thing and cut off access the best they could.


RandomFaggot said:


> Walk-ability / transit is in no way contradictory to single family homing or small towns. You can have BOTH. You can have safe suburbs with good schools AND decent walk-ability.


You can have both when you live in an affluent area. Since the key issue isn't places being walkable, it's having people who actually want to walk. Your Stroudsburg picture is literally just a row of bars and restaurants.


RandomFaggot said:


> Also, if you claim me wanting sidewalks is someone having to subsidize my convenience, then every American who relies on the Federal Government to give them funding for their highways are even MORE entitled.


Most roads are paid for by gas taxes, most sidewalks are paid for by gas taxes, gas taxes subsidize mass transit. The economic gain of roads far outpaces any money they cost. Do you understand this? Trains are shit for moving people long distances unless they are express trains, since stopping every mile for another train station kills any time savings you might gain. The only benefit is you can do something while you ride compared to a car, but lots of people use their cellphones illegally any way.


----------



## Yuhbwoynadia (Aug 5, 2022)

Bonesjones said:


> People don't want *dense housing in the middle of a neighborhood* because it just ends up a bunch of people renting and having no attachment to the neighborhood. *So you bring in more crime *and problems due to the extra population density, with the added benefit of subsidizing it with your taxes


dense housing do not make crime whatsoever lmao

Public housing project in San Francisco vs a single family housing neighborhood in Victorville CA


which place you think has more crime, drugs, and gangs .......


----------



## Deadwaste (Aug 5, 2022)

Bonesjones said:


> Yeah that looks nice from 200 feet up but what is the boots on the ground experience?



looks pretty nice with the park there admittedly.


----------



## Bonesjones (Aug 5, 2022)

Yuhbwoynadia said:


> dense housing do not make crime whatsoever lmao
> 
> Public housing project in San Francisco vs a single family housing neighborhood in Victorville CA
> 
> ...


Considering one is in San Fran and the other is an LA suburb, they are both crime ridden hellholes covered in homeless people's shit.


Deadwaste said:


> View attachment 3567379
> looks pretty nice with the park there admittedly.


Do you think realtor's pictures of a home reflect genuine reality as well? What does the neighborhood look like? What's it look like in the afternoon or after dark? You can hide things while pretending to show a lot.


----------



## quaawaa (Aug 5, 2022)

Yuhbwoynadia said:


> Public housing project in San Francisco vs a single family housing neighborhood in Victorville CA
> 
> 
> which place you think has more crime, drugs, and gangs .......
> ...


The place in the top pic, North Beach Place in San Francisco has very restrictive residency requirements and only allows families and seniors:

San Francisco’s definition of low income is $90,000 a year if you are single and the cutoff goes up even higher for every additional household member. A family of four can earn $130k before becoming ineligible for subsidized housing. That place isn’t servicing a high crime demographic; all areas where rich and middle class people live tend to be nice.


----------



## Chuck McGill (Aug 5, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> Im not asking to "repeal" single family zoning. Single family zoning ONLY allows single family homes. We shouldn't artificially restrict people to have to have single family housing.
> 
> Never said suburbs were bad, car DEPENDENT suburbs are bad.


The point stands. Why are you hemming around acknowledging my core argument? People do not want to use public services in general because public trust has been eroded. Partially due to diversity, partially due to the lack of mental institutions that keep dangerous crazies off the street. Until you acknowledge these real problems people have, you're no better than Klaus and his globohomo buddies demanding we suffer endless cutbacks to our lifestyle because climate change or Ukraine or whatever.


----------



## Xarpho (Aug 5, 2022)

Deadwaste said:


> tbf high rise public housing was a bad idea to begin with, especially when the architecture for it looks unsafe and hostile to begin with. most public housing projects now in the us are lower density and are no higher than 5 floors, but they can still get away with duplexes, triplexes, quadplexes, or just small apartment buildings so are moderately dense anyway. even some of the shittier looking ones look more inviting than those high rises
> 
> edit: i should probably add the only place i know of that really pulled off high rise public housing is singapore, and thats because they generally look nice and i'd probably live there
> View attachment 3565554
> like cmon this has some advantages compared to those other houses posted and looks livable


"Public housing is ugly and too tall"
"Except Singapore is an exception for some reason"

This is like a real life version of the "Place / Place, Japan" memes.


----------



## Deadwaste (Aug 5, 2022)

Xarpho said:


> "Public housing is ugly and too tall"
> "Except Singapore is an exception for some reason"
> 
> This is like a real life version of the "Place / Place, Japan" memes.


to be fair, it is a small island country like that one dude said so its a bit more understandable to build tall than wide so they can use their land more wisely. after all, this is the entirety of singapore compared to just los angeles, which has a smaller population than singapore

i also never said that high rise public housing is bad because it's tall. just that the architecture was hostile and unsafe as seen with the Pruitt–Igoe example or the robert taylor homes. perhaps they couldve been improved with better planning and funding and definitely better policing. after all, no one wants to live in or around a miserable looking building surrounded by more miserable looking buildings, especially with crime in said buildings. least the singapore example they had that park and i believe the nearby area has shops and such around it since they gotta make due with their space issue. plus, it's singapore, they have little crime since they actually police their shit. alas, this is america with american politicians we're dealing with. they arent exactly the brightest of minds as you all know


----------



## RandomFaggot (Aug 5, 2022)

Xarpho said:


> "Public housing is ugly and too tall"
> "Except Singapore is an exception for some reason"
> 
> This is like a real life version of the "Place / Place, Japan" memes.


"DUDE ITS JUST LIKE THAT MAYMAY XD"

Your brain is rotted.


----------



## Xarpho (Aug 5, 2022)

RandomFaggot said:


> "DUDE ITS JUST LIKE THAT MAYMAY XD"
> 
> Your brain is rotted.



An anime avatar telling someone that their brain has rotted, that’s rich.


----------



## Yuhbwoynadia (Aug 5, 2022)

quaawaa said:


> That place isn’t servicing a high crime demographic; all areas where rich and middle class people live tend to be nice


Those apartments are full of niggas I been all over the city but those high dense low income apartments are not more dangerous than a neighborhood full of home owners in single family homes


----------



## Chuck McGill (Aug 6, 2022)

Xarpho said:


> An anime avatar telling someone that their brain has rotted, that’s rich.


In the land of anime avatars, the man with even half a brain is king.


----------



## Otterly (Aug 8, 2022)

Transport needs differ depending on where you are and how you live. I didn’t even own a car until my late twenties because I was a student, skint and living in cities to be a student. I walked or biked everywhere close and if it was further I’d get a bus or a train. Worked fine. I did sometimes wish I had a car to get out hiking more but friends had them and we used to share petrol costs for longer trips. 
Once I got married and had kids and moved to the outer rural area, I needed a car. I can’t get a load of kids and shopping in a bike, it’s neither safe nor convenient. We have one car for the family, it’s a stereotypical station wagon job, not massive but big enough to haul kids, tents, bikes, groceries, and all the stuff families cart around. You’d take it from my cold dead hands. 
   Banning cars is retarded. People need them. They are freedom. That doesn’t mean you shouldn’t have public transport. Cities and their fringes SHOULD have good bus and train and tram links. But they shouldn’t exclude cars totally. 
   European cities often are far older than cars so they arent designed around them but the burbs are. Edinburgh for example has a great bus network (don’t mention the trams, you’ll make people angry) it has smaller areas within the city that are walkable, and good bus links (please don’t mention the fucking tram) to outer suburbs and villages. It has a main rail line down south. 
   Is it perfect? No. Getting over to Glasgow is still a pain, the ring road is hellish in a morning. But it’s not bad. The place it fails is that City to rural linkup. You can’t really drive into the city centre and park easily, so you’re stuck with public transit and that’s sparse to rural areas 
   It’s not hard to design a city around decent transport - you HAVE to have vehicle access for deliveries and infrastructure there if nothing else. What’s harder is retrofitting stuff. And of course no one is going to use it if it’s infested with junkies. 
   Europe in general is Ok for transport. The Uk fails badly for public transport to and from towns to rural areas - lots of outlying villages have one or two buses a day but there’s nowhere to park in town, which is an issue. 
   I really hate this ‘all engines are evil’ shit. Cars are freedom, and I am wary of the idea of cars being tracked, controlled and short range. We’ve already seen with covid how our governments were just salivating over the thought of being able to geofence us.


----------



## Deadwaste (Aug 9, 2022)

everyones favorite bike man is back with a bike that has storage in it and can be used to transport people if need be
what do we do now carbros


----------



## Flaming Insignias (Aug 9, 2022)

Deadwaste said:


> everyones favorite bike man is back with a bike that has storage in it and can be used to transport people if need be
> what do we do now carbros


That is the dumbest fucking thing I have ever seen. That stupid thing cannot possibly go anywhere further than 5 miles in a bughive, and you'd still have to ride around in the conditions, not to mention the exhaustion factor. I'll stick with my car.


----------



## Quantum Diabetes (Aug 9, 2022)

I went back to the bus for awhile and it was filled with potato niggers, really satanic looking spics, and my favorite, basketball Americans screaming into dey sailfoam or really high as fuck rapping and jiving and swinging their arms around. 
Now to save money I use a bike.


----------



## Dread First (Aug 9, 2022)

Being in a situation where I can rely on public transit again is pretty fucking surreal tbh. The utter _lack_ of gas payments, insurance, car maintenance, etc have already made themselves more than apparent within a couple of months. Plus, I don't always have to be the DD lest I pay out the ass for an Uber when I'm getting shitfaced at the bar with friends! I haven't gotten truly hammered with a bunch of drunk friends in ages, much less in a bar so that's always a plus in my book.

I mean... not being able to go anywhere on an immediate whim is pretty irksome (i.e. late night drive thru runs), but then again... I've also become much more aware of the happenings in my local community because I'm now in situations where I'm regularly interacting with the public in a non-employment setting. Then again... interacting with annoying teenagers and vagrants on public transit is enough for me to crave nicotine.

I think I might get an electric bike with pedal assist only so that I can ride a bike to/from work with minimal headaches for like... 9 months of the year (i.e. spring through autumn) and then I'll just rely on public transit in the winter months.

Public transit ain't ideal, but when you live in a congested shithole with poorly maintained roads to begin with, why not just take a bus and save yourself some gas money at the bare minimum?


----------



## I Love Huge Long Chode (Aug 10, 2022)

I strongly support walkable cities. The first step to walkable cities would be ridding them of all Melanin-Americans. Everything else comes second.


----------



## Sincere Sinner (Sep 3, 2022)

The Urban Bughive are right about a number of problems car-centric infrastructure has when expanded out to a larger population without ever asking the fundamental question "Why the fuck are we increasing the population in the first place?"

I cant speak authoritatively for other countries, but Australia has it's infrastructure for all manner of things groaning under the burden of its ever increasing number of people. I know first hand, I work in utilities. I think the luxuries and convenience of cars could be far more easily preserved by just not adding MOAR fucking people all the time.


----------



## Wesley Willis (Sep 3, 2022)

This is at least the third major bughive thread running at the moment that I have come across. 

Be honest, how many of you are fleeing NY or LA?


----------



## Quantum Diabetes (Sep 3, 2022)

Wesley Willis said:


> This is at least the third major bughive thread running at the moment that I have come across.
> 
> Be honest, how many of you are fleeing NY or LA?


Don’t forgot Hotlanta and Shitcago, they are also full of nogtrains. 
I call Marta “Moving Africans rapidly through Atlanta”


----------



## Otterly (Monday at 1:16 PM)

Deadwaste said:


> everyones favorite bike man is back with a bike that has storage in it and can be used to transport people if need be
> what do we do now carbros


I lived for a good few years in a country that has a lot of these (the two wheel ones are shit, the three wheelers are way better.) they’re often used to get kids to and from school but they’re not big enough for a weeks shopping and three kids, nor can you carry anything very heavy in them. Getting little kids to school when it’s a couple of miles away and there’s a safe bike lane the whole way in Sweden or Denmark? Yes, sure. As long as the bike path has been ploughed and gritted of course in winter. Trying that in the uk? You’re looking at being hospitalised. 
   These things work in countries and areas that have separated bike lanes, for short trips. Riding one of them in British transport conditions on a regular road with the kids at crush height on the fiftieth consecutive day of cold rain ? Nope. 
   There should be a free range of transport options. Clean public transit and bikes are great IF they suit you or for when they suit you. But so are cars. 
   I walk almost everywhere but you’ll pry my car keys from my cold dead hands.


----------

