Not Just Bikes / r/fuckcars / Urbanists / New Urbanism / Car-Free / Anti-Car - People and grifters who hate personal transport, freedom, cars, roads, suburbs, and are obsessed with city planning and urban design

[Xarpho's Return]

The original meaning of the Growth Ponzi scheme was that suburbs have to continue to grow because they do not properly budget for infrastructure maintenance and replacement. Instead, they get new money by converting low value agricultural land to higher value residential land and collect higher taxes from it. The contention is that they tend not to collect enough new taxes to actually maintain and replace the infrastructure built by developers.

That may or may not be the case. But the idea is completely different than the Slaughterite idea that cities are subsidizing suburbs. I doubt the average Slaughterite even knows what property taxes are.

Yes, I do remember circa 2014 that line of thinking. But again, suburbs WILL change over time, so adding newer, denser development or some other big-ticket development changes that.

The whole "cities subsidize suburbs" only makes sense if you build a city in a vacuum, there is no corruption, there is infinite land for a single municipality, all city services are applied evenly, etc.....in other words, basically SimCity.

 

[Womble of Wimbledon]

I really don't care whether the fuckcars brigade are right or wrong. The only thing I know for sure is that Not Just Bikes is a whiny self-satisfied smug cunt and I hope to God he is run over and mangled by an e-bike whilst walking hand-in-hand with his wife and her boyfriend by an Amsterdam canal

 

[LaxerBRO]

More mindless hatred of Canada from Jason:
View attachment 4170980

Spoiler: Image in Tweet

View attachment 4170982

but that’s a bad thing:
View attachment 4170998

Jason is complaining about replacing one lane for a tram so I wanted to look into this further:

Is that a tram?

This is at nearly the same spot and crossing the intersection is a tram. So what does Jason want? Is he suggesting that every possible inch of an urban area be covered with tram lines?

The other point I wanted to address was Jasons / NJB proposal of only one lane that for University avenue in Toronto. The language regard this type of lane reduction is called a road diet. However, there are a few limitations to a road diets with one of the main limiting factors being vehicles per day.

US Department of Transportation

3.3.5 Average Daily Traffic (ADT)​

The ADT provides a good first approximation on whether or not to consider a Road Diet conversion. If the ADT is near the upper limits of the study volumes, practitioners should conduct further analysis to determine its operational feasibility. This would include looking at peak hour volumes by direction and considering other factors such as signal spacing, turning volumes at intersections, and other access points. Each practitioner should use engineering judgment to decide how much analysis is necessary and take examples from this report as a guide.

• A 2011 Kentucky study showed Road Diets could work up to an ADT of 23,000 vehicles per day (vpd).35
• In 2006, Gates, et al. suggested a maximum ADT of between 15,000 and 17,500 vpd.36

Knapp, Giese, and Lee have documented Road Diets with ADTs ranging from 8,500 to 24,000 vpd.37 The FHWA advises that roadways with ADT of 20,000 vpd or less may be good candidates for a Road Diet and should be evaluated for feasibility. Figure 12 shows the maximum ADTs used by several agencies to determine whether to install a Road Diet. Road Diet projects have been completed on roadways with relatively high traffic volumes in urban areas or near larger cities with satisfactory results.

Now that we know the limitations, lets a look at the average daily traffic of University Ave. in Toronto. While I have not been able to find an exact source two sources both cite it carries about 40,000-50,000 cars daily. This is double the amount of traffic that is recommended for such a drastic moves even according to policies experts that agree with mass transit / limiting automobiles. Additionally, noticed that the buildings in Jasons / NJB Neatherlands post is located is with in the Coolsingel area. The area appears to only have mid-rise developments (under ten floors) while University Ave. has high rises. As such, I searched the street over from Coolsingel and found this:


The picture above is a much better comparison of high rise developments and roads. At this point, I believe that Jason / NJB know that many of his posts are fallacious and is just posting them for an ulterior motive. I suspect that at its most innocent its an drive to making communing into cities more difficult so that more people will move into cities to contribute to its tax base. I think all the piece fit together given his animosity towards suburbs. I believe that he looks at American and Canadian cities and sees all the negatives within the city (homelessness, crime, blight, etc.); believing that by nudging more people to move into the cities and paying their taxes that these problems will be solved.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

The original meaning of the Growth Ponzi scheme was that suburbs have to continue to grow because they do not properly budget for infrastructure maintenance and replacement. Instead, they get new money by converting low value agricultural land to higher value residential land and collect higher taxes from it. The contention is that they tend not to collect enough new taxes to actually maintain and replace the infrastructure built by developers.

That may or may not be the case. But the idea is completely different than the Slaughterite idea that cities are subsidizing suburbs. I doubt the average Slaughterite even knows what property taxes are.

The tiny kernel of truth is that a new suburb will often have the capital investment in the infrastructure funded by the builder of all the houses - the builder will build schools and roads and other infrastructure so that they can sell houses, and turn the maintenance over to the newly erected city. And since everything is new the maintenance is low so mainly it is salaries for the various departments. Effectively the captial costs are rolled into the sale price of the new homes instead of bonds funded by taxes.

And in 20 years they start having to do capital replacements/improvements and … they raise property tax to pay for it, and everyone yawns.

If the suburb has gone to shit meanwhile you can get a slumburb or a Detroit but that’s actually kinda rare.

 

[Kyria the Great]

After reading all of this nonsense from this community of Urban Planners all that could be said is, "Jesus Christ on a Cross." This is coming from someone that could believe that better infrastructure could be made available in cities that can afford the option to help relief congestion, but these people tend to ignore downsides such as

1. That public infrastructure could be very costly especially for not as wealthy cities that budgets could be quite tight with choices such as repairing their already infrastructure is made with building more pedestrian options.
2. Most people in America tend to not use public transportation if they don't have to because its, dirty, not always on time, and has many problems with keeping riff raff in control.
3. People tend to not want to be on someone else's time since it is hell to be kept waiting because the bus ran late or the train broke down.
4. Public transit tends to either be crowded and packed to it being completely uncomfortable or crazy under-capacity depending on the time and route meaning that they actually tend be less "people and space" moving efficient than cars.
5. The Biker crowd tends to forget that WINTER is a reality for many in countries and it can get fucking cold with many not wanting to have a long bike ride to work if they can help it.
6. Not all public transit is made the same with Lite Rail being among the more inefficient methods of moving large numbers of people around the city quickly.

Obviously far more astute posters in this thread have pointed out many well researched reasons why their ideas are flawed but I have two reasons among all that people will take a car over public transport Those reasons are that It is your car and its your freedom to privacy and go wherever you want. These people tend to fail that privacy and personal space to go wherever and whenever is a price many are willing to pay over being shoved like cattle into public transit with strangers you couldn't care one bit about. I'm fairly certain that Japanese nationals would far prefer having a car over having to take public transit if it were more viable and affordable but we're splitting hairs at this point.

The obsession with high density housing at the expense of low density is something I have even more problems with. Not Just Bikes people are completely family un-friendly in the context of having the comfort and consideration of the accommodations of houses over three people to the point I swear they're anti-natalist. Also these people are against the concept of home ownership, an asset that can last in a family for generations for apartment buildings that will likely be torn down in 40 due to neglect and people don't give a fuck about them. This doesn't even cover the fact that crime and quite areas are a huge reason why people will prefer suburbs over cities as people would want to live in a city if it wasn't a crime infested, homeless overran, drug infested shithole. Most cities that face crumbling prospects usually have to do urban renewal projects to get people to life in them, but then this group would say its anti-minority or some shit like that. Worse is no more new building constructions to help meet demand or won't "Gentrify" crumbling neighborhoods so you have some perfect situation of overpriced, overvalued, and shitty living conditions where even if they raise the taxes through the roof won't fix the structural issues its facing.

 

[sum ting wong]

After reading all of this nonsense from this community of Urban Planners all that could be said is, "Jesus Christ on a Cross." This is coming from someone that could believe that better infrastructure could be made available in cities that can afford the option to help relief congestion, but these people tend to ignore downsides such as

1. That public infrastructure could be very costly especially for not as wealthy cities that budgets could be quite tight with choices such as repairing their already infrastructure is made with building more pedestrian options.
2. Most people in America tend to not use public transportation if they don't have to because its, dirty, not always on time, and has many problems with keeping riff raff in control.
3. People tend to not want to be on someone else's time since it is hell to be kept waiting because the bus ran late or the train broke down.
4. Public transit tends to either be crowded and packed to it being completely uncomfortable or crazy under-capacity depending on the time and route meaning that they actually tend be less "people and space" moving efficient than cars.
5. The Biker crowd tends to forget that WINTER is a reality for many in countries and it can get fucking cold with many not wanting to have a long bike ride to work if they can help it.
6. Not all public transit is made the same with Lite Rail being among the more inefficient methods of moving large numbers of people around the city quickly.

Obviously far more astute posters in this thread have pointed out many well researched reasons why their ideas are flawed but I have two reasons among all that people will take a car over public transport Those reasons are that It is your car and its your freedom to privacy and go wherever you want. These people tend to fail that privacy and personal space to go wherever and whenever is a price many are willing to pay over being shoved like cattle into public transit with strangers you couldn't care one bit about. I'm fairly certain that Japanese nationals would far prefer having a car over having to take public transit if it were more viable and affordable but we're splitting hairs at this point.

The obsession with high density housing at the expense of low density is something I have even more problems with. Not Just Bikes people are completely family un-friendly in the context of having the comfort and consideration of the accommodations of houses over three people to the point I swear they're anti-natalist. Also these people are against the concept of home ownership, an asset that can last in a family for generations for apartment buildings that will likely be torn down in 40 due to neglect and people don't give a fuck about them. This doesn't even cover the fact that crime and quite areas are a huge reason why people will prefer suburbs over cities as people would want to live in a city if it wasn't a crime infested, homeless overran, drug infested shithole. Most cities that face crumbling prospects usually have to do urban renewal projects to get people to life in them, but then this group would say its anti-minority or some shit like that. Worse is no more new building constructions to help meet demand or won't "Gentrify" crumbling neighborhoods so you have some perfect situation of overpriced, overvalued, and shitty living conditions where even if they raise the taxes through the roof won't fix the structural issues its facing.

Eat ze bugs, live in the pods, etc, etc. These people have been thoroughly indoctrinated into globohomo acceptance and will happily give up their freedoms to prove their virtue. It's sad really because I doubt anyone is actually against better infrastructure and giving more options to people, but these people don't want more options. They're happy with driving be so bad or prohibitively expensive that you have no choice but to choose public transport. They want you to do what you're told.

 

[quaawaa]

More hatred of pedestrian bridges because they allow people to cross the street without impeding car traffic:






Source (Archive)

 

[Lord Quackers]

CNBC (apparently a "windshield-biased" outlet) published a puff piece about e-bikes and Jason appears as one of the interviewees.

View attachment 4167318View attachment 4167323
source (a), source (a)

And yes there's apparently an e-bike company named CargoCult based in Kyiv (I am not making this up they put "cult" in their name.)

Spoiler: "Navigating The E-bike Boom With America's Outdated Infrastructure" (archive)

View attachment 4167328

Summary:

• E-bikes are cool because you don't have to stand next to people like on public transit and catch the coof.
• But people keep dying on them (gee I wonder why)
• They're environmentally friendly!!!!11 Get rid of your car (and don't even think about taking the bus either)
• Some e-bike vendor is interviewed, Jason Slaughter is also interviewed
• E-bikes go fast, killing both riders when they crash and pedestrians when they're crashed into (one could state this as e-bikes are pedestrian-unfriendly)
• Also turns out the batteries in these things are extremely dangerous, prone to starting hard to put out fires and have a habit of killing people, who knew? (Fun fact, electric cars have the same problem!)
• Jason says e-bikes are regulated more in the Netherlands so there's no problems (he really can't go one second without comparing everything to the Netherlands huh?)
• E-bike salesman says ackshually e-bikes aren't dangerous, the real enemy here is cars, checkmate retard, it's also the auto industry lobby's fault too
• Alongside the Netherlands, apparently China is bike-friendly too now! Jason says to get results you don't need to remove all the car traffic, "just most of it" lmao
• Jason says the danger about e-bikes going 30 mph is overblown because of the fact that cars can go 100 mph(?? sounds like whataboutism to me)
• Bike-friendly New York City is shat on for not being Amsterdam

In short it basically uncritically repeats NJB's talking points. Not to say it doesn't sound nice to be biking in Amsterdam but it really does sound like they want it for basically everyone (just like how "everyone bikes in Amsterdam" as stated by Jason at the end) even if they don't necessarily want it.

---

Here's Jason complaining about Windsor, Ontario, and calling it "Fake Windsor."

View attachment 4167306View attachment 4167307
source (a)

There is so much to go over here. The hashtags, "the Canadian equivalent of Detroit", "strong windshield bias", I couldn't make him sound more like a parody of himself if I tried. There is nothing I can do here but laugh at how utterly ridiculous it is. This is a classic Not Just Bikes post.

This is literally just a motorbike with an electric motor. I raised the issue about mopeds before; why does he hate them when they're the same as these? Is it just the petrol engine? The noise? Mopeds are less dangerous because of the licensing and helmet requirements too.

 

[FILTH Tourist]

View attachment 4182796

Source (Archive)

Finally a user I agree with. I like to stop and enjoy the view when crossing a pedestrian bridge. It's not everyday that you get to look down a busy road from the middle of it and depending on the weather and time of day it can be very pretty or at least invoke a moody aesthetic.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

Oh, so NOW they care about wheelchair users. We've established that Jason's favorite haunts in the Netherlands aren't handicapped-friendly and probably not in China either.

In "car-brained" America the overpass would probably have ADA-compliant ramps, which would also allow for cyclists as well.

4. Public transit tends to either be crowded and packed to it being completely uncomfortable or crazy under-capacity depending on the time and route meaning that they actually tend be less "people and space" moving efficient than cars.

Yup, night travel completely destroys any "muh buses are more efficient" argument because they already run at severely reduced hours and ferrying around the 2-3 poor souls around town at 3:30 am is less efficient than a single person driving a car.

 

[Soyjak Enjoyer]

View attachment 4182808

Source (Archive)

This nigger doesn't even know what a crosswalk is. This whole movement is just people who have never been outside coping that they'd finally get off reddit/twitter for once if only the sidewalk had a bit more space

 

[Sargon's wife's son]

These people remind me of what I learned my design class in high school in the 1950s Brazil had a bunch of really stupid urban planners that built the modern cities they are now one of the worst design cities and they've spent billions of dollars trying to fix them
They also have no understanding of site analysis or good architecture practices
They're all a bunch of soft Soviet apologists as well and just for that reason they all deserve to be executed by firing squad

 

[WelperHelper99]

More hatred of pedestrian bridges because they allow people to cross the street without impeding car traffic:
View attachment 4182777
View attachment 4182784
View attachment 4182787
View attachment 4182796
View attachment 4182808
View attachment 4182857
Source (Archive)

Pedestrian bridges are awesome honestly. The cars get to move unimpeded including busses,, the people above get a awesome view, which should be part of the expierence of visiting a city, getting to look at the skyline and the fancy cars you dont get to see elsewhere. This hatred is autistic.

 

[Meriasek]

Pedestrian bridges are awesome honestly. The cars get to move unimpeded including busses,, the people above get a awesome view, which should be part of the expierence of visiting a city, getting to look at the skyline and the fancy cars you dont get to see elsewhere. This hatred is autistic.

The pedestrian bridge being there means that there is a road with cars on there.
They can't have that. The only thing that will satisfy their autism is banning any and all cars wherever and however possible.

 

[WelperHelper99]

The pedestrian bridge being there means that there is a road with cars on there.
They can't have that. The only thing that will satisfy their autism is banning any and all cars wherever and however possible.

For them, trying to think that people don't want to take a smelly bus or light rail with a druggie with the wife and kids is completely foreign l, mostly because they don't have any of that. The pedestrian bridge is  great for kids, they get to have a sense of wonder and fun as they see the trucks and cars zooming along. Maybe thats it, these people are incapable of having fun.

 

[Blatant hypocrite]

For them, trying to think that people don't want to take a smelly bus or light rail with a druggie with the wife and kids is completely foreign l, mostly because they don't have any of that. The pedestrian bridge is  great for kids, they get to have a sense of wonder and fun as they see the trucks and cars zooming along. Maybe thats it, these people are incapable of having fun.

I wonder why Redditors would have a strong aversion to climbing stairs (they are fat)

 

[Lobster Cult High Priest]

The pedestrian bridge being there means that there is a road with cars on there.
They can't have that. The only thing that will satisfy their autism is banning any and all cars wherever and however possible.

The Daily Rake has a great article series going after these Bugman faggots.

PSA: Debunking the Traffic Soyboys Part 2 - Yes Virginia, You Should be Able to Walk to the Grocery Store (and Without Being Stabbed) - The Daily Rake

I began and ended my previous piece agreeing with the premise that modern suburbia is terrible. In between I dunked on a snarky midwit who was making absurd arguments in service of the absurd premise that banning cars is desirable and serious policy. But it’s important not to get Finkled into...

dailyrake.ca

 

[WelperHelper99]

I wonder why Redditors would have a strong aversion to climbing stairs (they are fat)

Even if you added lifts, including big cargo ones to move their e-bikes, they'd still be sweaty

 

[Amber the Hedgehog]

I wonder why Redditors would have a strong aversion to climbing stairs (they are fat)

To be fair, stairs are more dangerous than just a flat ground. Stairs are still the preferable choice in many places because they are easy to build, don't require electricity, space efficient and fairly comfortable to normies but they have their downsides. Stairs are easy to trip on and if you do you potentially fall on multiple hard sharp corners. They can also be difficult for many disabled people from blind to missing limbs. Stairs and weels are a bad combo and that can really be annoying if downright dangerous.

 

[quaawaa]

The Daily Rake has a great article series going after these Bugman faggots.

PSA: Debunking the Traffic Soyboys Part 2 - Yes Virginia, You Should be Able to Walk to the Grocery Store (and Without Being Stabbed) - The Daily Rake

I began and ended my previous piece agreeing with the premise that modern suburbia is terrible. In between I dunked on a snarky midwit who was making absurd arguments in service of the absurd premise that banning cars is desirable and serious policy. But it’s important not to get Finkled into...

dailyrake.ca

The author didn’t mention this because he’s enamored with small grocery stores, but I find it funny that bugmen demand absolute space efficiency when it comes to transportation and housing but have zero problem having 20 identical grocery stores which carry fewer unique items and whose combined area is larger than the single large grocery store. Also, the large grocery store can be stocked directly from a semi, whereas the smaller stores need a fleet of vans/small trucks.

The “big box” grocery store is more efficient and their economies of scale are not exaggerated. There are plenty of places where a small store could be set up, even in single-family zoned areas, but the economics is just way in favor of the big store. The only thing more efficient is online shopping which removes the store entirely.

It’s just funny that people who demand you use centralized transit and live in large shared buildings instead of small individual ones for efficiency reasons also want distributed stores instead of centralized ones despite their inherent inefficiencies.