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

[Lemon-Lime Turpentine]

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

 

[AltisticRight]

>Force people to use public transport systems
What if it doesn't exist? Like it or not a lot of city planning took place before people really understood induced demand and mass transport systems. It took an authoritarian state like China to show how well it could work (in theory, CPC technically owns all the land). There are many regional communities where public transport just doesn't exist. There's no budget and there's no demand.

Here's an example:

Griffith is a major regional town. To get there, I can either take two consecutive trains (pretty expensive, $70), or save about $50 or so with the first fucking all-stops option.
Or I can drive, which takes about 6.5 hours.

This same trip takes about 2.5-3.5 hours in China and around the same cost (yuan to dollar 1:1, otherwise it's cheaper but that's not fair). That's where people would take public transport instead of driving, or the miserable trip above, where you won't have phone signal for a good 60% of the trip.
Even China's stuff is far from perfect. The HSR stop of many regional cities are pretty far away from city centres. Chances are, you will have to take a bus to and from the stations. Ideally, these stations should be situated in the busiest areas but those also have protected landmarks the CPC would like to leave alone.

They're not even making sense anymore. I'm pretty sure they'll get mad if their Amazon delivery arrived a day late.

 

[Baraka Obama]

>Force people to use public transport systems
What if it doesn't exist? Like it or not a lot of city planning took place before people really understood induced demand and mass transport systems. It took an authoritarian state like China to show how well it could work (in theory, CPC technically owns all the land). There are many regional communities where public transport just doesn't exist. There's no budget and there's no demand.

Here's an example:
View attachment 5913625
Griffith is a major regional town. To get there, I can either take two consecutive trains (pretty expensive, $70), or save about $50 or so with the first fucking all-stops option.
Or I can drive, which takes about 6.5 hours.

This same trip takes about 2.5-3.5 hours in China and around the same cost (yuan to dollar 1:1, otherwise it's cheaper but that's not fair). That's where people would take public transport instead of driving, or the miserable trip above, where you won't have phone signal for a good 60% of the trip.
Even China's stuff is far from perfect. The HSR stop of many regional cities are pretty far away from city centres. Chances are, you will have to take a bus to and from the stations. Ideally, these stations should be situated in the busiest areas but those also have protected landmarks the CPC would like to leave alone.

They're not even making sense anymore. I'm pretty sure they'll get mad if their Amazon delivery arrived a day late.

• Whats the population of Griffith? How does that compare to Bumfuck, China, population 2 million?
• How profitable is the highspeed train to Bumfuck, China even? You might want to act like it doesn't matter but it really does for maintenance which gets me to
• Would you really trust this?

Beyond that induced demand is a false narrative cooked up by people with an agenda who want to make your life miserable.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

View attachment 5913589

The original text said "Join a car-sharing club today" and for many years in the late 20th century, carpooling was considered to be an environmentally-friendly alternative to driving alone, to the point where local transit companies got to retrofit almost every existing urban freeway with HOV lanes.

When you have to further distort propaganda to fit your propaganda you're a massive faggot.

View attachment 5913590

This guy is an even bigger faggot. The urbanist desires to sit down and play a Nintendo Switch while you do nothing, which is exactly what he has the opportunity to do. This screams "fuck you, dad" energy more than anything else.

 

[gagabobo1997]

At a certain wealth level (varies by place), a lot of places that are shitholes (from Los Angeles to Venezuela) become a lot better. If I was making seven figures, I wouldn't mind California so much.

If you are making seven figures a large coastal city is almost the ideal place to live when it comes to business/networking/social life.
But not because of the public transport. You'd probably drive a nice car and avoid taking the bus/train with all the plebs

 

[AltisticRight]

• Whats the population of Griffith? How does that compare to Bumfuck, China, population 2 million?
• How profitable is the highspeed train to Bumfuck, China even? You might want to act like it doesn't matter but it really does for maintenance which gets me to
• Would you really trust this?

Beyond that induced demand is a false narrative cooked up by people with an agenda who want to make your life miserable.

>Whats the population of Griffith? How does that compare to Bumfuck, China, population 2 million?
"Two million" isn't bumfuck nowhere. Bumfuck nowhere in China would be less than 100k, and there are countless towns like that with both highways for cars and HSR.
>Profit?
You're right, it doesn't matter. We pay taxes. Public transport is never going to be profitable. I'd take any of that over bailing out banks and endless gay wars to kill Muslims for Israel and create more chaos in the region, which I never signed up for.
>But trains are dangerous
Yeah, all forms of trains are deadly, so are cars, trucks, buses...
I'll use Japan to avoid hurt feelings because I can't understand what you're trying to say.

How is a dumb redditor long-haul ban even feasible?

Griffith has a small population of 20k but that's quite large as far as Australian towns go.

The town is tucked somewhere between Sydney and Adelaide, a stop can easily be made for the smaller, but major towns along the way.
Japan's Shinkansen covers many buttfuck nowhere towns. Shizukuishi is a mountain village with less than 20k people.

That's not the case for most places.

Spoiler: Trigger warning: Chyna

Many regional villages are considered satellites of closer major cities, much like Parramatta being a major suburb/region within Sydney.
Liangdang, ~40k
Arxan, ~40k
The first one is literally fucking where and the following is becoming a popular tourist destination. No one would even care about them without some form of easy way to get there.

Here's the worst HSR collision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenzhou_train_collision
40 people were killed.
I remember another that killed 9 rail workers which got the public pissed at the rail ministry and one that killed a driver after the train was caught in a landslide. The first one was inexcusable and plain operator error. Either way, people die when things go fast.

There's another nasty derailment that happened in 福知山 which killed 107 people.
Nasty stuff. That was Japan btw.

If I'm gonna worry about being killed in a freak accident when billions commute safely on the daily, I don't know what I should do. Maybe cry about it on Reddit.

Induced demand isn't a conspiracy to make "your life miserable", it's well established. The Redditor spergs are just shoehorning their own interpretation from confirmation bias. When a new road it built, it's not gonna make other roads less congested. It will simply open up to more commuters who otherwise wouldn't have used it in the first place, that's induced demand. More people are using it. Is that a bad thing? It depends on if you're a braindead redditor or a normal person.
Simply widening or building more roads isn't going to do shit. The same applies to public transport. If our elected officials are going to brainlessly roll this out (new roads or new trains), that's when your life really becomes miserable.

 

[Judge Dredd]

View attachment 5913589View attachment 5913590

I'm guessing they love 15 minute cities.

 

[quaawaa]

Induced demand isn't a conspiracy to make "your life miserable", it's well established. The Redditor spergs are just shoehorning their own interpretation from confirmation bias.

It’s well established by morons who’ve never studied economics. Induced demand actually is latent demand caused by decades of embezzling tax money instead of investing in infrastructure. It is entirely possible to build your way out of congestion, but you actually have to build as your population increases.

When a new road it built, it's not gonna make other roads less congested.

It absolutely does. Adding a new highway lane removes traffic from surface streets even if the highway has the same level of congestion as before.

It will simply open up to more commuters who otherwise wouldn't have used it in the first place, that's induced demand. More people are using it. Is that a bad thing? It depends on if you're a braindead redditor or a normal person.

Only if there are more people living there.
What causes an increase in congestion is an increase in population, and cities that have expanded their roads as their populations have grown have noticeably less congestion than cities that didn’t.

The conspiracy behind “induced demand” is that it applies to everything where there is a shortage of supply, not just roads, but urbanists never apply “induced demand” to things they like such as housing, bike lanes, and transit. They believe in not building roads because people would use them while simultaneously believing that building transit that no one will use is a good investment.

 

[AltisticRight]

It absolutely does. Adding a new highway lane removes traffic from surface streets even if the highway has the same level of congestion as before.

Only if there are more people living there.

We agree then. Maybe the way I see it was inaccurate.
New roads = more people would use it, who otherwise wouldn't.
So there's more cars on the road. Not necessarily because there's more people in cities, but that's also usually the case.

Most cities will see an increase in population anyway, that's why it's important to keep up. In the end, there's no visible difference.
I'm not an economist but that makes sense to me, something being induced.

I'll still take new infrastructure over new proxy wars or warmongering because chinks/vatniks are totally going to nuke us tomorrow. I'm not sure what these redditors want. We can have better roads and better tracks. They're going no where with the endless drivel of banning everything with wheels that's not a bus or a train (or a bike).

 

[Xarpho's Return]

Induced demand isn't a conspiracy to make "your life miserable", it's well established. The Redditor spergs are just shoehorning their own interpretation from confirmation bias. When a new road it built, it's not gonna make other roads less congested. It will simply open up to more commuters who otherwise wouldn't have used it in the first place, that's induced demand. More people are using it. Is that a bad thing? It depends on if you're a braindead redditor or a normal person.
Simply widening or building more roads isn't going to do shit. The same applies to public transport. If our elected officials are going to brainlessly roll this out (new roads or new trains), that's when your life really becomes miserable.

Of course we've heard about induced demand, and by "well-established" I assume it's because of the dozens and dozens videos on YouTube talking about it. It doesn't make it true, however; it was a single study that was misrepresented by Wired magazine and propagated through various urbanists. You can see the original report and some comments here. Short version is that the original paper is highly flawed and does not even account for population growth (or the fact that traffic can be used for the economy).

New roads = more people would use it, who otherwise wouldn't.
So there's more cars on the road. Not necessarily because there's more people in cities, but that's also usually the case.

Assuming population is stable, that's not the case. We're not deranged Redditors, we know cars don't just "appear", and people don't just drive on the new highway just because they can. (Maybe once.)

Highways will tend to relocate cars off of surface streets, which in theory Redditors should praise, since it means less cars in the "city" and on "stroads". Even in a macro sense, that's true--the mass bypassing of the Interstate highway systems of small towns and the loss of traffic put the screws to a lot of small-town economies that relied on that traffic.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Hating on road trips gives the lie to their bullshit as roadtrips are one of the times where cars beat damn near everything else, because a road trip car is almost always packed with people.

Road trips exist because the cost to fly a family across the US is batshit insane.

 

[FILTH Tourist]

View attachment 5913589

God I hate riding with Hitler. All the dude does is hog my radio and complain about my choice of music.

View attachment 5913590

This guy doesn't give a single fuck about taking in the views. A car you have damn near 360 vision with all the windows. Meanwhile a train has a small porthole and you can really only enjoy it if you luck out and get a window seat.

This guy is an even bigger faggot. The urbanist desires to sit down and play a Nintendo Switch while you do nothing, which is exactly what he has the opportunity to do. This screams "fuck you, dad" energy more than anything else.

I can feel the bitterness from when his family had to drive out of state to visit grandma for Thanksgiving.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

That Road Guy Rob guy is the strongest arguments for transit I've seen in quite awhile, it's no wonder they hate him.

 

[Xarpho's Return]

That Road Guy Rob guy is the strongest arguments for transit I've seen in quite awhile, it's no wonder they hate him.

Remember...urbanists cry about "we just want alternatives to driving" while RGR understands that you need transit, bicycles, and roadways for a healthy transportation ecosystem. The reason they hate him is because the "we just want alternatives" is a complete lie, just like "we just want to be tolerated" was used for the LGBT lobby years before.

 

[LaxerBRO]

A video on removing highways:

What I want to highlight is the concept of induced demand and it's relation to population growth. In the video, City Beautiful highlights how a highway can be replaced if traffic falls below a certain level but that bring up the issue of induced demand (build just one more lane).

Specially, I propose that given how long it takes to build a highway lane, the local population grows beyond what that lane addition can accommodate. Such, it's not that more people are choosing to drive, it's that their are more people in general.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Such, it's not that more people are choosing to drive, it's that their are more people in general.

This is so obvious to everyone but not to the carfuckers, and it's hilarious.

Otherwise Detroit (or any dying city) could have saved itself by just building more lanes! Induced demand would fill them up!

 

[Xarpho's Return]

What I want to highlight is the concept of induced demand and it's relation to population growth. In the video, City Beautiful highlights how a highway can be replaced if traffic falls below a certain level but that bring up the issue of induced demand (build just one more lane).

Specially, I propose that given how long it takes to build a highway lane, the local population grows beyond what that lane addition can accommodate. Such, it's not that more people are choosing to drive, it's that their are more people in general.

Even so, the Rochester freeway example was maybe a quarter of a downtown mini-loop highway. If you look at downtown Rochester I-490 runs along the south end and originally a loop highway went around it (2.3 miles). Less than half of this was cut off and yet urbanists treat this as some sort of victory. Note that even in the thumbnail there's barely any traffic on it--but I thought cars would just appear on the freeway as soon as its built!

 

[Apple Porcupine]

Even so, the Rochester freeway example was maybe a quarter of a downtown mini-loop highway. If you look at downtown Rochester I-490 runs along the south end and originally a loop highway went around it (2.3 miles). Less than half of this was cut off and yet urbanists treat this as some sort of victory. Note that even in the thumbnail there's barely any traffic on it--but I thought cars would just appear on the freeway as soon as its built!

The Inner Loop is an odd victory urbanists have rallied around considering the fact that the entire reason it was allowed by the city to be partially demolished was because traffic had decreased significantly because residents and jobs had been moving away from the city center for years. These people routinely bemoan "suburban sprawl" while failing to realize that was what allowed this to happen at all. Like don't get me wrong, Rochester seems to be better off without that portion of the highway, in fact its census data shows its population finally increased after decades of decreasing, but this was a unique case where the highway was deemed to be more trouble than it was worth, it's almost like every case is unique and it isn't just "cars bad".

It also only happened because of federal funding (also mentioned in the study I linked above), which runs counter to their glorious leader's notion of urbanism being a "bottom-up movement" where "federal government doesn't really matter." One of these days I'm going to write up a bit about Chuck, he's largely been ignored ever since his engineering debacle awhile back but I find it really funny that he's basically a hardline Republican but he can no longer espouse those views because Jason's audience is so liberal and he doesn't want to scare them (and their money) away.

 

[quaawaa]

Jason plans to make a video about how Japan is car-centric:

Source (Archive)