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

[quaawaa]

Look at those stupid carbrains stuck in traffic trying to escape a hurricane:


They should use a train instead:




Source (Archive)

The train:

This private information is unavailable to guests due to policies enforced by third-parties.

Source (Archive)

 

[The Jewel of the Nile]

Have they ever actually taken a train and looked carefully at what's below the wheels? Sure, those rocks can withstand some rain but enough rainfall can displace them and the entire line is FUBAR. Repairing train lines is difficult as hell and time consuming. By the way- this exact scenario happened in Poland last month during the heavy rainfall and subsequent floods.
Also I'm not seeing any "oversized vehicles". We euros have the same cars.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

Train speeds have nothing to do with if it's government owned or not, it has to do with maintenance (better track quality = higher speeds) and straighter, more even tracks (more mountains = slower speeds) with also lower speed in populated areas.

You're thinking about the theoretical maximum speed; they're complaining about the overall average speed. The cope is that long-distance trains would be much more competitive if they didn't have to wait for freight trains, etc. Which is true, they WOULD be a bit faster average speed; but the reality is that unless you have true high-sped rail on dedicated lines, it's not that much faster than a car, assuming the train isn't a direct-shot, no stations.

They should use a train instead:

The last time trains were used to move large amounts of people they didn't seem to like it so much ....

Ignoring, of course, that trains CAN move large amounts of people but if anything goes wrong with the rails, they're screwed.

Even busses are better and can go to different places and on different roads (even off road a bit if needed).

 

[Midwit]

It appears that Jason used the London Underground as a stand-in as the only fully electric option beside International rail (Eurorail).

Outside of main lines, metros and SR's old network most rail in the UK isn't electrified, which means that if you're going anywhere that isn't a major city you'll be burning diesel. Most DMUs can hit 60mph quite easily and main line stock travels at a steady 100mph, which is a fair bit quicker than using the British motorway system, precision nonwithstanding.

 

[quaawaa]

Someone asked /r/transit if Zurich's downtown rail lines are as destructive to walkability as a highway:



Of course, it's totally different because train good, car bad:

Spoiler: Even compared to the largest highways in the world, the rail yard is still larger

The 401 is ~275 ft wide:

The tracks in Zurich are 400 ft wide at the station and over 1500 ft wide at its widest point:

This is also right downtown while the 401 is deep into suburban Toronto. A fairer comparison would be the Gardiner Expressway, but that's half the size of the 401 and is elevated so it's easy to cross it on foot. Toronto Urbanists still hate it though even though it's dwarfed by rail tracks a few blocks north:


If we bring up their old favorite the Katy Freeway, it's only ~400 ft wide including frontage roads, i.e. the same width as the Zurich station:

So if a highway was built in the middle of nowhere then there would be nothing wrong with it?:



The street grid is less connected than the average American urban freeway which have bridges/tunnels every block (there's a kilometer stretch between access points in Zurich):

For example, I-5 in Seattle is <300 ft wide and has a bridge on every block (except in Capital Hill, a hipster neighborhood which like its name suggests is built on top of a very steep hill making bridges very difficult to build; even then the longest stretch without bridges in the downtown area is the same length as in Zurich):



Source (Archive)

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

For example, I-5 in Seattle is <300 ft wide and has a bridge on every block (except in Capital Hill, a hipster neighborhood which like its name suggests is built on top of a very steep hill making bridges very difficult to build; even then the longest stretch without bridges in the downtown area is the same length as in Zurich):

This is hilarious because a quick look at Seattle shows that there are two much larger things dividing the city:



a fucking lake and lake/canal, the freeway is just a footnote, especially in seattle where much of it is "below grade" anyway so you don't even have to "climb up" to get over it.

 

[Lobster Cult High Priest]

Amtrak doesn't have jannies on the train so the bathroom became disgusting:

Ironic his reason for taking the train was because he doesn't have to stop to take a piss while at the same time Jason couldn't use the Filthy (more filthy than 90% of truck stop washrooms) on the Amtrak.

Rather than driving from Toronto to London, he spent $510 to take the train instead:

Toronto to London costs me maybe $50-60 in Gas.

Also the drive isn't that bad if you leave at decent times (early in the morning on weekends) (when the full force of Torontonian Retards aren't out)

But of course a car can go anywhere, eat anything. But you usually stop traveling while eating, which is a train advantage.

Not if you're skilled.

I dont have any experience with long distance rail but it does seem like a shittier variant of taking a bus, lots of stops, mediocre leg room, 14+ hour journey, etc. Its fucking hilarious how much he copes when the total time idle on an airport always has higher chances of comfort since most idle time takes place on terminals that are almost always decently kept. PL, but even total shitshows like the Mexico City airport still have comfortable enough amenities that shit over the cramped space on rail or bus. Even budget airlines with shit legroom are more often net positives as long as you take the due dilligence to prep for the bullshit, which admittedly is more of a mixed point, but i think even the most budget airlines cost less than an amtrak ride

Buses are worse, they have all the disadvantages of trains but even worse. You are stuck in even smaller seats, can't get up to stretch and your usually sitting next to either Smelly Niggers, Jeets, White Methheads or Elderly Chinks.

I used to take the Megabus (usually $20, even though they advertise $2-4 if you book 6 months in advance) to get from University to Toronto and then I would walk down University Ave to Union Station to take the Go Train the rest of the way (another $10 unless I hopped on without paying since they never checked the line to Barrie)

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

Long-distance trains can (but don't always) have an actual kitchen with actual stoves where they can cook food. You rise to diner-level there (think: Denny's).

I think trains can afford to be heavier than planes, tho.

 

[indomitable snowman]

Have they ever actually taken a train and looked carefully at what's below the wheels? Sure, those rocks can withstand some rain but enough rainfall can displace them and the entire line is FUBAR. Repairing train lines is difficult as hell and time consuming. By the way- this exact scenario happened in Poland last month during the heavy rainfall and subsequent floods.
Also I'm not seeing any "oversized vehicles". We euros have the same cars.

See damage from Helene.

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

I think trains can afford to be heavier than planes, tho.

Fun fact: the locomotive generates about as much power as a jet engine.

 

[Yamamura]

Going back and forth until it is no longer feasible.

So if you miss the last train when they decide to call it, that's just so long good luck I suppose.

 

[The Dog]

I dont have any experience with long distance rail but it does seem like a shittier variant of taking a bus, lots of stops, mediocre leg room, 14+ hour journey, etc. Its fucking hilarious how much he copes when the total time idle on an airport always has higher chances of comfort since most idle time takes place on terminals that are almost always decently kept. PL, but even total shitshows like the Mexico City airport still have comfortable enough amenities that shit over the cramped space on rail or bus. Even budget airlines with shit legroom are more often net positives as long as you take the due dilligence to prep for the bullshit, which admittedly is more of a mixed point, but i think even the most budget airlines cost less than an amtrak ride

I have some limited experience with long distance rail in the US and overall it’s fine. To be fair I did go with the pricier option so it definitely was more comfortable, but I enjoyed it. It looks like NJB got some of the shittier cafe food, which I don’t know if it’s just a bad photo but the food I had on my train was better. Also, if you’re traveling in first class, there is a dedicated dining car where they serve full meals, included in the price of the ticket. The food was actually really good, not 5 star but better than anything I’ve had on a plane. Really, the main advantage of a train is also being able to get a good view of all of the nature around you. I also did pay up for the private room, which was super comfortable. Wifi is a bit spotty. Overall, I spent around $550 on a 20 hour trip. Was it worth it? For me, yes, but as others in the thread have said it’s 100% an experience thing. It’s worth nothing I did it once and every other time I’ve taken the trip I’ve done it through airplane because it makes life so much easier.

 

[Return of the Freaker]

I took Amtrak business class roundtrip from Cleveland to Buffalo a couple years ago for work. It was actually cheaper than a flight and given the winter weather conditions around Buffalo that week there would've been flight delays and cancellations and haha fuck you not driving in that if I can avoid it. The heating broke on the train to Buffalo but I had my jacket. Had a decent breakfast sandwich and coffee.

Only downside is Amtrak arrives/departs from Cleveland at retard o'clock in the morning.

 

[Aero the Alcoholic Bat]

Only downside is Amtrak arrives/departs from Cleveland at retard o'clock in the morning.

Forgive my autism, but does that mean a stupidly early time in the day, or the time of day when all the retards are on the train?

 

[Return of the Freaker]

Forgive my autism, but does that mean a stupidly early time in the day, or the time of day when all the retards are on the train?

It's stupid early. 3-5, maybe 6 AM

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

The best thing about Amtrak and retard o’clock is they’re usually late as fuck so you at least arrive at a normal time. If they’re late enough AND you’re in a sleeper you can sometimes even finagle an extra meal (though they sometimes run out of food lol).

It sucks if you’re catching the train because you may have to show up at 4AM and hang around until 9 when it actually arrives

It's stupid early. 3-5, maybe 6 AM

 

[Meriasek]

Food doesn't "taste terrible on altitude", it's because airplane food is all reheated; there's no way to cook on an airplane beyond reheating.

It does, apparently. Lower air pressure makes everything taste more bland, which is why drinks like tomato juice and Bloody Marys are popular on planes. Reheating doesn't help, of course. In the golden days of air travel they're put in a shitload of effort to make the fanciest meals for first class passengers, but in this age of mass transport it just can't be done.

Man, Jason has a really hard time making trains seem good in any way. They're expensive, take a long-ass time, and while they're comfortable to some degree, they're also less convenient.
Sure, you can't get up to take a piss in a car, but you can stop and take a leak. You can also switch drivers, and when you arrive you're very flexible with where you can go then and not dependent on further modes of transport. Although, one good thing about trains is that the train stations are usually quite central compared to airports. I went to London via the Eurostar once and it's really super convenient compared to flying, but only because I basically just had to switch trains once in Brussels.
The thing about meals is also funny. Who needs meal service on a two hour flight? Sure, if you're going for 12 hours you're gonna want to have food, but it's not needed for such a short flight.
Baggage restrictions and check in times are annoying for taking planes, but then again, on a train you're also somewhat limited by what you can carry later wherever you're going.
I wished trains were better, but they suck for the most part.

 

[quaawaa]

Someone on /r/urbanplanning notices that Strong Towns' theory doesn't match reality:

Link in comment (Archive)

The cope is that the suburbs are just better at hiding their "unfunded liabilities":



An actual urban planner tries to tell a Strong Towns Worshipper that they're wrong:

Muh Ponzi Scheme:

Debt doesn't matter:




Suburbanites are freeloaders:

It's unfair to judge compare NYC and Houston because NYC pays for transit and Houston doesn't:

Not sure how that strengthens their argument, but NYC doesn't pay for transit. New York transit is run by the MTA, which is a state agency. NYC also has a massive and very expensive aqueduct system to bring in water from suburban and rural areas; why would those areas buy water from NYC instead of using their local water?

There is one good comment thread though:

Source (Archive)

 

[reptile baht spaniard rid]

The cope is that the suburbs are just better at hiding their "unfunded liabilities":

This is the most infuriating and hilarious cope of the whole thing; because ALL OF THOSE are unfunded everywhere! If you try to "prefund" that shit, you end up like the USPS and killed by expenses for things you may not even need!

A road has a lifespan of 20 years say, with basic minor maintenance. I don't know, making up numbers. But the key is that it's an average - some of your roads will last much longer and some will have to be replaced sooner. Over-budgeting for road replacement would be insane, you'd end up with a ton of cash sloshing around with no real purpose.

The main reason the "walkable" cities seem to be more "fund the maintenance" is that they're almost always older - and so maintenance time has come around.

Seattle has wooden sewer pipes: https://www.king5.com/article/news/local/wooden-pipes-are-common-in-the-northwest/281-409936345 some of which are a hundred years old.

A 20 year old suburb is not going to have 100 year old pipes.

 

[Lobster Cult High Priest]

It's stupid early. 3-5, maybe 6 AM

So it’s Boomer train

Perfect time for Amtrak Joe Biden to be up and taking the train

Someone on /r/urbanplanning notices that Strong Towns' theory doesn't match reality:
View attachment 6499313
Link in comment (Archive)

The cope is that the suburbs are just better at hiding their "unfunded liabilities":
View attachment 6499317
View attachment 6499324
View attachment 6499323
An actual urban planner tries to tell a Strong Towns Worshipper that they're wrong:
View attachment 6499329View attachment 6499337
Muh Ponzi Scheme:
View attachment 6499340
Debt doesn't matter:
View attachment 6499316
View attachment 6499345
View attachment 6499391
View attachment 6499388
Suburbanites are freeloaders:
View attachment 6499347
It's unfair to judge compare NYC and Houston because NYC pays for transit and Houston doesn't:
View attachment 6499356
Not sure how that strengthens their argument, but NYC doesn't pay for transit. New York transit is run by the MTA, which is a state agency. NYC also has a massive and very expensive aqueduct system to bring in water from suburban and rural areas; why would those areas buy water from NYC instead of using their local water?

There is one good comment thread though:
View attachment 6499398
Source (Archive)

Lol the unfunded liabilities of municipal pensions. Aka grifter politicians (usually corrupt Niggers who run the town like a West African despot) getting platinum benefits and pension plans.