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

WTF are they teaching in Advanced Placement classes now if urbanist YouTubers are study material?
1746550225145.webp
For context, APHUG refers to AP Human Geography, a class about land use. Never heard of this class even though I was an AP Alpha in high school (and not an IB Beta) but this seems like a class only available at a very fancy private school (So another spoiled rich contrarian here) as typically the only APs available at the school I went to were the College 101 basics (US and European History, Economics, Government, Languages, Sciences, Calculus, etc.) and not this very niche shit that potentially doesn't give any potential credit for college (The whole point of APs).
 
Why is there a 1488? Well could it be because there's a 1487? And they're going up in sequential order?
The FM designation is mostly unique to Texas, it's a non-highway state road (paved) that literally stands for "Farm-to-Market" because that's what all of them were originally (and yes, farmers who weren't dirt-poor took their wares to town on a truck or car, even by 1930). Obviously, FM 1488 and other Houston-area roads have turned into suburban thoroughfares (or "stroads" as the urbanists say) as growth has continued, with some FM roads functionally turned into not-quite-freeway highways in some capacity (nearby State Highway 249 was originally part of FM 149, for example) but the vast majority are still little rural not-quite highways that can make for great scenic routes.

Back in January, they were complaining about Wellborn and College Station, with the subject of widening, FM 2154, another such farm to market road (and surprise, surprise, the road was busier and more developed because of sprawl). Most of this stuff is fairly recent and well-documented with Street View or older aerials that just show farmland, it's not like when they point to a blurry image of a downtown from before 1950 and claim highways magically turned it into a ghost town.
 
/r/fuckcars member gets his first car...and loves it:
1746623147143.webp

Comments tell him not to feel guilty because believers are allowed to drive cars:
1746623323167.webp
1746623164846.webp
1746623196354.webp
1746623268977.webp

Source (Archive)
 
Saw this thought you guys might appreciate it. It's a fantastic experience as a tourist, its a nightmare for anyone living, let alone working/having a business.
The irony is that they do often build stuff like in the United States as planned developments, but then urbanists sneer at them for being malls and not "real". Amsterdam-Centrum's canals were built in medieval times, and besides, Amsterdam-Centrum's population and commercial mix have been gutted for tourist bars, shops, DUDE WEED shops, and brothels.

- There’s no mention of why trams were replaced in most places. Apparently, it’s all the fault of cars. But if trams were so great, why were most lines shut down in the first place? There’s a list on Wikipedia, and most of them are closed.
Well, you know the answer they'll give--the long-disproved theory that General Motors bought perfectly functional streetcars to replace them with buses. Nevermind that this isn't what happened and there were plenty of lines that replaced streetcars with buses without any (supposedly) corporate meddling.

The noise people complain about the most is sharp loud sounds out of the quiet. Bars/clubs are generally constantly the same volume so you can easily get used to it and ignore it.
Bars also tend to encourage spontaneous hooting and hollering, which would be a "sharp loud noise" that would wake one up.

I think the reason why most of these people don't care about bar noise and street festivals and whatnot and specifically is due purely to the fact that they are rootless and itinerant people with no family or true friends, and alcoholics on top of that. They work shitty dead-end customer service jobs and drown themselves in alcohol regularly because that's their only definition of fun; drinking. Read their posts and realize that they just want to be 19 forever and they're the ones who are at the bar until oh dark every night getting blasted, so of course they aren't going to complain about the noise they're making.
It's possible that like black people and chirping smoke alarms, your brain has zoned it out so it's not a problem...on the other hand they lie all the time so there's a good chance that they know bar noise is a major problem but choose to ignore it for ideological reasons (and I wouldn't be surprised if there's some answer like "bars have to play music loud to drown out the cars" out there).

This is total youtube essayist bullshit. At least in Europe, many trams use the stephenson track gauge (1435mm), and use overhead wires for power, just like trains. That's where the similarities end. Trams run on lower voltage - usually 500-700V DC. Normal trains use much higher voltages like 3000V DC and sometimes even 15kV and 25kV AC. And even if you could adapt a tram to run at these voltages, the tram cars are not built for such high speeds to run on inter-city tracks and they do not have any of the safety and signalling equipment that is necesary to do so. Trams run at most 30mph, and thats only if the tracks are well maintained. You will never be a train.
As I understand it there's a bunch of idiosyncracies about train tracks, even without the overhead line issue. For example, light rail tracks (in addition to having far too tight curves for a real train) just aren't built to the same standards as real trains are, especially when it comes to bridges. Generally, you can use real train tracks to light rail/tram use, but never the other way around.

So it's a county trunk highway then?
I wouldn't call them highways even, they're numbered state routes and are maintained by the state rather than by the city. In Houston, we've discussed Westheimer Road before, which used to be an actual road out to the farms (there was a side-by-side picture I did of the farms in the 1940s versus completely developed now); FM 1960 is the same way. It's further out, but what used to be a rural road is now full of stoplights and is a major traffic corridor with restaurants, major stores, gas stations, apartment complexes, and so on.

But out in the country, it's a very different type of road. You can see some safety upgrades have been made, but there's no shoulders like the state highways have (rural state highways often have wide shoulders which can make for good bike lanes—if you really were serious about bicycling and not just some dork who larps as a pro athlete). Thankfully for those that want to bicycle around the state, there's no shortage of lesser-used highways that are more accommodating than the typical major routes.

Comments tell him not to feel guilty because believers are allowed to drive cars:
You can see just how much the pH level has changed in the last few years. It used to be that it "no, we don't hate cars, that's just hyperbole see, all we want is alternatives" and now most of them don't even bother with that.
 
/r/fuckcars wants to tariff the suburbs:
1746660301815.webp


Article in post:
This private information is unavailable to guests due to policies enforced by third-parties.
Source (Archive)

They flat out admit that they want congestion charges to tax commuters:
1746660322833.webp

1746660350728.webp


1746660630699.webp

1746660493122.webp

There are plenty of cheap walkable areas (e.g. Chicago) and plenty of expensive single family home areas (e.g. Silicon Valley):
1746660372636.webp


The article is written by a Leaf, and Canada does have internal tariffs:
1746660523340.webp

Be careful what you wish for:
1746661104561.webp

Source (Archive)
 
Article in post:
Crossposting from different thread:
The core idea that "suburbanites aren't paying their FAIR SHARE" is from a theory presented by former engineer Charles Marohn (who was even less as a "civil engineer" as Rekeita was a "lawyer", even at his peak) that the lower land value of single-family homes in an area can't pay for infrastructure. This was both based on a budget of Ferguson, Missouri which he claimed was "insolvent" by taking out loans on road infrastructure (the loans were not for road infrastructure--he either lied or misread it).

He of course made no corrections for anything else (paying taxes to subsidize urban projects that they'll never see), or understanding that suburbs benefit the city far more with tax dollars (going to shop/eat/cultural events), or the wastrels that live in the cities and contribute nothing but problems, or, most importantly, accounting that more often than not, suburbs are entirely separate municipalities with distinct budgets, so Plano does not "subsidize" Dallas, or Waltham "subsidize" Boston.
 
The core idea that "suburbanites aren't paying their FAIR SHARE"
The easiest way to refute that is to point out how eager cities are to grab suburbs and how adamantly they oppose them leaving.


APHUG refers to AP Human Geography, a class about land use. Never heard of this class even though I was an AP Alpha in high school
My public school was poor and they had it.
It was actually really interesting and covered a lot of stuff on why cities and suburbs exist, why US and European cities differ, and the demographic transition resulting from industrialization.

Really cool course, but that was decades ago. I’m sure it’s more pozzed now.
 
Last edited:
The easiest way to refute that is to point out how eager cities are to grab suburbs and how adamantly they oppose them leaving.

Yup. 2024 was when urbanists got BTFO when their ideas hit the harsh waters of reality. I brought up the Baltimore bridge collapse to the point where even the left rags admitted that the traffic got worse in the rest of the city (to no surprise with anybody with a functional brain) but it's also easy to forget (it was a long year) that the Louisiana Supreme Court affirming 4-3 of the incorporation of Saint George, Louisiana, noting that it was entirely possible for the new city to be solvent, and that most of the money goes back to the East Baton Rouge Parish anyway (the mall and a bunch of major retail stores stayed with Baton Rouge)...and since Baton Rouge proper is infested with unskilled Basketball-Americans, not being able to benefit from the mostly-white unincorporated areas pissed them off. (The other thing is that when it comes to urbanism, even city-dwellers dislike bike lanes).
 
Comments tell him not to feel guilty because believers are allowed to drive cars:
We're already seeing the narrative change from a blanket "cars are bad" to "cars are really effective, but too effective so only a select few should deserve them because".

We've already established that some of the proponents of urbanism in this thread live in houses and not commie blocks so hypocrisy comes naturally to them.

Let's just change it to what it really is r/fuckotherpeopleowningcars
 
Last edited:
Crossposting from different thread:
The core idea that "suburbanites aren't paying their FAIR SHARE" is from a theory presented by former engineer Charles Marohn (who was even less as a "civil engineer" as Rekeita was a "lawyer", even at his peak) that the lower land value of single-family homes in an area can't pay for infrastructure. This was both based on a budget of Ferguson, Missouri which he claimed was "insolvent" by taking out loans on road infrastructure (the loans were not for road infrastructure--he either lied or misread
California has had low property taxes for 50 years. There are other ways to fund these things.
 
Californian property taxes are extremely high unless you're a member of the landed gentry whose family owned property before Prop 13 was passed.
False. Prop 13 also caps the max. Look it up. We have low property taxes. It’s a slightly above average tax state overall when you put everything in and don’t cherry pick People just say shit like that because muh librul coast, but the east coast states are way, way worse.

Lmao property taxes here are lower than Texas. Income and use taxes are where we make it up. And that was my point to begin with. (^;
IMG_0106.webp
IMG_0107.webp
 
Last edited:
Californian property taxes are extremely high unless you're a member of the landed gentry whose family owned property before Prop 13 was passed.
These days you only need a few years to get a pretty good benefit. Obviously California hates people "owning" stuff and wants to remove the incentives to stay in one place, luckily most of the population still realizes that's not a great idea, who knows how much longer that will last.
 
False. Prop 13 also caps the max. Look it up. We have low property taxes. It’s a slightly above average tax state overall when you put everything in and don’t cherry pick People just say shit like that because muh librul coast, but the east coast states are way, way worse.

Lmao property taxes here are lower than Texas. Income and use taxes are where we make it up. And that was my point to begin with. (^;View attachment 7332931View attachment 7332959
Yes, but in California, since your house is worth an order of magnitude more than a similar house in a cheaper state, you still pay more dollars despite the lower rate.
 
Lmao property taxes here are lower than Texas. Income and use taxes are where we make it up. And that was my point to begin with. (^;
Notice that says "owner-occupied houses" meaning it only applies to houses where you own and live, and not property taxes in general. This means your average Texas suburbanite is already paying plenty. Where taxes get complicated is what is considered an "improvement", or in property-tax speak, a building or permanent structure (including signage).

When they say "it's YOUR land, you can do what you with it" they're talking about big landlords snapping up single family homes and redeveloping them into dense townhomes/mixed use. But they run into problems when you have a parking lot in an urban area because whoever owns it would rather run it as parking even if there's no parking minimums. Urbanists don't like that idea either, so what you see in some of the slightly smarter ones is rewriting tax code to a flat land value tax to legislate parking lots out of existence.
 
We're already seeing the narrative change from a blanket "cars are bad" to "cars are really effective, but too effective so only a select few should deserve them because".

We've already established that some of the proponents of urbanism in this thread live in houses and not commie blocks so hypocrisy comes naturally to them.

Let's just change it to what it really is r/fuckotherpeopleowningcars
The Onion nailed this 25 years ago. (a)
 
Back