[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/n/ - Transportation

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
File
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 73 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: Gamers.jpg (63 KB, 720x711)
63 KB
63 KB JPG
Just my opinion, i find most normie transportation debate just boils down to self-righteous virtue signalling "i just watched an NJB video and now i want all vehicles completely banished" types VS the backwoods retard who insists that any sprinkle of alternative infrastructure is impeding on his freedom.
there's never any real debate or discussion (other than on here) about modern transit infra that doesn't end with a full out war.
used to be able to talk to people about transit, bike paths, roads and general infrastructural projects without every 17 year old who keys vans for fun chiming in with they're fierce moral objection to anything quad wheeled and motorized, and dodge sooper doody f-900 drivers who insist that it should be legal to run cyclists over for sport.
i feel like a lot of this split in opinion is a side effect of the states using cars as a "one size fits all" band-aid solution for the last 70 years, and the public finally seeking diversification, but instead of healthy discourse, people split into 2 extremes. its like this with every hot topic in the western world. your either completely on one side or the other. any opinion other than the 2 contrasting extremes does not matter in the slightest. its hard to talk about anything without the angriest most spiteful people coming out of the woodwork to pound you into dust for an opinion that does not resonate with them. i hope for a day i could have a normal discussion with people again.
what are your thoughts /n/?
>>
The car industry and the chunk of oil industry dependant on them are a multi-trillion dollar affair.
This is a cabal more powerful and influential than any cager wants to admit and any urbanist wants to think about.
The industry planted itself firm into all levels of politics, economy and culture, so much so that most people confuse their conditioning by their environment, culture and policies as their own unique and logical "preference" for cars.
The way I see it, the whole flaming pile of shit that is the discussion around transportation is just a reaction from the industry, some downstream effect of billions pouring into media and lobbying.
>>
File: yimby.png (341 KB, 1358x1460)
341 KB
341 KB PNG
>>1972215
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that, at least in english, the overwhelming majority of people with opinions on this topic don't experience public transport, or only experience it via their obligatory upper middle class spring break in europe, so other than their own emotions, their only real "knowledge" of the topic comes from a social media bubble amplified by rage fuel. And that very same social media bubble ONLY amplifies the rage fuel (such as that IDF guy whose opinions basically amount to "kill old people and hand over everything to developers" who somehow managed to get americans to consider him some sort of transit expert)

I take public transit every day and I don't own a car (though I know and am friend with many people who do). I live in an apartment and I talk to my neighbors every day. You'd think I'd be the one getting dogpiled for being a commie who hates freedom, but on /n/ I'm constantly getting dogpiled for being a shill for the oil industry or a "cagetroll".

The other thing is, kind of like how the southern strategy created an incomplete reversal in the polarity of the US political system (a fact which is sometimes disingenuously ignored by certain individuals when shitposting about how the dems want to bring back slavery), something similar has happened in the US with white flight followed by reverse white flight. So you get a lot of extremely inane trolling garbage about how elderly black people in 2024 who don't want to be thrown out of their homes to make way for a luxury development are the same thing as white people who didn't want blacks moving in to their gated suburban communities in 1966 and it's impossible to have a reasonable conversation because you're arguing with a brainwashed zoomzoom who doesn't know who barry goldwater is

>>1972223
Case in point. "Everything I don't like is from the oil industry"
>>
> i just watched an NJB video and now i want all vehicles completely banished" types

I have never seen a single poster like this on /n/ or even Reddit, but most cagers think if you want to build one bike lane then you want to take away everyone’s cars. Also I recognize OP, he’s a prolific schizo.
>>
>>1972250
Not op but he was obviously referring to you, not that this will get through to you since you're completely up your own ass
>>
File: 1689026521453743.gif (2.57 MB, 610x640)
2.57 MB
2.57 MB GIF
>what are your thoughts /n/?
why should anybody care what you think or how buttfrustrated you are about transit youtubers on other websites. you havent presented us with anything to talk about or discuss other than 'im vaguely mad as heck at this thing i just made up inside my own skull'. i'm not even going to dignify what you said with an earnest response. fuck you + go tread on some lego really hard in bare feet
>>
>>1972250
>if you want to build one bike lane then you want to take away everyone’s cars
But we do want that, Chang ;-)
>>
I find a similar conversation with roundabouts. Everyone either says "they suck I hate them wahh wahh wahh" or "every intersection should be a roundabout, no we can not have any signalized intersections".
I actually know a thing or 2 about roundabouts and I fucking hate both of these people. Those who hate them need to learn how to fucking drive. Those who love them need to get their head out of their ass.
Roundabouts generally work under medium traffic conditions with traffic generally coming from all directions all day.
The cons of them are they are space inefficient so if you have low traffic loads, a stop sign is much better. If you have high traffic loads you can see the roundabout getting clogged, and high directional traffic will "lock" people out approaching on the minor axis.
I like them, but they have a place and that place isn't everywhere.
>>
>>1972245
>on /n/ I'm constantly getting dogpiled for being a shill for the oil industry or a "cagetroll"
It hasn't always been like this. /n/ used to be a much slower board and the quality of discussions here have gone down the toilet in the past couple of years for some reason.
>>
>>1972313
Exactly. Simple one-lane roundabouts, especially in areas where cars may be turning left or right constantly, work a lot better than stop signs by allowing continuous flow 90% of the time.
>>
>>1972250
>muh cagers
great way to confirm OP's point
>>
>>1972251
>>1972354
He's not far off though. Any infrastructure that makes bike or pedestrian transit safer and more desirable will slow cars down and take physical road space from them. That's just the nature of the beast because 100% separated infrastructure is cost prohibitive. Drivers have been a privileged class in the US for over half a century, drivers today have never known a time when they weren't the most prioritized form of transportation. It feels like discrimination to them, even if the end result is a more equitable situation for everyone. So they fight it tooth and nail, often resorting to histrionic behavior like screeching "you just want to ban cars" to discredit their opposition.
>>
>>1972337
yes, but keep in mind the space inefficiency. It is a balance that needs to be struck. an example of a failure of a roundabout is on the Northern tip of Lake Tahoe in Kings Beach on highway 28. The highway is very heavily trafficked which causes a jam on the side streets as it is impossible to enter the round about. This is an example of where a signal would likely be more efficient for the side streets. some of these lead to the beach, others to neighborhoods.
>>
>>1972215
If at least, most of their leaders used intelligent arguments.
I mean, people need transportation. Not transit or roads. How you do it doesn't matter.
>>
>>1972373 (You)
>>1972250 (You)
Can you get a trip so I can filter you?

>>1972378
No, we can't actually adopt a results-oriented approach to transportation, we have to segment into factions and scream at each other like apes
>>
>>1972379
I'll see if I can find that other anon so we can share, but not much luck for you
>>
>>1972250
>if you want to build one bike lane then you want to take away everyone’s cars.
But that's what transit advocates advocate for
>parking minimums are bad, you should take a train in
>driving downtown is bad, we should congestion charge everyone so people take trains
>we need to close General Custard Blvd. so we can bike on it because I don't know, it's pretty or some shit
>adding another lane to the only highway between A and B can't possibly help the situation, even though that highway has 5 other highways dumping into it
>we need to close all the gas stations and replace them with techbro tesla plug-in centers and if you don't have an electric car already you're literally poisoning baby formula with your 4 cylinder's pollution
Meanwhile, I can't park within 4 blocks of my address's post office so heaven fucking forbid I have to pick something up or mail something on a weekday. Picking up a held package shouldn't require a 2 hour errand or hailing an uber.
I love trains. I want more trains. I want passenger trains running next to my house with high frequency. But there's not a train line there and there won't be a fucking train line there ever, so I absolutely abhor getting moral superiority arguments because I choose to own a car. It's honestly exhausting so I normally don't engage.
>>
butthurt schizo thread
>>
>>1972373
Actual quality post
>>
>>1972373
>Any infrastructure that makes bike or pedestrian transit safer and more desirable will slow cars down and take physical road space from them.
Not necessarily. You can upgrade sidewalks into multi-use paths or build whole separate systems like the town of Peachtree City, Georgia, which has a bike/golf cart system entirely separated from vehicles.
>Drivers have been a privileged class in the US for over half a century, drivers today have never known a time when they weren't the most prioritized form of transportation.
Privileged implies that there is nothing inherently better about something. Vehicles transport goods and services, take people to work, buy stuff, et cetera. The percentage of people who bicycle to work is around 1% nationally, and most cyclists do so recreationally. I would say that people who demand dedicated street bicycle lanes (no one is seriously demanding "car-only lanes") and receive them are the privileged ones--not drivers.
>equitable situation for everyone
Not really. Most streets don't need protected bike lanes, and for all the talk of "efficiency" and "best use", sometimes parking is a lot more useful and used than having a bike lane that is rarely used in comparison.
>>
File: washer.gif (1.89 MB, 161x121)
1.89 MB
1.89 MB GIF
>>1972416
>>1972373
(2/2)
>So they fight it tooth and nail
Once a bike lane or major street reconfiguration happens, it's permanent. And funny you mention "histrionic behavior" to "discredit their opposition" because whenever those sorts of debates come about, crying about the "oil lobby" and "selfish cagers/NIMBYs" is what usually happens.
>"you just want to ban cars" to discredit their opposition
Is it, though? Urbanists and cars act like the anti-gun lobby, arguing for "we don't want to BAN guns" yet demanding more restrictions and hoops every election cycle. After all, the urbanist crowd has stated their goal to ban larger trucks/SUVs (NJB's own video), crying about how anyone living in a single-family house needs to "pay their fair share", cries about freeways, cries about major avenues, cries about street parking, cries about business parking, cries about the industry, and so forth and so on, and then when you call them out for what they are, they whimper and cry about "alternatives to driving".

If anything, it's the classic case of "give an inch, they take a mile". It's not good enough outcome to turn a lane of a six-lane road to a four lane road plus a bike path anymore, and the second you say "no" to anything, out comes the namecalling. As urbanism radicalizes and gains ground, more and more people are seeing through this shit and the only retaliation is just calling them crazy as they move toward proving them right.
>>
>>1972373
>Drivers have been a privileged class in the US for over half a century, drivers today have never known a time when they weren't the most prioritized form of transportation.
That's democracy for you. It's not about the best. It's about the stuff people want. Most people don't care, and most people use cars. Sorry, we can't go back except in places that don't care using cars that much.
>>1972391
>I love trains. I want more trains. I want passenger trains running next to my house with high frequency. But there's not a train line there and there won't be a fucking train line there ever, so I absolutely abhor getting moral superiority arguments because I choose to own a car. It's honestly exhausting so I normally don't engage.
This. Win an election first.
>>
>>1972416
>Not necessarily.
Yes necessarily. I live in a condo across a 4-line arterial from a grocery store and a bunch of restaurants. To completely remove us from interacting with cars, they'd need a pedestrian overpass in multiple places. Most municipalities are not going to spend that kind of money. Instead, they'll give pedestrian signal priority, change crossings to pedestrian scrambles instead of one direction, ban right-turn on red, etc. All of these things slow car throughput on those roads, so drivers understandably fight it.

>Peachtree City, Georgia, which has a bike/golf cart system entirely separated from vehicles.
It does not. Say I live at this cute little house in Peachtree City. I need to do my weekly grocery run, which I do at Fresh Market. I might also take some cash out at Wells Fargo. I'm going to have to drive my golfcart in traffic across a 5 lane state highway to get from my house to the grocery store.

>Privileged implies that there is nothing inherently better about something
Correct, driving is not inherently better than cycling or walking. It is a tradeoff. A car is helpful when you need to carry a whole lot of stuff or go a longer distance than is feasible to walk or bike, but it costs $20k+ and you're sedentary while using it. A decent bike is less than $1k, and walking is free. A bike can still carry a lot, and both bikes and walking exercise your body. Driving my car 50 miles to visit family is a good use case, driving it 1 mile to take my dog to the park is counter-productive and wasteful. Giving me the infrastructure to walk that 1 mile to the park slows cars down though, so as I keep saying, drivers fight it.

>Most streets don't need protected bike lanes
Seems like a stretch when most drivers go into apoplectic rage if they're forced to slow down for 30 seconds to pass a bike. Better for everyone's safety and blood pressure to just remove the interaction entirely.
>>
>>1972419
>Once a bike lane or major street reconfiguration happens
Not necessarily, but why is this a bad thing? It's the same reason expanding freeways leads to more traffic on the freeway. You make a mode more attractive, more people use it.

>Urbanists and cars act like the anti-gun lobby, arguing for "we don't want to BAN guns" yet demanding more restrictions and hoops every election cycle
This is exactly the histrionics I was talking about. You're making my case for me. Even in such notable public transit and cycling paradises such as Tokyo, Osaka, Amsterdam, Paris, Barcelona, etc you can still get a car and drive if you want. Nobody is preventing you from doing so, and acting like you'll have your car taken from you and be put in a FEMA camp is literal FOX news-tier histrionics. On the subject of guns btw, I have 8. It's a hobby I've had since I was a kid. I also think there should be much stricter controls on purchasing guns and ammunition, plus stricter storage requirements, in the US. We legitimately do have a gun problem.

>After all, the urbanist crowd has stated their goal to ban larger trucks/SUVs
I don't watch NJB so I'll take you're word for it that he made a video suggesting banning large trucks or SUVs, but I don't think that's a common stance in the urbanist crowd. I think requiring a CDL for any vehicle larger than 4k lbs curb weight would be a good way to keep people from buying them as vanity vehicles while keeping them available for actual workers who need them. Higher taxes by vehicle weight could also reduce their use while still keeping them available.

>crying crying crying crying
Stop crying.

>If anything, it's the classic case of "give an inch, they take a mile".
Once again making my case for me. The whole slippery slope of "if we give them a bike lane, they'll eventually ban cars". It's absurd and an obstructionist argument whose sole goal is keeping car traffic as the sole viable mode of transportation.
>>
>>1972483
>acting like you'll have your car taken from you and be put in a FEMA camp is literal FOX news-tier histrionics.
Nice histrionic argument. Pity I won't fall for it, we know exactly what types of anti-car policies your kind supports:

>I think requiring a CDL for any vehicle larger than 4k lbs curb weight would be a good way to keep people from buying them as vanity vehicles while keeping them available for actual workers who need them. Higher taxes by vehicle weight could also reduce their use while still keeping them available.
"What we need is common sense car control"
>>
>>1972492
lol, it lacks self-awareness
>>
OP is the definition of cringe.
>>
>>1972373
>>1972404
>Actual quality post
kek not at all he launched into a bunch of random fucking crying and whining out of nowhere. Bike lane questions are always local. There are always specific factors and details to consider unique to the area no matter where you are. The moment some faggot starts forcibly arguing in generalities and especially pathetic victim mode comments like "drivers have been a privileged class" is the moment I tune out and is the exact fucking problem that OP is complaining about.
>>
I remember this guy, he goes on long schizo rants that I don't think anyone reads.
>>
>>1972483
>>1972481
(1/2)
>pedestrian overpass in multiple places
I have read enough urbanist articles indicate that pedestrian overpasses are bad, partly because they allow traffic to flow unimpeded below. There is some truth to this, with some disasters being six stories high with lots of switchbacks...but the whole of this has been almost universally negative.

>drive my golfcart in traffic across a 5 lane state highway to get from my house to the grocery store.
So you can wait at a normal avenue (which by the way, there are multiple crossings of four-lane roads on Amsterdam's bike network) or go a bit out of your way to an underpass.

>A bike can still carry a lot
Not really. Other than maybe an orange crate carrying groceries for one, there's not much you can do with a bike. You can go through these incredible hoops, like hooking up an expensive bike trailer (which makes bikes bulkier and less maneuverable) or whatever contraption on Reddit that borders on parody.

>Giving me the infrastructure to walk that 1 mile to the park slows cars down though, so as I keep saying, drivers fight it.
But you can. Almost every place has sidewalks.

>drivers go into apoplectic rage if they're forced to slow down for 30 seconds to pass a bike.
If you're going for anecdotes, then cyclists are either too dumb or too selfish to pull over in situations to let faster traffic pass, demand to ride on streets, yet feel that vandalism is justified if someone parks in a bike lane that isn't being used.

>make a mode more attractive, more people use it
Not really. Urbanists act like widening freeways and their usage is a given regardless of economy, population growth, or demand. But adding bike lanes and bike parking don't have that same effect...almost as if there might be more to demand factors than just capacity.
>>
>>1972481
>>1972483

(2/2)
>You're making my case for me.
"no, I think you're crazy"
"yes, we need to tax [thing I don't like] and introduce stricter standards"
The thing that people don't like is someone demanding "common sense" compromises and restrictions, and then coming back around and demanding more restrictions in the guise of compromise in another 5-10 years.

>The whole slippery slope
Which turned out to be exactly right when it was dismissed when the gay marriage debates were going around.

>"if we give them a bike lane, they'll eventually ban cars"
When I was younger, bike lanes were on many roads in my city, especially smaller ones. They were of the "shoulder" variety, that is, just a solid white line with bike lane designations. Yet these are seen as "not good enough" anymore with more and more restrictions and demands. Cities have been adding more and more bike lanes (and "better" bike lanes with extra protections, signals, and so forth) yet the SECOND anyone says "no" it's instantly seen as an "absurd and an obstructionist argument whose sole goal is keeping car traffic as the sole viable mode of transportation".
>>
File: 1666883781328625.jpg (9 KB, 364x354)
9 KB
9 KB JPG
>>1972416
>>1972481
>>1972419
>>1972483
>>1972584
>>1972580
>>1972492
Reading these arguments I ask myself often, so I'll ask you instead and bear with me here; Why are you both/all acting as if there ISN'T a whole chunk of a continent that not only solved these problems decades ago but IMO answered, on an extremely large scale, questions around these issues that you're pretending are some theoreticals and hypotheticals?
>>
This may be the worst /n/ thread I’ve ever seen
>>
File: kyarorin_anime.gif (14 KB, 98x116)
14 KB
14 KB GIF
just checked on the thread for the first time, i am loving it
>>
>>1972481
>so drivers understandably fight it.
never understood that, people in the west just want to fly 60kph no matter the circumstances, any safety infrastructure better not impede on speed in the slightest. when im driving here we have uptown narrow streets with lots of foot traffic, and the limit is 50. i couldn't fathom going over 25. god forbid you tap the brakes and let someone across, were the ones in the car after all
>>
>>1972292
>you havent presented us with anything to talk about or discuss other than 'im vaguely mad as heck at this thing i just made up inside my own skull'
lmao true but that pretty much goes for this whole site
>>
(Transportation) choice modeling analyst here. I'm a postdoc doing choice modeling and have published several journal articles on this topic.

The biggest problem OP described is most people who have strong, shitty opinions are hacks who shills for their arbitrary preference. Ever hear the George Carlin quote “Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?” This sums up ALL opinions here and anywhere else (Yes, "NotJustBikes" is a limp-wristed cucknadian faggot masquerading his shitty opinions as facts and analysis).

Transportation choices are a two-way street, in addition to what exists or can exist because of public good provision by government, users must actively choose them with all the consequences of that choice. The researcher takes people's choices as meaningful and extract preferences from it (Random Utility Theory), in a feedback loop sense that results in equilibrium outcomes, and we look at patterns that we can use to generalize these preferences and predict results from it.

You can't just tell people what you want them to do or force them to do it unless you live in a police state. And yes, so many of the sick freaks that have shitty opinions are little hitlers that can't get enough of oppressing other people. Remember meme flu? These are the freaks that virtue signal with masks that only harm the user and experimental injections that had to change the meaning of vaccine for.
>>
Tarmac from best to worst when it comes to cycling:
1. Separate bike / bike+pedestrian lane that's too long to be convenient for moms and dog walkers. It's good because you mostly see other lycra kings.
2. Quiet roads, urban or not. Users are cars (chill and/or rare because no traffic) and other lycra kings.
3. Bike lane on pavement. Mostly good times, some riders (kids and grandmas) are slow and unpredictable.
4. Busier road. Cars are scary but most drivers are actually good when you compare to kids and grandmas.
5. Combined bike+pedestrian lanes that pedestrians actually use. Pedestrians are even slower and more unpredictable. Dogs don't know how leashes work. Sometimes the owners don't, either. You're not in danger, you're just not getting anywhere.
6. Bike lane painted on the road. Like busy roads but you're not allowed to ride defensively. Also, the lady in front of you is riding really slow and you can't pass because of the car traffic. Cucked and fucked.
6. Pedestrian walkways. It's illegal to ride there so some cunt makes it her life's purpose to stop you.
7. Highway. Same as the above except you also die.

If we implement my top three, who wins? I do. Probably some other cyclists, too. Who loses? I doubt car users hate small roads. Is a pedestrian gonna explode if his share of the pavement goes form 5m to 2.5m? The "worst" is long separate bike lanes because the traffic there is minimal and mostly recreational (even if I commute at the same time) and everyone has to pay for tens of kilometers of fun for me.
>>
Don’t forget your meds every morning OP
>>
>>1972215
We could just compromise and outlaw the individual and private ownership or at least operation of motorvehicles and require a licensed professional for the operation of motorvehicles, as is widespread practice, with buses, trains, airliners, seafaring vessels and so on. A licensed professional could be held to a reasonable standard and be required to participate in more regular and extensive training without the majority loosing their minds about how their desire to do something by far outweights the dangers that arise from their inability to do so diligently.
>>
>>1972470
Hot take but democracy is actually conducive to creating vicious cycles that can end up negatively effecting everyone.
John Q. Public on his own isn't intelligent enough to vote for a politician that isn't a corrupt prick beyond redteam-blueteam, or to create a high-trust society.
Why should his opinion on the question of transportation policy be held as gold in this particular case?
>>
File: 1565047337967.jpg (41 KB, 367x446)
41 KB
41 KB JPG
>>1972470
>win state election
>politicians implement congestion pricing
>"NO NO NOT LIKE THAT, DADDY FED HELP ME"
>>
I want to ride my bicycle to more places, but I don't trust people not stealing my bicycle.
So most of the time I take the motorcycle, since you need at least a truck and a couple men to take that.
I have been thinking about picking up some junkers to ride around and lock up.
I mostly ride on MUP/bike trails or sidewalks since no one is out walking when it's this cold.
I don't get into discussions about things that people are vehemently opposed about. I don't see the point
>>
>>1973346
It's better than a dictatorship. At least when something is not working for most people, the people can peacefully sack the people in power.
>>1973348
NJ? To be honest, MTA and NJT should merge. But probably they serve petty interest in their unions and providers to make them compete
>>
>>1973497
>At least when something is not working for most people, the people can peacefully sack the people in power.
Literally never happens. The average voter has such incredibly low political literacy they usually don't even know who their voting for has a shitty record, or they're willing to brush it aside because it's on their team.
>>
>>1973508
>They're willing to brush it aside because it's on their team.
Most likely this.
It sucks not to be part of the majority
>>
>>1972223
>>1972215
socialists are dependent on public transit infrastructure spending so they can control the flow of people and embezzle tons of taxpayer funds
>>
>>1973905
Bro, if you were set on embezzling tax dollars, public transit would probably be the worst way to do that just from the thin/nonexistent overhead, complexity of system functions, and it infamously being the constant subject of austerity and budget cuts in the US
>>
>>1973946
>explaining undergrad economics to a suburboid ideologue
You're talking to a wall.
>>
>>1973905
Car infrastructure uses more public money and bureaucracy than anything else. You should learn about infrastructure some time.
>>
>>1972215
>>1972373
>VS the backwoods retard who insists that any sprinkle of alternative infrastructure is impeding on his freedom.
they turned what was a 3 lane road by my old hometown into a 2 lane road with a bike lane. I have literally never seen a single human being ride a bike on that bike lane. all any of this shit does is slow traffic with zero benefit. I've also never heard a proposal to actually make mass transit better, only to make driving worse
>>
>>1972483
>On the subject of guns btw, I have 8. It's a hobby I've had since I was a kid. I also think there should be much stricter controls on purchasing guns and ammunition, plus stricter storage requirements, in the US. We legitimately do have a gun problem.
this person does not own a single gun and wants a complete gun ban.
The US also doesn't have a gun problem, the murder rate for white and asian Americans is about the same as belgium
>>
>>1973946
>>1973948
>>1973983
all of those >we are going to build trains, projects that get billions and never get built prove you are wrong. as does the fact we pour billions into existing lines and they always bitch they have no budget and they provide literally zero services since buses and trains are slow and smell like piss and filled with anti social behavior
>>
>>1973948
I've lived and worked in suburban, semi urban and urban areas. suburban was by far the best. I didn't have to hear retards through my walls and outside didn't smell like piss
>>
File: (you).jpg (958 KB, 2000x2489)
958 KB
958 KB JPG
>>1974046
>t.
>>
>>1974050
there we have it, a bootlicking faggot who is afraid of guns calling others fearful for having basic human rights.
>>
>>1974059
nta but most people who are accused of being "afraid of guns" are being accused by the kind of people who no reasonable person thinks should have a gun. I for one think guns are fine, for myself, and for other well adjusted individuals

I would imagine their chief concern is that "gun people" such as yourself (as opposed to just people who own guns) start thinking of and promoting guns as the solution to literally anything and everything. power went out because you live in a shit hole state? better get some guns. someone said something mean on the internet? guns. inflation? guns. school library has a book about a gay duck? give your kids some guns. headache today? guns. the flourescent light blinking threatening messages at you? guns guns guns! you can see where this is going.

so yeah, I'm not afraid of guns. I'm afraid you're going to wake up and your brain tumor grew 0.5mm in the wrong direction and you're going to take out 30 other people with your gun, before shooting yourself with your gun.

when all you've got is a hammer everything looks like a nail and gun people have basically given up on basic adult problem solving in favor of a complex inner fantasy world in which complex puzzles are resolved easily with a gun.
>>
>>1974064
reddit spacing
>nta but most people who are accused of being "afraid of guns" are being accused by the kind of people who no reasonable person thinks should have a gun. I for one think guns are fine, for myself, and for other well adjusted individuals
guns are fine, unless I disagree with someone politically. guns should be banned for anyone who does not vote exactly as I do, reee
>I would imagine their chief concern is that "gun people
that is a lot of strawmanning and hating people for not voting the same way you do
>so yeah, I'm not afraid of guns.
you clearly are
>I'm afraid you're going to wake up and your brain tumor grew 0.5mm in the wrong direction and you're going to take out 30 other people with your gun, before shooting yourself with your gun.
mass shootings kill fewer than 100 people a year in the US. shootings done by someone with a brain tumor or other form of mental illness account for less than 1% of the murder rate. You are clearly scared.
>when all you've got is a hammer everything looks like a nail and gun people have basically given up on basic adult problem solving in favor of a complex inner fantasy world in which complex puzzles are resolved easily with a gun.
more strawmanning.
I sure as fuck won't be surrendering my guns to the political party that threw Americans in concentration camps over their race and currently consistently says in speeches and tweets they plan to mass murder American citizens with tanks, jets and nukes.
But continue to live in fear when your odds of being killed in a mass shooting by a white person are astronomically low
>>
File: mucho_texto.jpg (73 KB, 600x644)
73 KB
73 KB JPG
>>1974066
>>
File: word count.jpg (445 KB, 1857x730)
445 KB
445 KB JPG
>>1974068
gr8 argument m8
>>
>>1974069
top keke, that is a btfo right there
>>
>>1972215
>The current state of transportational debate
>arguing about guns
whelp
>>
>>1974143 (You)
>>1974069 (You)
inb4 right click inspect element
>>
>>1974148
this is why no one likes gun nuts, as soon as the topic even remotely brushes up against guns, they immediately turn it into a soapboxing crybaby self pity party where "libtards" are oppressing them for making literally EVERYTHING about guns, and if you don't go along with their delusions you're "afraid of inanimate objects" and a "nanny state bootlicker" because you just wanted to talk about trains and not jewish space lasers
>>
>>1974150
check it yourself then, fag. Plus you can literally see the text on the right is shorter than on the left
>>1974148
>>1974151
don't bring up how you want more gun laws if you don't want any pushback, bootlicker. Also a major reason why people won't take public transit is because many communist states ban the carry of guns on public transit. that makes the train not worth riding on general principle
>>
>>1974152
I didn't bring up guns in any way, I just replied to one of your numerous walls of text (funny how you got defensive about it when it was pointed out though)
>>
>>1974153
>numerous walls of text
I made literally 1 post that was longer than 2 lines long and it still had fewer words than your post and then you got mad about >too much text, when I only wrote 2/3rds of the words you did.
>>
>>1972215
I dislike that there exists some irrational hatred of monorails in some people based on that simpsons episode.
Monorails are the chad version of the subway, and suspended ones are fucking kino.
So you need some pillars, big fucking deal. If you can get a decent distance between them it's way less intrusive than cutting up your city, or surroundings with tram tracks.
>>
I recently realized, thanks to yuropoors, that if all of a sudden no one needed cars and had to pay for cars that wages would come down
people would be paid less because some people out of desperation to get a job would settle for less money because they could pay for public transit instead of a car, and then everyone would follow because "they can do it on this much, why not the rest of the people" and I wonder if this is why yuro wages are so low compared to burger wages
I mean it would be better for the environment and quality of life but americans would just make less money
we might net more money after fixed costs however
>>
>>1974236
>I wonder if this is why yuro wages are so low compared to burger wages
Euros typically work less hours per week, get more PTO, and have better healthcare than USAians.
>>
Just remove blacks and poor people from the discussion and suddenly things become better
>>
>>1972215
I'm a racist who likes electrified rail.
You've never met someone like me before.
>>
>>1974236
>I mean it would be better for...quality of life
how would being forced on American mass transit improve anyone's quality of life?
>>1974258
US healthcare is around the best in the world if you aren't a poorfag.
>>
whats fucked is the pro transit group won't even admit to the massive issues keeping Americans from wanting to ride subways or buses. Go post about shitty rap music on the subway or the homeless on the bus and watch how fast it is deleted. that and they just want to ban cars/make cars impossible for anyone but the mega rich to drive with things like congestion fees, but don't want to make the subway or busses better
>>
>>1974258
>Euros typically work less hours per week, get more PTO
Half of euros earn what would amount to poverty wage in US.
>>
File: you.jpg (60 KB, 686x386)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
>make a thread about some crime thing you found on twitter
>it's not /b/ so it's not instant replies
>you get impatient and post the exact same thing in 5 other threads
>help I'm being oppressed!
>>
>>1974373
>US healthcare is around the best in the world if you aren't a poorfag.
Not by a long shot.
>>
>>1974413
how so?
>inb4 some averages that are bought down due to fats, minorities and poorfags existing
>>
>>1974392
if you make an op thread about any bad transit thing it gets deleted, no matter what
>>
File: film_clauderains.jpg (61 KB, 1362x1000)
61 KB
61 KB JPG
>>1974418
>the urbanism shitposter is also the tabloid crime panic racebait shitposter
shocked, I tell you, shocked
>>
>>1974387
Yet somehow have far better quality of life than we do, funny that.
>>
>>1974426
>place with very few minorities has higher quality of life than the US
by your logic we should go back to the 50s because the quality of life in the US was way higher then
>>
>>1974426
no they don't, you delusional euro-worshipping turd
>>
>>1974446
Not that guy, but we should.
>>
>>1972215
idk who the fuck youre talking to but maybe you gotta find some better people to talk to
everyone i know prettymuch agrees that more trains bike infrasturucture and most importantly pedestrian infrastructure should come before cars
yknow ofc also understanding the dilemma of cars just being the comfiest option and the unfairness of that
people argue like retards on here as much as the rest of the internet irl people are different unless theyre so carbrained they reeeee about cyclists "being in the way" unironically
>>
>>1974236
This is total bullshit, coming from a yuropoor. All the places in Europe that have good public transport like Amsterdam or Bern or Stockholm also have the highest wages and the highest costs of living.
>>
Trying to unilaterally force through reforms will never work. You have to actually make cycling or public transport attractive to people. If you just try to ban things that people are using in their daily lives, you will only make them angrier and make them resent your cause more. Cars didn't win out because we banned public transport, they won out because people just found them more convenient. If there's anything to learn from Japan, it's that they managed to make mass transport both profitable for private investors and convenient for passengers. There is no way to have efficient public transport if it's just an endless money pit for the government that's subsidized by printing more money.

I live in Europe, in a country that would probably qualify as having good public transport overall, but most people who can afford to own a car still opt for a car. It's just easy to do the math and realize that with the current public transport we have, even though it's totally safe and comfortable, it takes them twice as long to get to work or school. No ideology or political and moral grandstanding or whatever else will actually change people's habits, you have to make something that will improve the average Joe's life in a meaningful way and provide them some kind of concrete benefit, in the short term.
>>
File: 1597734663059.png (243 KB, 680x709)
243 KB
243 KB PNG
>>1974446
>>
>>1974795
You are right anon. I would also add that mass transit and cars work in tandem. one of the common comparisons people make is how long it would take to drive somewhere if there wasn't a mass transit alternative. the implication being that all those people will drive.
It's a balance which makes people happy. I just find it absurd that in many places, it is practically the end of the world if your car breaks down since you can't get to work now and there is no alternatives
>>
>>1974446
>>1974656
>>1974799
>1950s
>one third of households didn't have a bathroom
>average home was half the size
>almost double the poverty rate, by 2022 standards
>quadruple traffic fatalities
>your children are breathing in lead so your car doesn't skip an ignition every once in a while, raising their violent crime rates and lowering their average IQ by ~2
>cities are run by industry barons who decide to also do that and also give everyone asthma while using gang violence to stop regulation that would solve that
>average worker worked 10-15% more hours per year than today, and that's just documented labour, while not being paid more adjusted to inflation
>1/3rd of women were still employed, compared to about half today
>2/3rds of the populations weren't even religious
>prostitution and brothel use rate higher than today
Get your head our of your ass.
>>
>>1974959
Yeah but I saw a whore on tiktok larpign as a "tradwife" which means girls wouldn't have rejected me back then for being a straight white gamer male (the most oppressed group in history)
>>
>>1974964
hi rabbi
>>
>>1974966
>i'm guessing these are rural househols
Might be, irellevant, it's indicative of a larger picture. One third of the population of the USA shat in latrines and bathed in portable tin baths on the porch.
>yet the upward mobility was way higher back then
True.
>you can't physically raise them enough to compensate for niggers going wild
You can't just dismiss an extensively documented catastrophe of human health with "le niggers"
>thankfully few people live in the cities
Urbanisation wen't from 60% to ~85% today. More than half of the population was subjected to extreme air pollution
Also
>suburbs
>nature
>yet he could afford a house a decade sooner
True. Housing today is indeed overinflated. In fact, we're currently in the midst of a housing crisis. What do you think would be a good solution?
>this is just nitpicking
Still indicative.

It's one thing to fantasize about the good old days and wanting to promote certain values that you think were more prevelant then but straight up lying by spouting bullshit about quality of life (arguably an objective measure) from tiktok wojak retvrn memes is... idk.
>>
>>1974985
>One third of the population of the USA shat in latrines and bathed in portable tin baths on the porch.
Duh, that's the way country life's been for the longest time in history.
>You can't just dismiss an extensively documented catastrophe of human health
I can compare it to an extensively documented catastrophe of demography and policing.
>Urbanisation wen't from 60% to ~85% today
This doesn't differentiate between suburbs and city proper, which is a major difference since US cities are fucking massive.
>suburbs
>nature
the spread out houses with front and back yards and trees along the roads are pretty nature-like imo. you'd have to live right next to a part or something in the city proper to get anywhere close to this.
>but straight up lying by spouting bullshit about quality of life (arguably an objective measure) from tiktok wojak retvrn memes
I don't, you're overreacting.
>>
>>1975014
>next to a park
duh
>>
>>1975014
>Duh, that's the way country life's been for the longest time in history.
Duh. But we're arguing about "higher" quality of life.
>I can compare it to an extensively documented catastrophe of demography and policing.
Sure. But regarding that, blacks (being more urban and traffic adjacent) were exposed to lead much more than other demographics. If we take your argument about demography and policing failures then we can safely say that supercharging black crime rate with lead in the air is a failure of a higher order.
>This doesn't differentiate between suburbs and city proper
I don't care enough to check. Sure.
>I don't, you're overreacting.
I don't know if it was you who claimed quality of life was higher in the 1950s. Sorry if I'm mistaken. I'm making a funny generalisation about people who say so, because they're retarded zoomers who get their info and impressions from short form content and phonk edits.
Quality of life in the 1950s was NOT higher. Some things were better, as you said, upward mobility and ease of new homeownership was much better. But weighing it all the average person was not living better. Disregarding everything I said, it's as easy as comparing average lifespans and rate of disease and deaths from them, among other health and psychiatric metrics.
>>
>>1974966
>>1975014
I just have one more nitpick
>yet he could afford a house a decade sooner. the goyim know
10-15% more hours per year on average across all ages of employed people.
More affoardable mortgages don't mean much when you spend 1-2 waking hours less at home or when you already paid it off IMO.
>>
>>1975021
>I don't know if it was you who claimed quality of life was higher in the 1950s.
I'm not.
>But we're arguing about "higher" quality of life.
Yeah, plumbing systems became more common out there only in the 60s and 70s.
>blacks (being more urban and traffic adjacent) were exposed to lead much more than other demographics
It's not like a few points of IQ would change blacks that much. The primary difference between 50s and now are that police were willing to violently put down black crime back then and black welfare being much more sparse to non existent, forcing them to work and behave.
>I don't care enough to check.
Even today majority of US citizens live in the suburbs, with 31% living in the urban areas. Back then the latter number was much lower.
>But weighing it all the average person was not living better
I agree, especially if we compare the demographics of the 50s to the white demographics of today.
>Disregarding everything I said, it's as easy as comparing average lifespans and rate of disease and deaths from them
these metrics can sometimes be misleading because infant mortality has been one of the most deciding factors of life expectancy, while the expected age of a person who's lived past their 20s has stayed relatively stable. Back then they didn't have to deal with the epidemic of obesity, type II diabetes, heart disease and cancer that's plagues our society today nearly as much.
>>
>>1975014
>the spread out houses with front and back yards
Ah yes, the glorious nature of *checks notes* Bermuda grass, an invasive species from Africa

>and trees along the roads
You get this in cities as well. The "suburbs" you're describing are 20+ year old developments that were clearcut when they were first build and planted with the cheapest and fastest growing trees they could get. You are not "in nature".

>>1975021
>I don't know if it was you who claimed quality of life was higher in the 1950s
It was some dipshit equating Europe today with 1950s USA

>>1975028
>It's not like a few points of IQ would change blacks that much.
We're all the product of our experiences anon. Generally, kids who grow up in poverty with shitty role models and poor education typically become shitty people in turn. Race has little to do with it, the media just loves screeching about urban crime. When it comes to the shit that happens in rural poverty-stricken areas (child abuse, domestic violence, meth, etc) you just hear crickets despite it being just as prevalent.

>Back then they didn't have to deal with the epidemic of obesity, type II diabetes, heart disease
Gee, I wonder why all that's happening? Maybe it has something to do with the population living far more sedentary lifestyles than the same population in the '50s or even any other developed country today because we fucking drive everywhere. Not to mention all the microplastics in our food because, fun fact, our tires just put that shit in the air and water every time we drive. That shit is causing record numbers of birth defects in the US.
>>
>>1975028
>>But we're arguing about "higher" quality of life.
>Yeah, plumbing systems
Among other things I mentioned in my first post >>1974959 (You). Don't be like that, I think I've been fair thus far.
>blacks
I'm not gonna argue about that. Not that I disagree fully but I simply don't want this convo to go that way.
>Even today majority of US citizens live in the suburbs, with 31% living in the urban areas. Back then the latter number was much lower.
Which, I'm assuming, is supposed to downplay my point about pollution in cities. Fair enough. Although I don't think the 15% or whatever of the population back then having astounding rates asthmna, lung cancer and lead poisoning is equivalent to 31% today having basically none of that.
>these metrics can sometimes be misleading
Sure, but I just threw them in as a blanket generalisation of QOL even if other, more direct QOL stats aren't convincing.
>Back then they didn't have to deal with the epidemic of obesity, type II diabetes, heart disease and cancer that's plagues our society today nearly as much.
These epidemics are a policy failure, not a poverty issue. Namely the subsidisation of corn and sedentery lifestyle. The former is mostly the reason why most shit food is so cheap, the latter just compounds the problem.
I'm of the opinion that the word "choice" in the phrase "lifestyle choices" is misleading. We rarely make choices regardless of outside forces, culture, economics, laws, taxes etc. But if we entertain the notion that something can be a "choice" more than somethign else, then buying fast food for breakfast and sitting all day at home after sitting day at work is *more* of a choice than breathing your local lead contaminated air and drinking your local diarrhea inducing well water.

>>1975040
>It was some dipshit equating Europe today with 1950s USA
I don't see how that plays into the argument.
>>
File: 1591057304628.jpg (467 KB, 843x843)
467 KB
467 KB JPG
>>1975040
>the glorious nature of *checks notes* Bermuda grass, an invasive species from Africa
It still produces oxygen, removes CO2, reduces heat and smells and looks nice
>You get this in cities as well.
not nearly as much.
>We're all the product of our experiences anon. Generally, kids who grow up in poverty with shitty role models and poor education typically become shitty people in turn. Race has little to do with it
You're incorrect.
>Gee, I wonder why all that's happening? Maybe it has something to do with the population living far more sedentary lifestyles
It's actually closely associated with certain dietary trends such as consumption of vegetable or seed oils and oxidized polyunsaturated fatty acids that come with it, but this is a different topic that's got its place on /ck/.
>>
>>1975044
>It still produces oxygen, removes CO2, reduces heat and smells and looks nice
Add to that catches various dust particles and holds the exposed soil so that it doesn't dry out and get lifted by the wind
>>
>>1975042
>Which, I'm assuming, is supposed to downplay my point about pollution in cities.
This is the price for the rapid industrialization, economy growth and the upwards mobility, as i view it. The same way 19th century coal mines and steel plants and textile factories with their horrible work conditions were an opportunity for those who previously had no option except staying in their poor farming community at all, and with time and development those conditions improved to the 50s level and from there to the point where we are now.
I was also wrong about the urban population % being smaller back then, it's actually been fairly stable for the last 70 years and it's the rural and suburban ones that experienced drastic shifts.
>>
>>1975044
>It still produces oxygen, removes CO2
Very little compared to the actual forests that were cleared for those lawns. Lawns have also removed huge amounts of pollinator habitat, which is kinda an ecological crisis.

>reduces heat
Compared to asphalt maybe, but literally no kid wants to be out on their lawn in 90+ heat. Tree canopy does much much more to reduce heat.

>looks nice
Maybe it does in your single opinion, maybe you've just never known anything different, maybe it doesn't but you don't have the guts to be different from your neighbors or maybe you aren't even allowed by your fucking HOA to plant native species instead.

>muh veggie and seed oils
Every country cooks with plant oils you fucking rube. The difference is they don't sit in a pod to run their errands. I'll also point out that American fast food, which is the primary source of these oils you think are the root of all evil, is a result of car-dependent sprawl. These places are on every highway and arterial because the drive-thrus make bank off morning commuters going to work and office workers grabbing lunch because nothing is in walking distance of their suburban office park. Consider Paris as an alternative, where 95% of the population is within a 5 minute walk of a bakery. Or even NYC, where it's trivial to walk over to a bodega.

>>1975051
>This is the price for the rapid industrialization, economy growth and the upwards mobility, as i view it
In the 1850s-1950s? Sure. After that? Entirely a policy choice, and we're reaping the "rewards" today of the '50s-2000s focus on car-dependent suburbs and austerity budgets for public transit. Far lower social mobility than other developed countries, our suburbs are parking lots with no identity for the people who live in them, microplastics are causing a health crisis, obesity with the follow-on effects of heart disease and diabetes, the list goes on.
>>
>>1975077
>Very little compared to the actual forests that were cleared for those lawns
I don't care.
>Compared to asphalt maybe, but literally no kid wants to be out on their lawn in 90+ heat.
Greenery reduces ambient heat in the whole surrounding area, while concrete pavement increases it.
>Maybe it does in your single opinion, maybe you've just never known anything different, maybe it doesn't but you don't have the guts to be different
eat shit and die, nigger
>Every country cooks with plant oils
and every country is getting obese and diseased.
>I'll also point out that American fast food, which is the primary source of these oils you think are the root of all evil, is a result of car-dependent sprawl.
No it's not you worthless zealot.
>we're reaping the "rewards" today of the '50s-2000s focus on car-dependent suburbs and austerity budgets for public transit
Only worthless people use public transit, anywhere on earth.
>our suburbs are parking lots with no identity
You have no identity except as an urbanoid npc.
>>
File: coop.jpg (856 KB, 1882x1438)
856 KB
856 KB JPG
>>1975077
>ugh fucking HOAs maaaaaan
Urbanists think there's no such thing as an HOA in cities, how precious
>>
>>1975079
Terminally online post

>>1975080
Where did I say HOAs dont exist in cities? For all their issues, they do actually make sense for condo buildings, since the residents only own a unit within the building, not the land itself. The HOA provides a democratic way for residents to manage the actual building. Your picrel is an egregious example, and shouldn't be legal.

HOAs make zero sense in SFH neighborhoods because because there are minimal (sometimes zero) common areas to be jointly funded and maintained, and the homeowners all own the land they're on as well as the house on it. Suburban HOAs inevitably become a bunch of petty tyrants getting mad about sportsball flags hanging next to garages and front lawns being an inch too tall. Hell, I have friends in Florida whose HOA gets butthurt about anybody having a dog bigger than a Maltese.
>>
File: larger.jpg (25 KB, 380x253)
25 KB
25 KB JPG
>>1975253
>he thinks condo HOAs can't be petty tyrants
How cute, wait until you've gotten an official warning letter from the board because you're not allowed to have your own bicycle inside your own unit because the sight of a bicycle through an open window lowers property values

BTW "no flag" rules are fairly common in condo/coop house rules, they're ignored 99% of the time hence why you see pride flags all over the city but they exist because there's always going to be that one /pol/tard who gets the building on the front page of the NY Post and soon there's a crowd of protesters out front yelling all night
>>
>>1975253
>Terminally online post
NTA but the only way anyone could think "Bermuda grass" is a valid or interesting counter-point on the subject of suburban greenery is if they were a terminally online faggot completely out of touch with reality.
>>
>>1975256
Anon, I fucking live in a condo. I'm well aware that they can be just as bad as SFH HOAs. You missing the point, which is that at least building HOA has a legitimate reason to exist, even if it does attract the same shitty people as SFH HOAs. It would be nice if there was a better alternative that was more widespread.

>BTW "no flag" rules are fairly common in condo/coop house rules, they're ignored 99% of the time
They should be ignored unless it's a literal CSA flag or some stupid shit like that. I mentioned sportsball flags because in the white collar nice suburban neighborhood I grew up in, the HOA did not allow ANY flag other than a US flag to be flown and did fine people for showing their sports all flags. It took years of my Dad's time building a coalition to overturn the rules, for something that's just a frivolous abuse of authority by the HOA. Now to tie this back in to my original point, imagine the utter conniption they'd have if somebody replace their Bermuda grass yard with wildflowers and other native plants. On the person's own goddam property.
>>
>>1975077
>which is kinda an ecological crisis.
plebbit language
>Very little compared to the actual forests that were cleared for those lawns.
You're nitpicking margins either way, the kind of thing terminally online shills do.
>>
>>1975266
Sportsball flags should not be allowed if it affects the neighbor's quality of life (having to look at that eye rape every day would affect my quality of life)
>>
>>1975265
>ignoring all of the butthurt about cooking oil and public transit
Like pottery.

>"Bermuda grass" is a valid or interesting counter-point on the subject of suburban greenery
I'm not going to present a dissertation on the issues with suburban lawns. This is fucking 4chan after all. But you are legitimately retarded if you think clearcutting forests and replacing them with one of a half-dozen of invasive grass species is actually helping the environment. It destroys pollinator (bees) habitats, it sequesters about 1/4 the amount of CO2 that a stand of trees covering the same area would, in many areas these lawns require stupid amounts of water to keep alive, and somebody is having to mow the lawn every week or so for 36~ months out of the year. You also have upstream effects of producing pesticides and fertilizers to keep it alive. The herbicides target plants that pollinators need to survive while insecticides, despite not targeting bees, have been shown to make bee populations more vulnerable to disease and parasites. The grasses themselves tend to choke out most other plant life since they sequester all their carbon underground in their roots (and bermuda grass especially tends to spread quite aggressively), whereas trees keep it in their leaves, trunks, and branches.

>>1975273
>Sportsball flags should not be allowed
>Property rights for me but not for thee!!!!
>>
>>1975267
>everyone who disagrees with me is plebbit!
I guess the USDA is also plebbit:

>https://www.usda.gov/media/blog/2020/06/24/pollinators-crossroad
>Years of research determined the decline was likely attributable to a wide range of stressors such as pests, diseases, pesticides, pollutants/toxins, nutritional deficits, habitat loss, effects of climate variability, agricultural production intensification, reduced species or genetic diversity, and pollinator or crop management practices.

>https://www.fs.usda.gov/research/treesearch/55816
>Our results highlight a “lazy lawnmower” approach to providing bee habitat. Mowing less frequently is practical, economical, and a timesaving alternative to lawn replacement or even planting pollinator gardens. Given the pervasiveness of lawns coupled with habitat loss, our findings provide immediate solutions for individual households to contribute to urban conservation.
>>
>>1972245
People are paying $2M to live in Harlem now?
>>
>>1975478
People love to throw around "muh private property" like a magic spell that protects their irreducible right to something or other that must not be questioned or it's gommunism, but what does that term really mean to you that makes it a relevant response? Why does hanging a CSA flag not call for uttering the magic spell, but a sportsball flag does? I imagine you might say "muh property values" or "someone might molotov cocktail the building" both of which are legitimate concerns, but sportsball fans have been known to go on rampages and destroy stuff when their team loses, there was even a war between Honduras and El Salvador that was triggered by sportsball fans getting too worked up over the number of touchdowns or some shit

>>1975486
Are you posting from the 1980s?
>>
>>1975495
>what does that term really mean to you that makes it a relevant response
I don't think your neighbors should be able to dictate what you're allowed to do with your property as long as you're following the law. Nobody is entitled to property values going up. The sole purpose of an HOA should be to provide a democratic way to maintain the common areas of a building/neighborhood.

>equating a CSA flag to a sportsball flag
Never change 4chinz. I'm sure you know this and the whole "just asking questions" is the sham it usually is. The CSA flag is the flag of traitors and slavers. Anyone who claims it as part of their "heritage" or "identity" is a sad and miserable person that desperately needs help. It shows solidarity with a failed state run by a landed gentry, for which slavery and selfish greed were the core values. A sportsball flag is just a sportsball flag, unless you're really going to reach and claim that flying a Duke basketball flag somehow supports raping women.
>>
>>1975500
>I don't think your neighbors should be able to dictate what you're allowed to do with your property as long as you're following the law
So I'll be the first to admit I am ignorant of the laws on the CSA flat but I'm pretty sure the guy who did it here >>1975256 was not breaking any laws, just, arguably, the lease (this was not a HOA situation but the point is it was a private rule)

If you'll go on a limb with me here and assume it's legal for a moment, what, aside from not liking the kinds of people who would fly it, is different about a CSA flag, vs a sportsball flag? I happen to think neither should be legal, and I know I know, it's 4chan so I must be saying they should both be legal. No. I legitimately dislike loud sportsball fans and their regalia. They irritate me. Are they the same as confederate flag people? Obviously not. But as neither is against the law, and your complaint seems to be that it should be about the local, state, and federal laws and not what the HOA thinks, what's the difference? Without resorting to soapboxing please. I'm sure we can both agree that defending, or deriding, a CSA flag or a nazi flag on 4chan is not going to sway anyone's opinion on nazis or slave owners or non slave owners who believe they would be given a free slave if the south were to rise again. So let's stick to the HOA question please.
>>
>>1975502
>I happen to think neither should be legal, and I know I k
Sorry I meant neither should be permitted under HOA rules. Not "illegal". I don't think banning sports is the answer. I'm on the fence about the flag because I think it's useful to know where someone stands. But you can stop typing up the screed about how I'm a statist or some shit. You can go kick the ball around while screaming, I'm not stopping you, just don't do it in front of me.
>>
>>1972215
To be fair it’s not exclusive to transportation. Most discourse on the internet and even in modern debates is done with no meaningful conclusion because people are speaking with the goal of getting attention or spreading their personal opinion rather than the goal of reaching a conclusion or discovering a semblance of reality in a way they can rationalize. People tend to talk with the understanding that they are correct rather than with the skeptical approach in which new information can be introduced, thus the intent to learn or educate is rarely there anymore, and when it is it is done within the framework of proselytizing rather than teaching. "I know better than thee now bask in the perfect unchanging truth". This framework for debate is kind of natural because you can only win against a dishonest debate by being dishonest yourself, so if your discourse has bad actors at any one point, it’ll inevitably go sour and become pointless.

This is just my rationalization of how I’ve experienced debates on the web btw, there are probably other mindsets and it’s hard to know for sure what caused this
>>
File: 1657811656417.jpg (92 KB, 881x496)
92 KB
92 KB JPG
>>1972215
>self-righteous virtue signalling "i just watched an NJB video and now i want all vehicles completely banished" types
I find these types annoying but I try and give them at least a little grace considering I was somewhat like that when I was like 19-22 and started getting more into urbanism shit. If you're doing this past 25 though, you need to stop.
Also, if I hear anyone use the phrase "ponzi scheme" or namedrop "FuckCars", I usually discount whatever the person has to say by default since it comes off to me as they found a NJB video or two, watched it, and decided to make online urbanism a personality. It reminds me of what online socialism used to be from like 2016-2020. Neither group is intent on changing things, it's just a new personality to adopt for 3-5 years before moving on to the next thing for them.
>>
>>1972245
>something similar has happened in the US with white flight followed by reverse white flight
I agree, but I think this has been trending since elder millennials started hitting their 20s and even slightly before that. Now in a more social media-fueled atmosphere, especially one where things are moralized, people are viewing urbanism and transportation discourse through a lens of good and evil.
>>
>>1972313
>"every intersection should be a roundabout, no we can not have any signalized intersections"
That's just the logical endpoint of being fed a diet of Cities Skylines for hours and hours on end.
>>
>>1972332
Sincerely this. Even back in the late 2010s, this board would have a few quality bumps an hour compared to now. It also used to be even more bicycle-focused, if I remember right.
>>
>>1972699
>"NotJustBikes" is a limp-wristed cucknadian faggot masquerading his shitty opinions as facts and analysis
I think more people are catching on to that since his whole "you have no hope but to take the Orangepill and flee your country" thing made people realize how retarded he is.
>>
>>1973497
>MTA and NJT should merge
Eh, maybe within some specific contexts in North Jersey. I don't know if it really serves people living south of Trenton to have their transportation system run through an agency that serves cities as far as Poughkeepsie and New Haven
>>
>>1974209
People always miss the point about the monorail episode and ironically probably play into the same tropes from the episode when it comes to car infrastructure.
>>
>>1975550
Isn't it just SEPTA south of trenton? Or are you talking about like bus lines in cape may county?
>>
>>1975502
>I'm pretty sure the guy who did it here >>1975256 was not breaking any laws
You are actually correct, I thought it wasn't protected under the 1st amendment in the same vein as threatening speech is not protected.

>what, aside from not liking the kinds of people who would fly it, is different about a CSA flag, vs a sportsball flag?
Anon, people fly flags to show solidarity with or support of something. This is what a flag is for. Yeah there are utter pieces of shit that fly sportsball flags. But the sportsball flag says "Go Team" to anyone who sees it, not "I'm an utter piece of shit who thinks people should be enslaved based on skin color". The reductionist argument doesn't work here, because that removes all context as to WHY somebody would show the flag.

So at the end of the day, I'll say let the shitheads fly a CSA flag or a Nazi Germany flag until somebody does beat the shit out of them over it and the litigation hits the Supreme Court.
>>
>>1975721
>"I'm an utter piece of shit who thinks people should be enslaved based on skin color"
lol, seething redditor
>>
>>1973983
Cars and fuel taxes more than pay for that.
>>
>>1975550
>Eh, maybe within some specific contexts in North Jersey
Well. You're right. But:
1. It's pretty problematic to have 2 transit agencies in the same urban area. I mean, there's a lot of government blocking if the politicians don't like each other and there's a lot of corruption. And that means a lot of annoying transfers.
2. If any, almost rural government wants to get leverage because a little of the population commute to the city, they'll screw with the transit if the agency is not strong enough.
Also, most of complaining about congestion pricing comes from NJ AFAIK. I forgot about Philadelphia or South NJ, and I really don't know if they get along.
>>
>>1972223
You are dumb.
Cars are simply more comfortable.
>>
>>1975721
>So at the end of the day, I'll say let the shitheads fly a CSA flag or a Nazi Germany flag until somebody does beat the shit out of them over it and the litigation hits the Supreme Court.
Ok feel free to do that but I think I'll just have my HOA selectively apply the rule against putting shit in the window that can be seen from the street. That way no need to have an angry mob out front throwing rocks. I know what you're gonna say, >muh private property, but guess what, it's also >MUH private property, see what I did there? And it turns out the majority of unit holders happen to agree with me so that will be a $250 fine per 24 hour period that the flag stays up.
>>
>>1975734
lol

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/states-road-funding-2019/

https://www.heise.de/news/Studie-Strassenverkehr-deckt-Kostenbedarf-nur-zu-36-Prozent-6196574.html

https://publicinterestnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Who-Pays-for-Roads-vUS.pdf
>>
>>1975721
>So at the end of the day, I'll say let the shitheads fly a CSA flag or a Nazi Germany flag until somebody does beat the shit out of them over it
why are communists such violent apes that they must assault people for their freedom of expression?
>>
>>1975256
zero chance flag laws are enforceable. 75% of all speech laws challenged in the US get btfo. There was a woman who got fined for having fuck joe biden flags up next to a school. she said she was going to sue and the communist mayor had to personally apologize.
the fag flag is a flag of a traitor group though
>>
>>1975266
>They should be ignored unless it's a literal CSA flag
why is the confederate flag any worse than the faggot flag?
>>1975273
literally violates freedom of speech
>>
>>1975500
>The CSA flag is the flag of traitors and slavers
so is the faggot flag, but you fly that. there is nothing wrong with the confederate flag
>>
>>1975721
>and the litigation hits the Supreme Court.
political speech has strict scrutiny. 75% of laws that attempt to ban speech get overturned
>>1975502
>So I'll be the first to admit I am ignorant of the laws on the CSA flat
why would there be any laws regulating a flag? we don't live in a communist shithole
>>
>>1975738
I have a hard time seeing that shit be actually enforceable, especially with selective enforcement where fags can fly the faggot communist flag
>>
>>1975051
Hey I'm that anon. I left without replying but came back to say it's big of you to admit when you were wrong. Felt a sudden need to acknowledge that. Good talk.
>>
>>1976101
>why would there be any laws regulating a flag? we don't live in a communist shithole
Well, I thought we were talking about HOA rules but anon decided to go off on a rant about how I'm literally the KKK because I simply mentioned a real-world case of a guy putting a confederate flag up, so I don't think it's fair to expect a reasonable discussion at this point

>I have a hard time seeing that shit be actually enforceable, especially with selective enforcement where fags can fly the faggot communist flag
The typical rule is just "no signs or flags where they can be seen from the outside" but it's not like every owner's association just drafts an entirely original set of rules for each building, it's just boilerplate templates. It would be a simple matter to propose a more specific rule like "no confederate flags but faggot communist* flags are ok" and then the problem is solved. Btw I'm not really sure what you mean by a faggot communist flag, do you mean a hammer and sickle flag and you are using "faggot" as a throwaway pejorative, or are you one of those boomer gays (white obviously) who only accepts the validity of the 8-bar gilbert flag and blows a gasket at the sight of the newer BIPOC-inclusive flags? Because if the former I've never seen one of those in a window like, ever, but if the latter, I happen to like the simplicity of the legacy flag but I also like how the one one makes cisgay whiteoids mald, so I kinda like the new ones for that reason alone
>>
>>1976336
any gay pride flag is a faggot/communist/child molester flag. Again, I'd have a hard time believing any rule banning a confederate flag would hold up in courts since it is symbolic political speech. Its the same way that a lot of HoA and Rental agreements have shit about people not being allowed to own guns, but I don't think that has ever held up in court as legal since its human rights denial. My condo has an HoA, as far as I know no one follows or enforced it at all because tons of people make noise at night, including me and one family has a dog and I am pretty sure I read the charter once and you can't have dogs (I like dogs, but that dog is a faggot ankle biter who won't stop barking). I could put up whatever flag I want and no one would say shit to me
>>
>>1976341
They can SWAT you for having lawns that are slightly too overgrown, they can put a lien on your property for having the wrong color curtains, why couldn't they ban you from putting up certain very specific flags? It's a private contract not a government law, rightoids are all about muh private property until it's something they disagree with, funny how that works. If my HOA wanted to ban gay flags you'd be totally fine with it.
>>
>>1976342
>why couldn't they ban you from putting up certain very specific flags?
idk what 3rd world shithole you are from, but symbolic political speech is extremely protected in the US. Again 3 out of ever 4 laws challenged on first amendment grounds get overturned
>It's a private contract not a government law,
you can't enforce a contract that denies someone their basic human rights
>rightoids are all about muh private property until it's something they disagree with, funny how that works.
If you have exclusive rights to a section of the building, that is your property and not the HoAs.
The most they can do are "reasonable" time, manner and place restrictions. Most flag/speech laws/HoA things are paper tigers. Have a lawyer give the hoa or local government a letter and they will fuck right off
>>
>>1976348
The US flag is protected in the US. Not every flag ever made and every possible future flag.

And please try to stay in character, is the US a third world shit hole, or #1 exporter of potassium superior to all other country potassium?
>>
>>1976351
>The US flag is protected in the US. Not every flag ever made and every possible future flag.
the fuck joe biden flag is explicitly protected by the us constitution
>And please try to stay in character, is the US a third world shit hole, or #1 exporter of potassium superior to all other country potassium?
when did I call the US a third world shithole?
>>
>>1976352
Anon I think you're drunk, go to bed and we can continue this later this evening
>>
>>1976353
I think you are confusing me with other posters, yuro. an HoA trying to enforce speech laws is like when HoAs or land lords try to enforce gun or no blacks laws
>>
File: injection.jpg (2.38 MB, 1800x2170)
2.38 MB
2.38 MB JPG
>>1976336
>cisgay whiteoids mald, so I kinda like the new ones for that reason alone
thistraw,,,brokeme.,
,,,,ive been wrong 6kk,,,,,,,k timesnowiwillnot.,
,,Kyle?,,have you seen Kyle?,
,somethingstartslowly,,,,then the dam breaks.
>>
>>1976359
If you're asking for my permission to take your own life, you have my blessing
>>
>>1976336
>those boomer gays (white obviously) who only accepts the validity of the 8-bar gilbert flag
mindbroken fag, lol
>>
The argument is pretty simple. Cars, everything about them and the entire industry is dogshit and cancerous, trains and other public transport is far superior. However, niggers and pajeets exist. I'm not sharing a space with low impulse control savages and curry reeking monkeys.
>>
>>1976623
Even if you drive a car you benefit from having good rail in your city because it takes traffic off the road. No one said you have to ride the transit if it’s built. False dichotomy.
>>
>>1976423
So what you are saying is that Rosa Parks single-handedly caused the downfall of public transport in the United States.
>>
The current state of transportation al debate is that OP is an unemployed dingbat flooding the board
>>
>>1976623
trains take 4 to 5 times as long to get anywhere
>>
>>1976677
nah, anyone who rides the train does so because they can't drive. by not having trains you make sure poors can't get to where you live
>>
>>1973497
>It's better than a dictatorship
idk, in terms of infrasrtucture something like China is much better. You cant build things mega projects like the 3 gorge dam or their thousands of miles high speed railway system in a 4 year democrazy system
>>
>>1976856
Before the 3 Gorges Dam, the world's largest hydroelectric dam was actually in Brazil and built between them and Paraguay, two famously inefficient countries.
China can build yeah, but it's not really a special power for One Party states
>>
>>1976856
>>1976894
Both of these, but also, does it worth it to have a dammed dam when everything else is shit? A country is more than infrastructure.
>>
Where do you people get all this aggression from? You talk entirely too hard for people just trying to build more bike lanes. And then you wonder why outsiders think you're psycho.
>>
>>1977835
>Where do you people get all this aggression from?
From our personal experiences as pedestrians/cyclists/PT users in our own city. Where the fuck do you think?
>>
>>1972332
>down the toilet in the past couple of years for some reason.
Blame the explosion of urbanist content on YouTube for starters. On one hand it's good that people are finally becoming aware of their built environment and how car centric it is. But on the other hand the movement has spawned a lot of retards who don't understand nuance and make it a tribalism thing, on both sides.
>>
>>1977835
I'm not trying to build new bike lanes, in fact I want no more bike lanes at all. John Forester was right. Bike lanes are anti-bike
>>
A smart carbrain would learn that supporting robust mass transit and cycling infra because it'll take people out of cars and give them OPTIONS to get around town, might mean less traffic they have to deal with on a daily basis. But no, a bike lane replacing street parking for instance, is stealing "muh freedoms" to most carbrains.
>>
File: bikelanes.jpg (360 KB, 2180x626)
360 KB
360 KB JPG
>>1978032
>implying bike lanes aren't the parking
Every post you make confirms further that you don't ride a bike
>>
>>1978032
>A smart carbrain would learn that supporting robust mass transit and cycling infra because it'll take people out of cars
Nope. We know what your side is all about:
Congestion fees
Speed cameras
Traffic slowing devices
Narrower lanes
Toll lanes/roads
Road diets
Removal of existing parking
Freeway removals
Higher fees for vehicle registration
Higher fuel taxes
Higher taxes in general to pay for transit

That's why your insincere attempt to extend an olive branch goes untouched
>>
File: 1507693039488.png (12 KB, 429x410)
12 KB
12 KB PNG
>>1978041
This. Every year more and more cycle-friendly projects are built, either upgrading bike lanes, widening sidewalks, etc., many of which reduce lanes or parking. However, every time there is pushback to these projects, the usual crowd just cries how "entitled" drivers and taxpayers are.

If you really, REALLY wanted make this an "us vs. them" argument there's no practical reason why "they" shouldn't banish your sorry ass of the roads for good.
>>
>>1978045
>>1978041
>they still think they're contributors and not infrastructure welfare parasites
>>
>>1977980
>>1978031
>>1978032
>>1978046
You really do talk like you're in a cult. Just abject contempt for all outside the cult.
>>
>>1978085
Snide one liners are all you deserve honestly.
The facts are out there, there are studies to cite and if your feelings don't care about facts or if you think linkspamming is not an argument then there are sound logical, economical and moral reasonings for all the positions you oppose and they've been thouroughly combed over in every thread even remotely related to this topic.
It's YOU who buckles at the end, usually with some softie reply like this.
>>
>>1972215
Reading this I instantly know you're American and living in some parallel world that has nothing to do with my reality. I'm European, I got working public transport, beautiful walkable cities and real world transportation issues which mostly involves getting car traffic out of the sensitive areas and improving the city further.
So my thoughts are we are living in a two class world on /n/, we have the upper class of Europeans and Asians with excellent transportation and the real choices regarding transportation infrastructure, correct mix and so on, and we have the thirdies trapped with their cage only infrastructure.
>>
File: what.jpg (43 KB, 524x308)
43 KB
43 KB JPG
>>1978085
Yo do realize you're quoting people whose view are completely at odds with one another right?
>>
Forester trolls deserve no reply
>>
>>1978103
Forester truthposters don't need replies because the truth speaks for itself
>>
File: ....jpg (311 KB, 1536x840)
311 KB
311 KB JPG
>>1978087
>Reading this I instantly know you're American
>>
File: eurorentfree.png (343 KB, 647x1031)
343 KB
343 KB PNG
>>1978087
>>
>>1978086
>Snide one liners are all you deserve honestly.
Not him but this: >>1978046
Is just pure delusion. You really have no argument, just insults that make you feel good to fling, with nothing but dishonest numerically illiterate bullshit to back it up.
IOW, he is right to call you a cult. You cannot engage with reason and facts.
>>
>>1978162
>>1978182
post local train station ;^)
>>
>>1978183
>just insults that make you feel good to fling
But enough about your lot.
You wouldn't be coming over here, screetching over the fence and having no arguments to show for it, if you weren't scared of the traction of all this.
Oh, and this? >>1978041
All good things. Every single one of them. There is literally nothing bad about any of this. Stay in your pasty strip mall suburb or pay for the privilege of the road leading to the city made graciously avaliable by it's more contributing taxpayers.
>>
>>1978183
>Not him but this: >>1978046
>Is just pure delusion.

https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/states-road-funding-2019/

https://www.heise.de/news/Studie-Strassenverkehr-deckt-Kostenbedarf-nur-zu-36-Prozent-6196574.html

https://publicinterestnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Who-Pays-for-Roads-vUS.pdf

Disgusting leech.
>>
File: south-station-boston.jpg (1.05 MB, 2042x1156)
1.05 MB
1.05 MB JPG
>>1978194
typical cultist posting shameless rhetoric-heavy propaganda. Cannot tell the difference between an empirical argument and bullshit for retards. Too bad said retards wind up with a lot of power in government.
>>1978189
>post local train station
>>
>>1978194
A list of links posted ad nauseum with no actual argument, with the same old debunked propaganda.

Not that it will deter you, the thing that the pioneers at Reddit have moved onto is "but what about the externalities of driving?!"
>>
>>1972481
>No one is demanding car-only
"What is an interstate for 500, Alex."
>>
>>1972580
>Other than maybe an orange crate carrying groceries for one

Why must you troll?
You know you can get a rack. The top of that rack can carry the orange crate, but you can hang bags on the sides of that rack in addition to the orange crate, and you know that. Basic bags are pretty cheap, and hold a decent amount more than "an orange crate."

I'm not talking 'touring bags' or frame bags, or whatever, either. Use a backpack for things that can't be jostled (laptop). People make this work. Stop trying to make this into some kind of weird flex.
Your other point about taking away space though and slowing traffic, I fully get. Throughput/speed is considered THE #1 Agenda for traffic.
>>
>>1978193
>There is literally nothing bad about any of this.
How's college?
>>
>>1978232
Sorry but a crate with a couple of bags precariously hanging off the side isn't going to cut it

If I'm going to the grocery store I'm driving
>>
>>1978204
>more nothing in response to something

>>1978224
>with the same old debunked propaganda.
Never was. Post something, you won't.
>>
>>1978233
I am entirely uninterested in muttoid opinions about things they experience only when paying 20k a year for it.
>>
Is anyone of the opinion that China and the WEF with their 15 minute city models just killed any PR walkable cities had? I want a walkable city with all methods of transportation being employed but I'd like it to happen organically and not centrally planned.
>>
File: file.png (309 KB, 717x499)
309 KB
309 KB PNG
>>1978248
>le WEF
>le chinks
>registered, fully exposed and identifiable shitboxes are fine though
Shut the fuuuuuck uuuup dude.
Take two scenarios:
- some public organisation wants you to imprison you in a city to make you live in pod and eat ze bugz
- a multi-trillion dollar interest group with a lot to lose is throwing a couple mil here and there to make you think the first one
Which one do you think is more likely?
>>
>>1978237
You posted nothing. Make the argument in your own words. If you can't, don't expect me to do your work just because I am better than you.
>>
>>1978030
Yeah but let's be honest mostly the "urbanism" side. Not like boomers suddenly mobilized and jumped onto places like /n/. What happened is that zoomzooms decided everyone who doesn't have his head up his own ass is a "cagetroll boomer carbrain"
>>
>>1978246
>I am entirely uninterested in muttoid opinions
Yet you come here to shit up an American board with your faggot opinions, curious.
>>
>>1978253
>Which one do you think is more likely?
Both, actually. One doesn't exclude the other and the fact that many world leaders associate with that "some public organization" is deeply concerning.
>>
>>1978253
Your city will never be attractive to anyone but niggers and illegals and any non-worthless person WILL move out and enjoy the lifestyle you hate and are hell bent on destroying, tranny.
>>
>>1978237
If you were as smart as you pretended to be, you could summarize something in your own words. But since you asked, there's a number of inconvenient questions on the one by "Public Interest Network" (paid for by NGOs with an agenda, so there's clearly an angle they're going for) that aren't answered:

>Why does it downplay the distinction between city roads and highways...which have completely different funding?
>Why doesn't it explain that the state gas tax does not go to roads 100%? (In Texas I believe some 25% goes to education, and probably in California is taken out even further)
>Why does it complain how little funding Amtrak gets in comparison to freeways when Amtrak is a bare-bones network that doesn't even own its own track?
>Why does it conveniently forget how regional transit networks are subsidized by suburbs who barely get any service?
>Why does it use phrases like "unjustified highway expansion" (page 27) when in reality the only things that describes are rare pork projects?
>>
>>1978204
fatty confirmed. why do you guys even try? You will never have good public transport, safe walkable and liveable cities or good cycling infrastructure. But you can always come visit Europe and see how that actually looks like
>>
>>1978294
>fatty confirmed.
Grasping at straws. Having no other arguments you went for ad hominem and failed. Boston is on par with European cities in fitness. Pathetic.
>>
>>1978294
You will never stop eating bugs, living in a cramped pod, being replaced by sandniggers and going to prison in place of one that raped your single mother while giving up all your income to the failing communist state.
>>
File: 1680894911341282.png (1.08 MB, 1388x1032)
1.08 MB
1.08 MB PNG
discourse is turning into that where I live too.
Idk, I just want actual choice. Something like Japan where you can get anywhere by train and there's a lot of bike infra but I can still be a car geek if I really want to
>>
File: Welwyn-aerial-360682063.jpg (272 KB, 1800x1200)
272 KB
272 KB JPG
>>1978490
Why does everything in that pic have to be so ugly? Can't we have nice looking things at least?
>Something like Japan
Urbanist usually don't say much about Japan because their goal isn't to improve an urban environment, it's to restrict your mobility.
>>
>>1978032
except it doesn't do that. it just increases traffic because no one wants to ride mass transit because its full of homeless and violent retards and bike lanes just take away from traffic lanes
>>
>>1978193
unironically, why would I want to go to the city?
>>
>>1976852

I have a car and I plan on buying a few more. And yet I take walk, cycle, take the bus or train as much as is possible. It's convenient and healthy.

Post paystub flyover 400lb retard
>>
>>1978578
>take the bus or train as much as is possible
>healthy
>>
>>1978579
yes
>>
>>1978581
all those bugs and diseases and homeless people, wonderful!
>>
Well put
>>
>>1978578
>bus or train
>convenient
>healthy
lul what? taking 6 times as long to get somewhere and hearing blasting terrible rap music from someone who smells like piss isn't convenient or healthy
>>
>>1978589
maybe he's into watersports
>>
>>1978289
Valid points, but there is one missing.
Our entire economy depends on people being able to move freely from from A to B and that probably 99.5% of taxes levied involved road usage somewhere along the line.

But muh roads cost XX billion, and muh train cost YY billion are useless figures anyway.
In the end it is about "wealth" and wealth equates to having excess time and energy.
If the energy and time saved by building a railway exceeds the time and energy spend on building it by a sufficient factor, do it, because it creates wealth.
It's like EROEI but for infrastructure.
>>
File: truck.jpg (571 KB, 1200x675)
571 KB
571 KB JPG
>>1978639
Close
>Our entire economy depends on people [AND FREIGHT/GOODS] being able to move freely from from A to B.
The good little boys and girls on the other side of the mountain want jolly toys to play with and wholesome food to eat. The push for I-69 is heavily driven by NAFTA and desire for cargo transit between US, Mexico and Canada. Nobody is bombing Houthis for the sake of passenger liners passing through the Strait of el Mandeb.
>If the energy and time saved by building a railway exceeds the time and energy spend on building it by a sufficient factor, do it, because it creates wealth.
Yes, with a few extra complications.
1. Project ROI must be estimated, typically for very long periods of time and uncertainty. EROEI is a simpler, short-term formula with less uncertainty.
2. Projects compete for funding/resources meaning that simply having positive ROI isn't enough. It needs to have better Risk/ROI profile than a competing project. In theory, anything with a positive ROI is worth borrowing to fund but that's a tautological claim that sidesteps the question of risk. Not saying government decision-making processes are efficient and free of corruption but rational decision-making is still the best-case scenario.
>>
(forgot)
3. Subjective Quality of Life doesn't necessarily translate into measurable forms of wealth. Economic inefficiencies aren't necessarily motivated by corruption.
>>
Bike lanes won't make a dent in the adoption of bikes as transportation. The problem is using a bike for anything other than as a kids toy doesn't even enter the mental space for the average American. They are fed suburban-is-the-way-of-life propoganda or consumerism their entire lives that when they see bicycle they think one of three things:

1. Fun toy for kids
2. A way some people exercise, but not me
3. That one weird guy at work commutes via bike - can you believe it???

I live in a city where bike travel and commuting flourishes. It's a college town. So the population is a bit more progressive, more healthy, and more open to that lifestyle. It works here, but if you build nice bike lanes in like Birmingham, AL it wont do shit

I cannot stress enough how much American life is catered towards convenience above all else. I have numerous (of course, fat) friends that do not comprehend the idea of walking a mile to a location on a nice day if they can drive, fight for parking, etc. Like it literally doesnt enter their mental hemisphere and they look at you strange for even suggesting an alternative.

I dont know how to fix this problem.
>>
>>1978687
>I dont know how to fix this problem.
The cycling debate has been poisoned by NJB/Strong Towns/"urbanist" subreddits. Radicalism is easier to poke holes in and dismantle.
>don't fall for making a ridiculous contraption when it comes to transporting anything more than an orange crate full of items, this includes all bike trailers
>don't use the oil industry as a boogeyman
>don't make excuses for ignoring signs and signals on the road, you are responsible for you
>advocate for putting cycleways where cars don't go, like along waterways, power line ROWs, and through parks
>>
>>1978687
>I dont know how to fix this problem.
Step one would be to fix yourself, your absurd prejudices and broken mental models
>They are fed suburban-is-the-way-of-life propoganda or consumerism their entire lives
This is a blatantly retarded thing to say. You way of life is literally your way of life. People internalize it regardless of propaganda. They live it every day. Commuting to work with a car rather than a bicycle because work is 15 miles away does not require propaganda, you dumb fuck. It's a purely rational decision.
If anything, propaganda commonly favors anything BUT car-centric suburban life. Popular entertainment wants to be exciting and the most salient feature of a suburb is that it's boring. Suburbs are a great place to live and raise children, which usually doesn't make for exciting TV and movies. Suburbs are frequently depicted as boring, sterile places where people live lives of quiet desperation and aspirations forever out of reach.
>I live in a city where bike travel and commuting flourishes. It's a college town. So the population is a bit more progressive, more healthy, and more open to that lifestyle.
Surprise surprise, a population insulated from economic realities thanks to massive government funding adopts smug holier-than-thou attitudes without bothering to spend even 5 fucking minutes trying to understand life from anyone else's point of view. You are so pathetic and predictable.
> have numerous (of course, fat) friends that do not comprehend the idea of walking a mile to a location on a nice day if they can drive, fight for parking, etc.
And yet, you comprehend so much less than them. Your farts smell worse than theirs. They will have more children than you. They will love more people and more people will love them than will ever love you.
>>
>>1978253
>file.png
Qrd?

>>1979102
>Surprise surprise, a population insulated from economic realities thanks to massive government funding adopts smug holier-than-thou attitudes without bothering to spend even 5 fucking minutes trying to understand life from anyone else's point of view. You are so pathetic and predictable.
Lmao yep
>>
>>1978870
Here's basically what you said:
>bikes are stupid anyway
>the implication that megacorpos influence my local politics and life "choices" makes me uncomfortable and I would rather ignore it and pretend this discussion is on an even playing field
>cyclists are stupid anyway
>If you really, REALLY just NEED to (ugh)... make bike lanes (ugh) then put them were I can't see them and they don't take any useful space and don't lead anywhere

>>I dont know how to fix this problem.
>Yeah well just:
>don't
>don't
>don't
>don't

You really think anyone is gonna believe you're some versed cycling advocate (((concerned))) about the recent uptick in it's discussion?

>>1979102
>a population insulated from economic realities thanks to massive government funding
Suburbanites?

>>1979110
>Qrd?
Wide area motion imagery. A drone high in the sky basically. My point being that it's much easier to surveil individuals like this than in denser population centers.
>muh facial recognition
Yeah well a drone in the sky and a few checpoint cameras to read plates is much cheaper than however many cameras it takes to cover the same area.
>>
>>1979102
>And yet, you comprehend so much less than them. Your farts smell worse than theirs. They will have more children than you. They will love more people and more people will love them than will ever love you.
You seem really happy and mentally stable for someone identifying this hard with OOPs fat friends. Really put him in his place.
>>
>>1979134
No need to feel this called out, girl. Nobody's taking the stick you shoved up your ass away.
>>
>>1979152
Is this how mutts banter?
>>
>>1979131
>Suburbanites?
kek no. Universities. University funding comes from these primary sources.

1. Tuition, paid for by ignorant, irrational teenage consumers on credit guaranteed by the government and high demand coasting on reputation of absolute necessity for access to higher social classes. (Current student loan debt in the US is $1.74 Trillon).
2. Subsidies and other public funding.
3. Grants from government and nonprofits.
4. Endowment

#4 is tied to the stock market so there's some indirect connection to the wider economy but relatively few Universities have huge endowments. Universities do have incentive to produce alumni who will donate to the endowment but this is another indirect (and whale-centric) dynamic.

These perverted incentive structures have been the status quo for several generations now. American Universities are among the most economically insulated institutions in the world.

>>1979158
It wasn't banter. It's genuine disgust.
>>
>>1979131
>how DARE you suggest anything other than radicalism
>>
>>1979160
Aside from you unironically responding to a witty comeback and then admitting most of the funding comes from students themselves; college towns are not the same as college campuses and besides them there is a whole chunk of a continent where biking just *works*. So your comment about people ignorant of economic realities doesn't really make sense, especially considering it is now "normal" to fork over 1/4th of your monthly income or more for a car lease.

>>1979165
You're a concern troll. You're not against radicalism, you're against *anything*.
>>
>>1979205
>So your comment about people ignorant of economic realities doesn't really make sense
It made sense to me but then again I'm not a lycratard
>>
>>1978687
honestly the more urban a place is the shitter it is to live. I'd take having to drive everywhere if it meant not having to hear my neighbors
>>
>>1979205
If you weren't a mentally ill subhuman you could probably guess that screeching at anyone suggesting you to not go full retard over your gay destructive ideology might make people less disgusted at you.
>>
File: 1495600064915.jpg (5 KB, 265x190)
5 KB
5 KB JPG
>>1979205
>concern trolling
Sorry, I thought that this was a legitimate question about realistic bicycle advocacy and not "how I do PROVE to other people that I am superior".

If your response to
>you shouldn't embarrass yourself with "just use a bike trailer bro" is
>you basically said "bikes are stupid anyway"
I don't know what to tell you.
>>
>>1979277
>"I thought that this was a legitimate question about realistic bicycle advocacy"
>proceeds to exclusively tell people what *not* to advocate for
Post bike
>>
>>1972332
This has happened for every board on 4chan, /n/ isn't nearly unique in this regard.
>>
>>1979160
Sounds like a whole lot of “I have no agency, I have to have a car loan because…. I just do! Ok!”

Enjoy your life of debt and excess comfort slowly making you miserable, as evidence by your posts here
>>
>>1979280
Don't advocate for idiotic war on normal, mentally sane people and their livelihood. Is this too much for your common cycling advocate?
>>
>>1979313
>I have no agency
>life of debt
>making you miserable
That's projection.
>excess comfort
And that's jealousy and spite.
>>
>>1979320
Not at all. Only a miserable twat who is butthurt about life bending him over a barrel would spend his time on a transportation board ranting about the unnatural market advantages a university benefits from as reason to not bike commute

We get it bud you lack any and all agency in your life , and have to live 15 miles away from your job because you just do. Now go vroom vroom in your cagie like the good little consoomer you are
>>
>>1979389
You're trying too hard to get him back anon
>>
File: z.jpg (328 KB, 860x1390)
328 KB
328 KB JPG
>>1972223
>so much so that most people confuse their conditioning by their environment

LE CONDITIONING BY THE EVIL KKKAR LOBBY TO LIVE UNNATRUAL


Roads are thousands of years old and foundational to Civilization. You're big mad because cars are superior to horses and people naturally prefer them over gay shit like cattle carts that smell like piss aka public transportation.

Cope and seethe.
>>
>>1979313
Nothing in that post was about me.
You were wondering how to improve bike adoption,. You disprayed biased, distorted, naive or flat-out incorrect views about the world. I challenged and got a lame joke in response. So I took it literally and outlined the argument explicitly.
- You were always wrong about suburban propaganda. I am right, and you have no evidence to support a counter-argument.
- I am right about University towns being more economically insulated than the typical suburb.

>>1979205
>Aside from you unironically responding to a witty comeback
I did that on purpose. The comeback is not witty at all it's just lazy and stupid. Wit implies cleverness.
>then admitting most of the funding comes from students themselves
Universities are extremely economically insulated and yes student loans are a part of that. If you can't respond without dumb wordplay, just stop responding. Yes there is some economic pressure from the fact that money is paid by students but compared to almost anything but government and healthcare it's laughable.
Colleges don't have to run grotesque factories or soulless warehouses. They don't generate toxic byproducts of production*, they don't ship goods to consumers, they don't tear up vast swaths of land for farming. They never have to make tradeoffs.**
>College towns are not the same as college campuses
College towns benefit enormously from the presence of the campus. It's a major source of revenue for the region both directly and indirectly (tourism-like effect of students spending money on local businesses).

* unless you count smug-yet-useless postmodern academics and drunken frat parties.
** actually they do have to weigh what students want (feels) vs what is good for them (truth), or what profs have been trained to teach them(academic vs practical skills) but that doesn't interfere with progressives in fact it benefits them.
>>
>>1979389
>y-you have to use a bike to commute, you can't use actually useful transportation or its benefits, you just do, uhhh consoomer
There you go, i turned your manchild whining onto itself and it actually makes sense now.
>>
>>1972419
>yet demanding more restrictions and hoops every election cycle.
sure, and that's taking back the street. jaywalking used to just be walking, cars were guests on the road. cars are inherently dangerous, there's nothing unreasonable about having restrictions on where they can go/how ffast they can go/what public spaces they can be parked in. you're used to the modern era where cars are seen as an extension of the self and that it's some type of right to put it wherever you want. but that experiment has failed due to the incredible amounts of infrastructure it requires and the way it destroys public space and makes it dangerous for any other mode of transportation.

i really wish urbanists didn't use the environmentalism arguments, as that's literally not needed as an arguing point for why car-centric infrastructure is unsustainable (monetarily, not in the eco sense of the word)

>>1972470

>That's democracy for you.
not an argument. urbanists can say exactly the same as they slowly convince more and more people that car centric infrastructure is a major factor in why so many people feel isolated and have cities filled with blight.
>>
>>1972531
i read them.
>>
>>1974045
>slow traffic with zero benefit
slow traffic IS a benefit in part of the city that should be public places and not just thoroughfares
>>
>>1974790
you havent seen american infrastructure. you need a car to go to the grocery store in less than 45 minutes in many cities.
>>1974380
i want to make busses better and i hat ehomeless and niggers.
>>
>>1980438
Roads were primarily used by horses and wagons (especially in larger towns and cities). The idea of urban roads used exclusively for foot traffic is solely a revisionist fantasy.
>>
>>1974790
>>1980451
>you havent seen american infrastructure.
If you can't cycle to a grocery store in 20 minutes or less it means you live in a rural bumfuck area which you chose to do either for practical/economic reasons or specifically because you had some personal desire to live away from the city. Whether that cycle is a safe and otherwise pleasant experience is due to infrastructure, but not the travel times.

Organic, economically-driven development over time is not "infrastructure." The fact that many neighborhoods are too sparsely populated to support a local grocery store in walking distance is not a matter of infrastructure (inb4 some infinite retard changes the subject to talk zoning). Similar dynamics hold true for public transit. When everything is big and far apart it costs more to run useful transit services to everywhere you might want them.

Yes, everything is bigger (in general) in the United States. This has pros and cons and is the way it is for a variety of historical reasons. Urbanists have broken, malfunctioning brains and are only capable of seeing the cons and their own half-baked utopian delusions.
>>
>>1979256
Neighbourhoods would be better and your neighbours more tolerable if they weren't all fat retards who have to drive and Doordash everything because they're too lazy.
Problem with American urban areas is you have melanin enhanced individuals allowed to run around committing crimes with impunity and cities too lazy to clean up.
Urban America peaked in the early 1950s before the Interstate Highway.
>>
>>1981091
...YIMBYs think that people don't use delivery services in cities? What? Or we shouldn't because we don't know what's in our interests?

Don't answer, I don't care about your stupid opinion, you live in a transit desert and have never even taken a train anywhere.
>>
>>1981101
Great, do you fuck your dad as well? Must be lonely living in some rural fuckup where your only solace is talking to online strangers while you waste your life away being an insufferable retard online.
Honestly you should go outside and touch grass and maybe you wouldn't need to post like a manchild.
>>
>>1981101
>>1981106
imagine spending this much time insulting people on the internet
>>
>>1972580
>Almost every place has sidewalks.
Lol no. So called bike lanes on google maps are just 2 lane roads with no sidewalks, just muddy grass with a beaten path for poors. I'm not but I believe I am, as they say, ghetto. The bike is a 30$ crappy mid-shock goodwill purchase.
>>
>>1981640
Anon, when I said "almost every place has sidewalks", I was referring to urban and semi-urban areas, not the exurbs of Cheyenne, Wyoming.
>>
>>1972223
>The car industry is a giant omg

Yes, its because private transport is better
Public transport was, is, and always will, be shit. I dont want to smell other people armpits in the morning. I dont want to walk for 15 minutes to the nearest station with cold weather or schorching heath. I dont want to hold my little children with my hand at all the time in fear that they might get lost in a huge train station. And here Im just talking about daily commute.

Lets talk about long travels. I need constantly to drag heavy luggages around from home to destination. waste time waiting for the train arrival and lets hope the train delay does not fuck up your coincidences otherwise your trip is ruined.

I can continue and go on and on since I was FORCED to use public transport untill I got a job. I dont want to go back to that shit.
>>
>>1981164
Try being less stupid and posting less stupid garbage everywhere maybe people wouldn't spend so much time insulting you.
>>
>>1981106
So that's a yes, then? You really do think delivery services are unique to your flyover shit hole?
>>
>>1981900
Larger Midwestern cities typically have gig drivers delivering food, while denser coastal cities have people on bikes. This isn't a radical concept anon.
Also the majority of those cyclist delivery drivers are migrants with zero skills and need a quick buck, and it's all driven by Yuppies who cannot cook shit because they lack critical skills beyond office work.
>flyover shit hole
I'm from a top 5 American city you cretin. Stop making strawman arguments.



[Advertise on 4chan]

Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.