6 ms·

The vast majority of folks don't want to walk/bike in Phoenix, Atlanta, Houston, New Orleans, etc where it's near or over 100 degrees in the summer.

hombre_fatal 3mo ago
But those people don't even have the option, so what do you mean they prefer to not walk/bike? How pleasant walking/biking will be is linked to density, reduced distance to amenities, and infrastructure, things almost no US cities have. I live blocks from Costco in one of those cities but the option is either get on my bike and share the four-lane road with aggressive drivers in massive trucks/SUVs or use a tiny sidewalk that randomly stops and picks up again a block or two later.
- SoftTalker 3mo ago
  What are you going to buy at Costco that you can carry home on a bike? In other words, if you want to bike to get your groceries, Costco is the wrong choice.
  - hombre_fatal 3mo ago
    It's not relevant. If the word Costco is too distracting to interact with my point, then replace it with any place you might want to go in a day. The lack of infrastructure is what makes the routine unpleasant, not failing to carry a small bag of bagels home. Not even the weather since riding a bike casually creates a breeze.
    - SoftTalker 3mo ago
      My point was that if you want to bike to get things you need, you have to go to places that are on more local scale. A place like Costco can only exist with the support of a large amount of car infrastructure. So if you want to go there that's what you have to deal with.
      - hombre_fatal 3mo ago
        Costco happens to have a couple products I want that I used to bring back by bike until I decided it wasn't worth it unless I was already walking back from the cafe near it. Swap Costco out with any place I might want to go, and my point doesn't change because whether I can carry a bag of six bagels or eat a pizza in their food court isn't up for debate. You got one-shot by a triviality. The argument is not whether Costco should be the one building built in more density acoss our cities but whether our cities are hospitable to walking/biking. Costco just happens to be an example of a business I used to like to bike to near me, but it's adjacent to many other businesses I could have mentioned instead like restaurants, a cafe, and my friend's apartment, not the sole reason the streets exist around it.
        iamnothere 3mo ago
        People go to Costco because they want to make fewer trips in general. They load up their giant SUVs with the kids and the dogs, then with all their groceries and clothing and pool floats and other merchandise, and they bring it back to their giant house that has room for storing all this extra crap. In my experience, people who live this way don’t have a problem with any of it. You can’t just “undo” one piece of this without undoing everything else about our society. And that’s just not likely to happen in a democracy, as annoying as that may be.
- lenerdenator 3mo ago
  Wait until you try putting a Costco-sized bulk package of something on a bike.
  - hombre_fatal 3mo ago
    Interesting how both responses zoomed in on the one part of the comment that wasn't a problem for me and asserted that it was the problem. Replace Costco with "some place I like to go" if that is less distracting.
    - lenerdenator 3mo ago
      Well, it's very much a part of the problem. The entire nature of commerce in much of the US is based around the automobile. You are expected to buy things in quantities that are best transported by a car. You are going to a place that is stocked by the truckload because it is placed near a road or highway. The money is made because of the road network. That's why governments build highways and roads: to enable commerce that they then tax. It's more efficient for a lot of commercial purposes if you have commerce occur at the scale of a vehicle than it is if it occurs at the scale of a person. If you want to go to a park or some other place "I like to go", sure, it's great to have those within walking distance, but that's not going to be enough to motivate political and economic will to scrap trillions of dollars in investment in infrastructure based on the automobile. It just isn't.
      - hombre_fatal 3mo ago
        > You are expected to buy things in quantities that are best transported by a car. This just isn't true. You got distracted by my mention of Costco and then ran with it. Do you know how people live in walkable cities without a car? Not unlike people who live a block from H-E-B, except passing by the shop is part of your day. You can pick up of quart of milk and some eggs and avocados for breakfast because it's no big deal to walk to the store and carry a bag. > It's more efficient for a lot of commercial purposes if you have commerce occur at the scale of a vehicle than it is if it occurs at the scale of a person. That's not what the data shows. We subsidize car infrastructure, and less density is worse for commerce, and land that could have been used for more business is eaten alive by surface parking.

hombre_fatal 3mo ago

But those people don't even have the option, so what do you mean they prefer to not walk/bike? How pleasant walking/biking will be is linked to density, reduced distance to amenities, and infrastructure, things almost no US cities have. I live blocks from Costco in one of those cities but the option is either get on my bike and share the four-lane road with aggressive drivers in massive trucks/SUVs or use a tiny sidewalk that randomly stops and picks up again a block or two later.

SoftTalker 3mo ago
What are you going to buy at Costco that you can carry home on a bike? In other words, if you want to bike to get your groceries, Costco is the wrong choice.
- hombre_fatal 3mo ago
  It's not relevant. If the word Costco is too distracting to interact with my point, then replace it with any place you might want to go in a day. The lack of infrastructure is what makes the routine unpleasant, not failing to carry a small bag of bagels home. Not even the weather since riding a bike casually creates a breeze.
  - SoftTalker 3mo ago
    My point was that if you want to bike to get things you need, you have to go to places that are on more local scale. A place like Costco can only exist with the support of a large amount of car infrastructure. So if you want to go there that's what you have to deal with.
    - hombre_fatal 3mo ago
      Costco happens to have a couple products I want that I used to bring back by bike until I decided it wasn't worth it unless I was already walking back from the cafe near it. Swap Costco out with any place I might want to go, and my point doesn't change because whether I can carry a bag of six bagels or eat a pizza in their food court isn't up for debate. You got one-shot by a triviality. The argument is not whether Costco should be the one building built in more density acoss our cities but whether our cities are hospitable to walking/biking. Costco just happens to be an example of a business I used to like to bike to near me, but it's adjacent to many other businesses I could have mentioned instead like restaurants, a cafe, and my friend's apartment, not the sole reason the streets exist around it.
      - iamnothere 3mo ago
        People go to Costco because they want to make fewer trips in general. They load up their giant SUVs with the kids and the dogs, then with all their groceries and clothing and pool floats and other merchandise, and they bring it back to their giant house that has room for storing all this extra crap. In my experience, people who live this way don’t have a problem with any of it. You can’t just “undo” one piece of this without undoing everything else about our society. And that’s just not likely to happen in a democracy, as annoying as that may be.
lenerdenator 3mo ago
Wait until you try putting a Costco-sized bulk package of something on a bike.
- hombre_fatal 3mo ago
  Interesting how both responses zoomed in on the one part of the comment that wasn't a problem for me and asserted that it was the problem. Replace Costco with "some place I like to go" if that is less distracting.
  - lenerdenator 3mo ago
    Well, it's very much a part of the problem. The entire nature of commerce in much of the US is based around the automobile. You are expected to buy things in quantities that are best transported by a car. You are going to a place that is stocked by the truckload because it is placed near a road or highway. The money is made because of the road network. That's why governments build highways and roads: to enable commerce that they then tax. It's more efficient for a lot of commercial purposes if you have commerce occur at the scale of a vehicle than it is if it occurs at the scale of a person. If you want to go to a park or some other place "I like to go", sure, it's great to have those within walking distance, but that's not going to be enough to motivate political and economic will to scrap trillions of dollars in investment in infrastructure based on the automobile. It just isn't.
    - hombre_fatal 3mo ago
      > You are expected to buy things in quantities that are best transported by a car. This just isn't true. You got distracted by my mention of Costco and then ran with it. Do you know how people live in walkable cities without a car? Not unlike people who live a block from H-E-B, except passing by the shop is part of your day. You can pick up of quart of milk and some eggs and avocados for breakfast because it's no big deal to walk to the store and carry a bag. > It's more efficient for a lot of commercial purposes if you have commerce occur at the scale of a vehicle than it is if it occurs at the scale of a person. That's not what the data shows. We subsidize car infrastructure, and less density is worse for commerce, and land that could have been used for more business is eaten alive by surface parking.