|
Baronjutter posted:So imagine you were designing a city where there were no private vehicles allowed in the city centre. What would the streets look like? Obviously emergency and service/delivery vehicles still need access, but what would the streets look like? I'm guessing more "shared" spaces with more fuzzy delineations between sidewalk and roadway? How would say a tram line be integrated into a street like that?
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 16:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
grover posted:I imagine it would look something like this: https://maps.google.com/maps?q=walt...008519&t=h&z=16 More like this: http://goo.gl/maps/OPIvU
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
That Granville street example works pretty good, pretty local too. Just replace the trolly buses with trams and add an extra meter or so for bike lanes. Although at say a 4-way intersection how would the bike lanes be handled? Would there maybe need to be signals of some sort so bikes don't smash into each other or smash into the crossing trams? Or at those speeds/volumes it would be ok to just have some sort of "hey watch out for trams" sign of some sort? And I imagine if the sidewalks are really nice and wide and there's little to no curb, delivery vehicles and such would just drive on the tram tracks and pull over onto the sidewalks during "delivery hours" or what not. But yeah, 4-way intersection between a street with like 4m+ sidewalks, bike lanes, and a 4m tram right of way and a similar street but with no tram? Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 17:10 on Nov 8, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 17:08
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:More like this: Ah, verilly- the pedestrian's utopia realized!
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 17:50
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:So imagine you were designing a city where there were no private vehicles allowed in the city centre. What would the streets look like? Obviously emergency and service/delivery vehicles still need access, but what would the streets look like? I'm guessing more "shared" spaces with more fuzzy delineations between sidewalk and roadway? How would say a tram line be integrated into a street like that? Europe does it just fine. Their old downtown areas, too narrow for proper cars, get turned into pedestrian arcades with retractable bollards for emergency use and periodic deliveries. Here's how it's set up in Compiègne: https://www.google.com/maps?ll=49.4...,153.16,,0,4.04 When you throw a tram in the mix, things get a BIT more complicated, because pedestrians (at least around here) aren't smart enough not to stand in front of a train. Throw in the tripping hazard and high voltage overhead lines and you've got a recipe for litigation. Works fine overseas, though. I liked Orléans' system: https://www.google.com/maps?ll=47.8...,352.43,,0,2.81 I got to go to the Signal Lab and take a bunch of pictures today, so I'll have those up once I have some free time to edit 'em.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 23:21
|
|
|
I've seen plenty of pedestrian plazas and areas but, outside of say Prauge's old town, I've not really seen whole large chunks of a city designed that way and to modern standards. Should the tram/road space go in the middle or off to the side? Like should it be the tram/vehicle way flanked by bike lanes and then sidewalks? Or should the trams go to one side and the bike lanes to the other? Imagine this isn't just a couple blocks downtown but a whole like 5x5 block city core entirely like this. There will be many pedestrians as well as Danish levels of bike commuters and a "bike rush hour". Basically where should the tram, vehicle, bike, and pedestrian ways go and how should they be separated from each other. Just a big ol cobble stone road with some tram tracks down the middle and some painted bike lanes? Carefully segregated uses divided by curbs and planters? Something in between? How would tram stops be handled? I remember before you talked me out of centre islands and the preferred method these days are 2 outside platforms.
|
|
#
?
Nov 8, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:large chunks of a city designed that way and to modern standards... 5x5 block city core You won't easily find these things in European cities with their medieval and early modern cores intact. Luckily, the Germans have left us with a concrete example how different modes integrate in a city center that's almost entirely post-1940. Have a tramview, warts and all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgzkUcL2-0E&t=1078s e: I'd say this would probably be the kind of thing you're looking for? The Tram crosses the shopping district here and only really shares its ROW with pedestrians, since biking is prohibited in ped-only areas. Koesj fucked around with this message at 00:30 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 00:20
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:I've seen plenty of pedestrian plazas and areas but, outside of say Prauge's old town, I've not really seen whole large chunks of a city designed that way and to modern standards. If I were designing something like that, I'd really consider doing it with hexagons, just because I'm crazy that way, but it'd work fine with rectangular blocks. Say go with 100m blocks, and... well, I should draw it.  Blue are typical 5m alleyways for low-volume ped and bike use. Green are bicycle boulevards for high-volume bike traffic. Magenta are tram lines. No building is farther than 100m from a high-volume travelway, or 200m from one of their choice.  Here is one of the aforementioned alleyways. Plenty wide for bidirectional bike lanes, and peds can go in whatever direction they like. There wouldn't be any barrier between them (low-speed, low-volume). The path's wide enough for emergency vehicle access.  When you get to a high-capacity bikeway, you put some light barrier between the different directions, and also between bikes and peds. The drainage design is slightly different, too.  You don't really want trams and bikes in the same place, but they're going to do it anyway, and get their wheels caught in the tracks, and ramp off tram platforms, and run over people trying to get off the tram. I like the idea of putting the highest-speed traffic in the middle of the road, by the way. It just makes sense to me. Intersections are left as an exercise to the reader.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 00:31
|
|
|
Right, so a street would either have a bike zone or a tram zone but not both. If you want to race your bike 4k to work you'd do it on the next street over, but if your destination is a tram-street then you can just sidewalk ride or walk your bike the last block or what ever because there's probably some ridiculous 10m wide sidewalk there anyways. With a dense enough street grid you don't have to have every use on every street. Cyclists hitting people getting on and off trams was a problem I was thinking of too. And where do vehicles park? Just pull over onto the sidewalk while they unload? Also gently caress I love first person tram videos. Sometimes I just pull them up on youtube and watch/listen to them in the background while doing something else. But man in that video the sidewalks the tram is running by are just choked full of locked up bikes but I'm not seeing much or anything in the terms of bike lanes or bike infrastructure. And drat does tram-track-in-grass look hot as hell. Baronjutter fucked around with this message at 01:39 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 01:35
|
|
|
Some newer areas in the southeast of Amsterdam have everything separated - a grid of car roads up on earth dams, with a separate and more dense grid of bike paths and pedestrian paths under it, that tunnel under the roads when crossing them. It is the most annoying thing, because you orient yourself based on either one of the grids, and if you're going to a place on some street, it's extremely confusing to find it walking or by bike since you can't actually go on that street. Same if you're looking for a place that's only on a ped path, you'd have to know where in the area you can put your car and walk up to it, otherwise, good luck. They'll also have a ped entrance on one side and a bike entrance on the other... It's completely unintuitive, and impossible to navigate based on general directions, you have to know where you're going exactly. In practise, people just end up walking across everything and have worn dirt paths into the grass next to the roads. If you just have to cross, it's too much effort to go down the stairs, go under the road through the ped tunnel on the official path, and walk up again. e: Had this area in mind: http://goo.gl/maps/3A82S Baronjutter posted:But man in that video the sidewalks the tram is running by are just choked full of locked up bikes but I'm not seeing much or anything in the terms of bike lanes or bike infrastructure. And drat does tram-track-in-grass look hot as hell. You can't really see them very well, but on the bigger streets that have tram tracks in the middle and road lanes on the sides, the bike lanes are on the other side of those roads, separated behind the parked cars (if there is parking), with sidewalks on the far outside. In a few spots they're not separated, there you just get a dashed line between the road and the parking spots or sidewalk which delineates a small bike lane, though cars may cross the dashed line. On the smaller streets there's no need for separate bike lanes since there is not much traffic, and it's slow. Entropist fucked around with this message at 01:50 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 01:41
|
|
|
That sounds awful. Every street should have ped access at the minimum then one or more "other" uses. I could see having a network of car-streets with sidewalks, bike paths with sidewalks, and pure pedestrian streets.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 01:46
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:That sounds awful. Every street should have ped access at the minimum then one or more "other" uses. I could see having a network of car-streets with sidewalks, bike paths with sidewalks, and pure pedestrian streets. That's not what he meant, it's pedestrian access everywhere in that vid, with either bikes, cars, or trams added. The non-separation is between cars and bikes, because some roads just aren't that busy and Dutch drivers tend to handle sharing streets well.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 03:00
|
|
|
Koesj posted:That's not what he meant, it's pedestrian access everywhere in that vid, with either bikes, cars, or trams added. The non-separation is between cars and bikes, because some roads just aren't that busy and Dutch drivers tend to handle sharing streets well. I think that was referring to my description of the Bijlmer. No pedestrian access on those street. You can see the 'customization' that this leads to here: http://goo.gl/maps/yVi4Z That's where people illegally cross the street and walk along the side street. The 'official' way would be to stay on the right, walk down some stairs, go through a bike/ped tunnel on the far side of the crossing, walk about 300m along the street, and take another tunnel under the side street, to get to that side of the road... Entropist fucked around with this message at 03:27 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 03:25
|
|
|
Oh Koesj everything is your video was some grade A first-world urban planning and made me extra ashamed to live in north america. Yeah I was talking about that stupid entirely segregated-network suburb.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Entropist posted:I think that was referring to my description of the Bijlmer. Ahh of course. gently caress the Bijlmer's old set-up indeed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 03:54
|
|
|
As part of the urban renewal program for the Bijlmer they actually lowered a bunch of those raised "dreef" roads in the Bijlmer. It was found that the lack of (car) traffic along some roads lowered the feelings of safety. Bijlmer was sort of a urban planning experiment that didn't work so well. Amsterdam has been reconstructing and rebranding it for a few decades now. They demolished a lot of the huge high rise appartment blocks (think banlieu style blocks with similar social problems) and have been transforming the road grid to a more traditional system. Also they don't call it Bijlmer anymore but rebranded it to Zuid-Oost (South-East).
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 11:27
|
|
|
That old design seems like the unhappy child of those early 20th century drawings of ridiculously multilevel cities and normal roads. You know, those illustrations from like the Popular Mechanics of 1948 or so where there's cities of 100 story skyscrapers and every 10 floors you have roads for a different kind of traffic and the top tier is just landing strips and taxiways into the buildings for compact airplanes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 21:26
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:That old design seems like the unhappy child of those early 20th century drawings of ridiculously multilevel cities and normal roads. You know, those illustrations from like the Popular Mechanics of 1948 or so where there's cities of 100 story skyscrapers and every 10 floors you have roads for a different kind of traffic and the top tier is just landing strips and taxiways into the buildings for compact airplanes. Which means Cichlidae will probably tell us all why it can't possibly work in real life 
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 21:41
|
|
|
The idea of messing with different traffic modes to increase the feeling of personal safety is interesting. Baltimore is actually removing several 2nd-story pedestrian bridges connecting buildings downtown, partly because they made people feel unsafe, both below and above - they're trying to make it have more foot traffic on the street level to feel safer, even if it does mean more effort in crossing the street.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
grover posted:That actually sounds pretty awesome. In addition to allowing full segregation of trucks from cars from bikes from pedestrians, Raising the effective street levels like Seattle did in the 1890s would help flood-prone cities like NYC proof against a future Sandy-like event. Mostly they would just end up being an annoyance though, and I'd particularly expect the complete over the top ones to be. Imagine having to drive into the city up on the 30th floor but there isn't much parking around so then you have to park up there, then get down to the pedestrian level to walk over to another building where you have to take another elevator back up to the 64th floor for your destination. There's a few specific depictions of this I'm thinking of, but I'm having a hell of a time thinking of the correct search terms. They're definitely the sort of things that look neat at first glance, but then when you consider having to actually deal with them its all "no, wait, that'd be a huge pain in the rear end".
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 22:00
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:Mostly they would just end up being an annoyance though, and I'd particularly expect the complete over the top ones to be. Imagine having to drive into the city up on the 30th floor but there isn't much parking around so then you have to park up there, then get down to the pedestrian level to walk over to another building where you have to take another elevator back up to the 64th floor for your destination. Seattle did something (I think) wonderful after the 1889 fire: they raised the street level. New storefronts were built at the new street level, and are what we see today; previously ground floor storefronts simply became the basement. If everything below the new surface was treated as if it's underground (and built watertight), this would effectively raise the entire city above flood level. And would give an extra roadway to ease traffic congestion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
A lot of cities make minor use of simple two-level streets. Chicago's got that in some places and I think LA as well. A major problem that can develop is properly maintaining both levels of streets, particularly if you're anywhere seismically active. The design in the Netherlands where one of the levels is only for light-impact pedestrian and bike traffic kinda helps eliminate that since only the motorized streets will have heavy traffic causing major damage. Realistically though, NYC traffic is just unsolvable. When you have that many people in that small an area, even with most of them not ever driving you're going to have a ton of congestion and it's best to simply figure out ways to get traffic that wants to go from one side to the other to bypass the whole area. (and honestly that's why some of Robert Moses' additional freeway plans should have built, the one or two that were just meant to link Hudson River tunnels over to East River bridges and tunnels. That would take out a good deal of current congestion caused by traffic trying to cross Manhattan to get between NJ and the west to Long Island) Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 23:04 on Nov 9, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2013 23:02
|
|
|
Install Windows posted:That old design seems like the unhappy child of those early 20th century drawings of ridiculously multilevel cities and normal roads. You know, those illustrations from like the Popular Mechanics of 1948 or so where there's cities of 100 story skyscrapers and every 10 floors you have roads for a different kind of traffic and the top tier is just landing strips and taxiways into the buildings for compact airplanes. Yep -- classic Garden City. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:Meanwhile in Europe, http://green.autoblog.com/2013/10/29/bicycles-outsold-cars-all-over-europe-last-year/ You know, I was visiting London a few months ago, and, with my newfound sense of cycling and road infrastructure, was pretty appalled at the overall setup. But it occurs to me that the main issue is that you have a city which did most of its growing into a metropolis back in the days of horse carriages (and to a greater degree than cities pretty much anywhere, due to the whole height of the British Empire thing). And, unlike say Paris or Berlin, there was never any major urban replanning/reconstruction. So you have a whole lot of roads that are barely wide enough for two cars to squeeze by going the opposite direction, but in addition they allow people to park, and try to fit in cycling infrastructure. Cyclists seemed to just ride in the door zone as a matter of course. I mean stuff like this: http://goo.gl/maps/x6eek They've tried to put it some bike boxes, and a weird kind bike lane in one spot, and there were really a lot of cyclists using this street, but there also absolutely isn't room for a car to pass a bicycle safely, nor is there room on such a narrow street to create that. Money-wise, Boris has kinda pledged a billion pounds over the next decade -- £100 million a year can go quite a long way in terms of building cycling infrastructure. Plus those blue painted bike lanes are actually sponsored (the blue is for loving Barclay's corporate branding). But here is a question for the traffic engineers: how do you build safe cycling infrastructure in London (given incredibly narrow roads through suburbs built 150+ years ago)?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 07:20
|
|
|
Despite the fact that urban freeways are usually terrible things, London could have actually benefited from having the ringways and their radials built, if for no other reason then to have a lot of traffic shifted onto them from the surface road network. Instead it's all just a mess, with the apparent intent that this would magically cause people to stop using cars so much. That obviously didn't work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
One thing to note about pedestrian connections on a separate level: It was a big trend in France to build a supposedly self-sufficient high-rise. Parking on the bottom, shops in the middle, and apartments on the top would mean that, in theory, most people would never have to leave the building. On top of that, shop floors would be designated for high ped traffic and be connected to the same level on adjacent buildings. Can you spot the problem? People don't want to drive to a high-rise, park, and head upstairs to go to a store, especially one with no visible storefront. One by one, those businesses disappeared, and the buildings were left with what amounted to run-down alleys, with the added detriment that there was no police presence since it wasn't at ground level. Rampant violent crime and vandalism abound.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
But it worked fine in SimTower...
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Have any big cities tried just getting rid of street parking downtown entirely? It just seems like such an imbalance between supply and demand, and a waste of a lot of road space.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Have any big cities tried just getting rid of street parking downtown entirely? It just seems like such an imbalance between supply and demand, and a waste of a lot of road space. grover fucked around with this message at 17:35 on Nov 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 17:23
|
|
|
grover posted:Like the failed French experiment showed, having a vibrant commercial center requires convenient access. And not just to get to the store, but to get all that crap you just bought back home. Which generally requires convenient parking. Say what you will about Wal-Mart, but Wal-Mart offers convenient access and convenient parking. I can drive to Wal-Mart, do my shopping, and get back home in less time than it would take me to walk to the nearest bus stop. (Which, Ironically, is at Wal-Mart.) You don't need parking in front of your store to be accessible. In the Netherlands you park at the edge of the city center and walk the rest, or park somewhere on the outskirts and take public transport into the city center. Though obviously we're not talking about people purchasing furniture here, it's stuff like clothing, gadgets, etc. People who want to buy furniture can do so in places you describe, which are actually on the outskirts and have plenty of parking. They're also soulless hellholes where you don't want to be longer than strictly necessary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 18:12
|
|
|
smackfu posted:Have any big cities tried just getting rid of street parking downtown entirely? It just seems like such an imbalance between supply and demand, and a waste of a lot of road space. Most big cities have much wider roads then would be needed for the traffic to get through, so it's sensible to maintain parking along them. There's not really much benefit to be had by making the sidewalks wider instead, and there's rarely been trouble building dedicated bike lanes while still keeping the same amount of on-street parking. As we know, just adding another traffic lane onto an already large number of lanes has quickly diminishing returns in terms of added capacity.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 18:34
|
|
|
John Dough posted:You don't need parking in front of your store to be accessible. In the Netherlands you park at the edge of the city center and walk the rest, or park somewhere on the outskirts and take public transport into the city center. You can park in the city center in any city. Amsterdam, the Hague, Utrecht. It just isn't very cheap, up to €7 a hour in Amsterdam. For big purchases it does help if your shop is car accessible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 20:36
|
|
|
Where I live people bitch about parking a lot but it's really not bad, it's just less easy than some suburban city. There's street parking but it's a bit expensive and there's a few big city owned parkades that are like 7 stories and cheap and most businesses have first-hour-free coupons you can get and then it's like only $2 an hour after that. Not that I need to shop much but when I do I'll drive into town, park at one of the big city parkades and then just spend a couple hours walking all over downtown from shop and shop and then loading everything in the car. Or if it's not much, just take the bus or walk. Even furniture you can get in town, you just get that poo poo delivered. Groceries come from neighbourhood supermarkets that you drive to, but a lot of people who live within a couple blocks just walk and only get a couple bags, or go with their kids and use the kids correctly as beasts of burden. A lot of current urban planning thought says to stop trying so hard get people from the suburbs to drive into downtown to shop and spend as you will never compete with the malls and big boxes with their free parking. Many cities have been trying to do that since the 60's by making driving into the city easier, providing more parking, making cities more suburban and mall-like, but it's never enough. There's always complaints that there's not enough parking, there's scary homeless/coloured people around, the streets aren't air conditioned, and basically that it isn't a mall. Instead of destroying your downtown to try to court suburbanites to drive in to visit, you simply put the people in the core in the first place so they don't need to drive there or only drive when absolutely needed. Instead of trying to make the city suburban, something it isn't and shouldn't be, focus on improving its strengths. There's many successful cases where a city decides to sacrifice parking and easy car access to a shopping area and replaces it with better pedestrian, bike, and transit access and sales and general vibrancy go up. Of course it has to be a place worth going to in the first place. A dying small town main street isn't going to save its self with some bike lanes and reduced parking. But a busy urban shopping area that attracts both locals and suburban visitors may vastly improve its self by giving up trying to seduce suburban car-drivers into coming and instead focus on pedestrian and bike traffic from more near-by customers. Of course you need those near-by customers, and people don't like living near urban highways. So get rid of the urban highways, add more people IN the city, and not worry so much about what people 20km away think of the parking situation downtown because you don't need them anymore.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
John Dough posted:You don't need parking in front of your store to be accessible. In the Netherlands you park at the edge of the city center and walk the rest, or park somewhere on the outskirts and take public transport into the city center. Though obviously we're not talking about people purchasing furniture here, it's stuff like clothing, gadgets, etc. People who want to buy furniture can do so in places you describe, which are actually on the outskirts and have plenty of parking. They're also soulless hellholes where you don't want to be longer than strictly necessary. You just can't beat a big parking lot right in front of a one-stop-shop store for convenient and practical access. Small town America is dying because nobody wants to deal with lovely parking and having to visit a bunch of specialty shops spread across town anymore. Not when you can get everything you need for a ton cheaper and way more convenient at a single big supermarket or department store. Even our shopping malls are in a huge decline. grover fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Nov 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 21:19
|
|
|
You're right about park and rides to an extent, I was reading a lot of new data and theory that says they're often overall failures and not worth the cost/land of implementing. They sometimes work out though, or at least work for the users them selves. If you live in some far away suburb and work downtown it might take you over an hour to drive in horrible traffic and then $200 a month on parking, or just drive from your house a couple km, enjoy cheap parking at a station, and then take the train into town.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 21:35
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:You're right about park and rides to an extent, I was reading a lot of new data and theory that says they're often overall failures and not worth the cost/land of implementing. They sometimes work out though, or at least work for the users them selves. If you live in some far away suburb and work downtown it might take you over an hour to drive in horrible traffic and then $200 a month on parking, or just drive from your house a couple km, enjoy cheap parking at a station, and then take the train into town.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Shopping malls on the whole ain't on the decline, it's mostly just really old and small ones and ones that were built way too close to others in order to sustain sales. The latter tended to come out of various construction booms during the 80s-2000s, and frankly without a boom mentality behind them they probably wouldn't have been built.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
grover posted:Driving to a parking lot to take a bus/train/whatever is not very convenient or accessible, and actually seems pretty ridiculous. I'm not even talking about furniture and appliances; how are you supposed to carry an entire cartload of groceries on a bus? How do you cope? Many small trips limited to what you can carry? You don't do grocery shopping when you're going into the city here for, say, a Saturday afternoon. Visiting a city center is very much a leisure activity and I pretty much avoid leaving my house on Saturdays because there's way too many out-of-towners about, and Germans as well since we're close to them  What do people buy? Clothes and small retail stuff mostly. You go to one of the three H&Ms or one some other chain store outlet in streets like this one, then grab a coffee, or eat some raw herring when it's a market day. grover posted:It can work OK for commuting, but it's just too unwieldy for any sort of practical shopping. Even when well-implemented and successful (like DC), it's always struck me as an act of desperation; that resources would have be better spent improving traffic and parking infrastructure. Like multi-level viaducts and parking garages. Sure, but when a big driver for daytime leisure activity is the niceness of the city center itself, I wouldn't want resources to be spent on 'multilevel viaducts' right there. You can have a decent mix of both close-in parking and P&R facilities without breaking the bank in a medium-sized European city.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 21:54
|
|
|
grover posted:how are you supposed to carry an entire cartload of groceries on a bus? How do you cope? Many small trips limited to what you can carry? You can order groceries online and get them delivered to your kitchen.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 22:48
|
|
|
Jeoh posted:You can order groceries online and get them delivered to your kitchen. grover fucked around with this message at 23:03 on Nov 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:24 |
|
|
Jeoh posted:You can order groceries online and get them delivered to your kitchen. Or drive to one of the 95% of grocery stores not in the city center and park your car in front for free. Even many supermarkets in shopping malls will reimburse your parking fee if you buy over €10 of groceries. grover posted:Does the ice cream all melt? No it is packed in polystyrene box with dry ice (i wonder what this does for CO2 emissions, they use about half a kg of dry ice per box). NihilismNow fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Nov 10, 2013 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2013 22:57
|
|