Last time I did this through LAX (flying onwards to Toronto) it was pretty minimal. You pick up your bag, go through immigration, then on the way out of there drop your bag off with an airline agent and on it goes to your destination.
Before the latest incarnation of Trumpistan though.
It's still a pain; and what do you do if your bag and/or the inbound flight are late? Do you leave it behind or wait and risk missing the connection? And of course ~no other countries do that and nothing bad happens.
Musk should have gone after TSA et al first, he could have dismantled the entire rest of the government on the goodwill from that :)
Most people have great pleasure in owning and driving a nice car. The ones that do not are a minority. There are many reasons why cars (and trucks) are desirable and sought after possessions. It would be a logical fallacy that because you currently do not want one, people should build major projects with no regard to car parking.
Too many people though love cars. Some cities are banning cars. Of course buses, trains, delivery vehicles still exist.
Wide open places like US and Canada sure but many places are super crowded. Southern China, Lagos Nigeria, Tokyo, Mexico City. They're all implementing trains for a reason. There is just no way for cars to move if packed into a small area with hundreds of thousands of people.
In case you're being serious, you rent a car or take an Uber. A metropolis might as well be defined by its lack of car ownership.
Even when you're renting or being driven, you go as far as you can via train. (The Metro-North goes to an Appalachian trailhead [1].) It's safer, simpler, cheaper and nobody has the deadweight loss of being unpaid chauffeur.
Hrmm, so you do need a car after all. It's really amusing listening to people from the Bay Area pass down edicts for how everyone else should use transportation, given that their decrees are a complete non-starter in well over 99% of the United States. Calling it "out of touch" would be a bit generous.
> so you do need a car after all. It's really amusing listening to people from the Bay Area
The Bay Area is car centric--most people have a driver's license. I live in Wyoming and lived in New York. You need a car in Wyoming. You don't in Manhattan. High rises make sense in the latter. They'd be stupid here.
If you're dense enough to make high rises necessary, you're too dense for cars to make sense. Parking for high rises is a dead giveaway the project is being pursued for appearances. (San Francisco's skyscrapers are dominated by commercial buildings that double as advertising.)
You didn't ask how to go hiking in the mountains, you asked how to "leave city limits". but you could still bike, go with friends, or rent a car for a day if no buses go where you want. Hiking locations tend to have lots of tourists so there would likely be bus routes, however.
Sure, that's true - though I can see a couple dozen of them out of the window behind my desk, and there'd be lots more if I were on the other side of the building - but I was really just replying to the previous commenter's mockery of the idea that one could go to the mountains via bus. It's not only possible, it's routine!
Bullshit, I'm from the Puget Sound and it hardly covers any of the good trails in the Cascades, nor could it do so practically if service were ever expanded.
Yeah, and when my grandpa was a kid, instead of a 20 minute drive to the neighboring town, it literally took them three days on foot because of all the hills, sloughs, and rivers. Cars and their associated infrastructure are a modern miracle, and the luddites opposed them are extremely foolish.
Are you claiming that an occasional need for a car dictates that every person needs their own dedicated full time car and that all dwellings need associated parking?
I have four of these around my house and they're a massive improvement on plain PIR for human presence detection. I use them to turn lights and screens on and off and to notify when someone is at the front door.
In the end it's subjective, but SF gets 24% more sunshine year-round, and 42% less rain, so they balance each other out. Can't go wrong with either IMO!
I visited the supercomputer centre at UEindhoven back in the 1990s. All the hardware was up on the first floor, which of course meant serious load bearing construction. But this is why.
> Not just the Netherlands, most of Europe counts floors like this: ground, first, second, etc.
I think it wildly differs all around Europe.
In Spain for example, if someone says "1st floor" it can be two or three floors above the actual ground floor, if there is a "Entresuelo" or "Principal", and you start counting after those. Actual ground floor is "bajo".
On the other hand you have the "atico" (attic) which is the top level floor, unless there is a "sobre atico" ("above the attic"), so just because you live in the attic doesn't mean you live on the top floor.
Then every region can have their own convention, or even difference in neighborhoods in the same city.
I'm not sure how many countries in Europe count like that, the online information is totally unreliable. For example:
https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/mvnkja/floor_numbe...
That map is absolutely incorrect for a bunch of countries, e.g. the Nordic ones.
I would say it's not counting from zero but it's a "ground floor" (that's basically were your door is) and the floor above is the first floor. There's no "zeroeth floor".
Why though? Eindhoven is about 17 meters above sea level, and the Dommel seems hardly big enough to pose a serious flood risk. (It obviously does flood every once in a while, but usually not near the university area)
Ironically enough the parts that flood the most in the Netherlands are the parts which are not below sea level. Just this week Doetinchem experienced some high water due to heavy rainfall [1]. In the south-east and east they sometimes also have problems with the amount of water the rivers over there have to process. In both cases the problem is the river can't process the water fast enough.
The parts below sea-level are mostly all in the delta area. Meaning there is little risk of rivers overflowing since they are at their widest in the delta. And as for rainfall; That just means pump water harder out of the "tub" then normal. As for the threat of sea-water in these areas, that's were the Delta Werken[2] are for.
Before the latest incarnation of Trumpistan though.
reply