this post was submitted on 16 Aug 2023
113 points (87.9% liked)

Fuck Cars

9625 readers
529 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
ConfidentLonely@lemmy.world
Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
toaster@slrpnk.net
113
Disneyland's parking structures (highlighted in red) (programming.dev)
submitted 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) by astraeus@programming.dev to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world
31 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I haven't done any technical calculations. On a quick glance I'd say all of this parking is about half the size of the park itself. Very little parking inside the main park boundaries, which is mostly for service vehicles (these spaces aren't highlighted).

Just something I was curious about, it's wild how much we accommodate, and how much space we waste, for cars.

Edit: not shown is the large lot southeast of the park. It is about three times the size of the lot to the southwest. There are other lots further outside the picture that add additional parking space not shown. Thanks to RvTV95XBeo for pointing this out.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] djsaskdja@endlesstalk.org 3 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Flying commercial has a larger carbon footprint than just driving a car.

[–] Bluerendar@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Anyone coming from out of country is probably flying, which is a significant amount. Anyone coming from the eastern half of the continent is probably too.

[–] Bluerendar@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

A quick check found some (admittedly dubious) stats claiming 71% of visitors are from in-country, presumably meaning 29% are not. Can't really be bothered to check further.

[–] QuinceDaPence@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago

Depends on the number of people in the car.

Now this is just fuel burn but the MPG required of the car is listed below. Average commercial jet gets 58mpg per person, which interestingly is better then my bike by 3.

1 person - 58mpg
2 people - 29mpg
3 people - 19mpg
4 people - 14mpg

I've heard conflicting data on the makeup of the gasses coming out of a turbine and wether it's better or worse than a car. Except for during takeoff should be an extremely lean burn that should be a very complete burn. Looks like the highest temperatures are just below the point that makes significant NOx.

[–] LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net 1 points 1 year ago

Not necessarily. Depends on several factors like the vehicle, distance, number of passengers, etc. In some cases flying can be a better option.

But really, I wasn’t endorsing flying, it’s just that for many people coming from out of state, that will be their method of transit. Enabling them to get to their destination without driving is still an improvement.