Metro Vancouver Road Infrastructure Discussion

[GenWhy?]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

Oh I know which one you are talking about. Marine Drive also sees truck traffic which accelerates deterioration of these temporarily filled in areas. Clark and Broadway had a massive inverted speed bump for a while, they finally fixed it when 5-7 cars got tire blowouts 2 summers ago.

These are scattered all over residential neighborhoods now too. Ontario and 10th Avenue have horrible stretches which makes me wonder how many bike tire blowouts occur. A bike tire vs this will instantly destroy rims.

Just take a look at the intersection at Ontario and E 33rd
https://goo.gl/maps/JtDDZA2bpyAXZBFJ7

How is it allowed to get THAT bad? I know municipal governments are bleeding money, but at some point...they need to commit to repaving roadways.

Being a driver & cyclist from the prairies and a cyclist here... I had to comment that this road looks MINT.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Blocking traffic isn't eco-terrorism. You and I might not agree with them, but we don't live in a dictatorship and/or police state.

Blocking people's routes to work (transit and cars). Impeding emergency vehicles to hospitals. Sounds like terrorism to me.

While it's heartening to know some people were arrested for this, the city needs to get a blanket injunction on blocking bridges, tunnels and Translink-designated arterial roads.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by whatnext

Blocking people's routes to work (transit and cars). Impeding emergency vehicles to hospitals. Sounds like terrorism to me.

Then the Pride Parade and the Sun Run are also terrorism. I don't think the Rebellion accomplishes anything either, but come on, that's MAGA logic.

[officedweller]

I think they are more anarchists rather than terrorists.
ie did they get permits to use the streets like others do (and not everyone would agree with other events closing streets, either)
But I don't think the majority of people would support their methods.

[logicbomb]

I remember being approached by an extinction rebellion member, they have this belief that Canada is one of the worst offenders for carbon emissions and we can be a global leader in shunting vehicle usage, eliminating ships from the harbour and cutting off exports of logs and fossil fuels.

China, USA, India and Russia contribute over half of the global carbon emissions while Canada contributes 2%. Point is, these countries are never going to reduce or alter their output of CO2 emissions.

Their movement makes no sense and it is time to accept that there is no immediate fix to climate change. — off the average joe by disrupting traffic makes their cause look illegitimate and does more harm.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

China, USA, India and Russia contribute over half of the global carbon emissions while Canada contributes 2%. Point is, these countries are never going to reduce or alter their output of CO2 emissions.

This is the wrong thread to debate how comprehensively wrong this statement is.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by whatnext

the city needs to get a blanket injunction on blocking bridges, tunnels and Translink-designated arterial roads.

i never understood why cities have to get injunctions for things like this. there are already rules preventing jay walking/blocking roads as well as camping in parks.

why do they need to go to the courts, to get permission to enforce a law/bylaw already on the books? that has never made any sense to me.

if i get a speeding ticket i wonder what would happen if i said they have to get a court injunction first.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I think they are more anarchists rather than terrorists.

Angsty Gen-Z's and Millennials who think that disrupting people's routines will make people take them more seriously, meanwhile all trying to soapbox for university credits or patreon funding while living in the west end. (I'm being mostly sarcastic about this statement. )
Anyways trying to get back towards the topic was this a commonplace before with the older 60's hippies? Blocking roads and highways isn't anything new and it's certainly different from the likes of the pride parade which if I recall is approved prior to being scheduled.

[scryer]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Blocking traffic isn't eco-terrorism. You and I might not agree with them, but we don't live in a dictatorship and/or police state.

Actually technically it is because cars are idling building up the CO2 levels they are trying to reduce .

Back on topic...

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by scryer

Actually technically it is because cars are idling building up the CO2 levels they are trying to reduce .

Another excellent reason for driving an EV (as WarrenC12 does).

[Klazu]

I think others already made all the counter points but it is absolutely extortion if not terrorism. "We will hold this crucial public space hostage until you meet our demands" is not peaceful protesting but extortion which is a serious crime. People have missed important meetings, job interviews, appointments they have waited for months, hospital trips, etc. because of these numbwits.

There is also an application and notification process to host events at public space that these entitled people do not follow, so comparing this to an organized event such as Sun Run is just plain wrong.

Funny enough, most of these people also don't live what they preach. I remember a recent case where a Green party member back in Finland was preaching about climate change only to be revealed to be jetsetting around the world to far-flung places multiple times a year for pure pleasure. His carbon footprint was bigger than 100 cars combined annually. Maybe that's why he was preaching his agenda so much that others would make compromises to compensate for his over-consumption?

That's the last thing I have to on this topic.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by MIPS

Anyways trying to get back towards the topic was this a commonplace before with the older 60's hippies?

In approximately the words of my dad, "Yeah, we used to march to save the whales and these kids are probably as idealistic as we were, but it's wrong now."

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Klazu

"We will hold this crucial public space hostage until you meet our demands" is not peaceful protesting but extortion which is a serious crime.

I'm not excusing them, but I think it's important to understand that they don't really expect their demands to be met. What they're really after is media exposure.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

In approximately the words of my dad, "Yeah, we used to march to save the whales and these kids are probably as idealistic as we were, but it's wrong now."

I happen to know a few of the people who attend these events, and I assure you they were also marching (or blocking traffic) to Save the Whale as well. The age range of the people attending isn't limited to any specific demographic. None of them own a vehicle that burns gasoline, either.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I happen to know a few of the people who attend these events, and I assure you they were also marching (or blocking traffic) to Save the Whale as well. The age range of the people attending isn't limited to any specific demographic. None of them own a vehicle that burns gasoline, either.

but do they own phones, clothes, live in some kind of building, and have anything modern? if so, it is brought to them and manufactured with oil!

and global shipping with manufacturing in China is a huge contributor. so really, they are hypocrites.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

but do they own phones, clothes, live in some kind of building, and have anything modern? if so, it is brought to them and manufactured with oil!

and global shipping with manufacturing in China is a huge contributor. so really, they are hypocrites.

I suspect they probably live comfortably below the 2.1 tonnes of personal carbon emmissions that would lead to the world avoiding a 2 degree temperature rise. I don't think Extinction Rebellion are calling for zero consumption, just a level of consumption that ensures global heating isn't catastrophic.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I suspect they probably live comfortably below the 2.1 tonnes of personal carbon emmissions that would lead to the world avoiding a 2 degree temperature rise. I don't think Extinction Rebellion are calling for zero consumption, just a level of consumption that ensures global heating isn't catastrophic.

Last I checked, they wanted net zero by 2025. Good luck with that I say.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Who wants to bet the Rebellion also opposes Site C? You're not getting to net zero without it.

Originally Posted by Changing City

I suspect they probably live comfortably below the 2.1 tonnes of personal carbon emmissions that would lead to the world avoiding a 2 degree temperature rise. I don't think Extinction Rebellion are calling for zero consumption, just a level of consumption that ensures global heating isn't catastrophic.

Reduce emissions per capita by 2.1 tonnes... or down to 2.1 tonnes total? Because even the average Costa Rican uses 1.8, and the country's as low-tech environmentalist as they come.

And while it's true we pollute a lot per capita and should lead by example by cutting back, it might be worth a little perspective - we're a drop in the bucket compared to China and the States. It's entirely possible that we could meet our Paris targets and they'd push us over the edge regardless.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Who wants to bet the Rebellion also opposes Site C? You're not getting to net zero without it.

Reduce emissions per capita by 2.1 tonnes... or down to 2.1 tonnes total? Because even the average Costa Rican uses 1.8, and the country's as low-tech environmentalist as they come.

And while it's true we pollute a lot per capita and should lead by example by cutting back, it might be worth a little perspective - we're a drop in the bucket compared to China and the States. It's entirely possible that we could meet our Paris targets and they'd push us over the edge regardless.

To 2.1 tonnes. You're right, we can lead by example. And we certainly can't criticise China or the US energy use if we don't address our own 16 tonne per capita emissions.

And as this isn't vaguely on topic, I'm sure the conversation should continue in a more appropriate thread.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

but do they own phones, clothes, live in some kind of building, and have anything modern? if so, it is brought to them and manufactured with oil!

and global shipping with manufacturing in China is a huge contributor. so really, they are hypocrites.

Evergreen comic: