Metro Vancouver Road Infrastructure Discussion

[cairnstone]

Originally Posted by Sheba

This is probably the best place to post this - B.C. government gets injunction to end North Van overpass protests

I have also seen regular groups out in the valley and Surrey wonder if they are connected. Lets hope something is done about them as its as bad an image as the DTES sidewalks

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by cairnstone

I have also seen regular groups out in the valley and Surrey wonder if they are connected. Lets hope something is done about them as its as bad an image as the DTES sidewalks

I think I generally fall on the fairly liberal side of the discourse around trans rights, but I'm really not a fan of restricting the right to protest like this. I can accept this particular protest method being shut down through violation of the transportation act and the potential disruption to traffic and safety, but one of the beauties of our free country is the right to protest and speak your mind anywhere you want as long as you aren't directly infringing on the rights of others. Suppressing protesters is a worse image to me than pretty much any peaceful protest.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I think I generally fall on the fairly liberal side of the discourse around trans rights, but I'm really not a fan of restricting the right to protest like this. I can accept this particular protest method being shut down through violation of the transportation act and the potential disruption to traffic and safety, but one of the beauties of our free country is the right to protest and speak your mind anywhere you want as long as you aren't directly infringing on the rights of others. Suppressing protesters is a worse image to me than pretty much any peaceful protest.

This isn't the states where any speech is free, we have hate speech laws in Canada, and these protests cross that line in their discourse. They're protesting someone else's right to exist freely and not something that they're effected by in the slightest. They should be treated no better than we treat the environmentalists protesting on the same highway.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by mcj

This isn't the states where any speech is free, we have hate speech laws in Canada, and these protests cross that line in their discourse. They're protesting someone else's right to exist freely and not something that they're effected by in the slightest. They should be treated no better than we treat the environmentalists protesting on the same highway.

Firstly, the environmentalist protests were actively blocking the highway and were also removed under the transportation act. Nothing to do with their right to protest.

Secondly, when our hate speech laws are tested in the court of law, it takes a lot more than protesting someone else's right to exist freely to convict. I sometimes think our hate speech laws cross the line a bit, but even in our legal system I highly doubt this protest could be taken to court.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by chowhou

I think I generally fall on the fairly liberal side of the discourse around trans rights, but I'm really not a fan of restricting the right to protest like this. I can accept this particular protest method being shut down through violation of the transportation act and the potential disruption to traffic and safety, but one of the beauties of our free country is the right to protest and speak your mind anywhere you want as long as you aren't directly infringing on the rights of others. Suppressing protesters is a worse image to me than pretty much any peaceful protest.

The injunction doesn't mention anything about the content of the protest. If someone wanted to hang a sign from that overpass that said "THANK YOU FIRST RESPONDERS" or "DAVID EBY IS THE GREATEST" then they'd be violating the court order just as much as the original group.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by CanSpice

The injunction doesn't mention anything about the content of the protest. If someone wanted to hang a sign from that overpass that said "THANK YOU FIRST RESPONDERS" or "DAVID EBY IS THE GREATEST" then they'd be violating the court order just as much as the original group.

Yes that's why I said I'm not bothered about telling this protest to move on, but the other poster said they wanted "something done about" similar protesters in Surrey and up the valley which unless they're also distracting drivers on overpasses shouldn't be enforceable.

[officedweller]

Montreal plans $5,000 lump sum grant to businesses affected by [road] construction
https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-n...t-to-businesses-affected-by-construction

[SpongeG]

84th is open in Surrey now, maybe a couple weeks, quite handy for getting to Costco when heading south along 140th, you can avoid the often slow-moving south bound traffic on KGH north of 88th.

Also Tesla chargers have been installed in the parking lot where Superstore is in Newton, they are not functional yet. Seen them there for at least a month.

[Vantage]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

84th is open in Surrey now, maybe a couple weeks,

Yep, was discussed on the previous page. Photos included.

[flipper316]

Anyone know what the construction is at 17 and 104th? Possible prepping for a future interchange? Also the hill on 17 north leading to highway 1 needs a repair badly. All the semis struggling to make it up that hill seem to have done a number on it.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Anyone know what the construction is at 17 and 104th?

That's Old Yale Road, 17 is getting an overpass removing the intersection. It's part of the Pattullo project.

[flipper316]

Originally Posted by madog222

That's Old Yale Road, 17 is getting an overpass removing the intersection. It's part of the Pattullo project.

Yea I get that but I'm referring to highway 17 and 104 avenue intersection in the Fraser Heights neigborhood of Surrey.

[Bobert]

Originally Posted by madog222

That's Old Yale Road, 17 is getting an overpass removing the intersection. It's part of the Pattullo project.

Good to hear the old yale intersection is being removed. Made no sense with the interchange a few 100 meters away

[madog222]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Yea I get that but I'm referring to highway 17 and 104 avenue intersection in the Fraser Heights neigborhood of Surrey.

Ah right, 104 turns into Tannery at the western end.

[gdking]

Originally Posted by flipper316

Yea I get that but I'm referring to highway 17 and 104 avenue intersection in the Fraser Heights neigborhood of Surrey.

That construction work is part of the Trans Mountain pipeline project.

An interchange was planned here when the SFPR was first proposed, and was shown as such in public presentation materials. Probably dropped on the grounds of cost. It's now been, what, a decade? Signs on the NB approach say "Queues Likely" but no sign of an interchange.

[libtard]

Originally Posted by gdking

That construction work is part of the Trans Mountain pipeline project.

An interchange was planned here when the SFPR was first proposed, and was shown as such in public presentation materials. Probably dropped on the grounds of cost. It's now been, what, a decade? Signs on the NB approach say "Queues Likely" but no sign of an interchange.

A “jug handle” interchange, the worst type of interchange ever. Another instance of “what were they THINKING???” for the ministry of transportation

[jollyburger]

Lions Gate Bridge centre lane reversal fail yesterday. They opened the lanes for northbound traffic while the last cars trying to cheat through on the yellow were stuck in the center lane trying to merge back to the far lane.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Lions Gate Bridge centre lane reversal fail yesterday. They opened the lanes for northbound traffic while the last cars trying to cheat through on the yellow were stuck in the center lane trying to merge back to the far lane.

Isn't that just normal, everyday procedure?

[jollyburger]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Isn't that just normal, everyday procedure?

Previous post was incorrect they were probably on a red when it got switched over. There were stopped cars in the middle lane while cars were driving straight at them in the same lane..

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

Previous post was incorrect they were probably on a red when it got switched over. There were stopped cars in the middle lane while cars were driving straight at them in the same lane..

Yeah, but what I was implying was that I suspect it's pretty normal for drivers loosing the centre lane to push it for as long as they can and end up trapped in it while they try to worm their way into the right hand lane.

In theory, both directions get the red "X"s for a long enough time for drivers to get out of the way before the other direction gets a green arrow, but I gotta believe that it can be hairy any day of the week. Those bridges are getting to the point where they don't really have a prevailing direction, there's a ton of traffic going north AND south every rush hour and beyond.

So when you try to compress two lanes of traffic into one, chaos ensues. And the longer you leave the yellow arrows on and the dual-direction red "X"s, the more people realize there there's a whole empty lane sitting there some drivers will figure "why not sneak into it?" Single Occupancy vehicles aren't supposed to be using the HOV lanes either, but does that stop them?

Anyone who rushes into the middle lane right after it turns green for their direction would be a fool not to be extra cautious...