|
--
Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Feb 2, 2016 |
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
It's not a cost issue, cars easily cost 4x as much or more than transit, and people still drive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
If you drive then you can afford a cheaper house outside the down town core, and you might get additional work opportunities, so it's not quite as simple as saying cars are vastly more expensive.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
Helsing posted:If you drive then you can afford a cheaper house outside the down town core, and you might get additional work opportunities, so it's not quite as simple as saying cars are vastly more expensive. Correct. My job would not be possible without my car. Outside of that I think car ownership should not be discouraged in this country and I disagree with the overall tone of this thread towards motorists. I think if you want to drive you should be allowed to do so without stretching affordability to its limits.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:27
|
|
|
 Man I wish I did not miss this guy in the last election!
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Automobile traffic into the downtown core has been steadily decreasing for the past decade. Also the plan calls for connecting Georgia Street via Pacific Street, allowing an easier connection to 1st Ave, reducing the number of turns and intersections required to leave the downtown core and head to the "boonies". It's really not as bad as people paint it to be and yet everyone gets fixated on this idea that we're going to have everything ruined. I'm all for a more streamlined traffic system so I hope you're right. I think the main reason I was opposed to the idea was because the first pitch for the teardown I heard was talking about how great it will be to sell that land to developers so they can build more condos. That and I get to see the wonderful gridlock that is West Georgia approaching the Lions Gate bridge from my window, but that's a separate issue. Do you have a source for traffic decreasing in the downtown core? Melian Dialogue posted:Thats the point. We can only make incentives go so far before we have to go the other route and use disincentives. People are not going to give up their cars while they are still more convenient and affordable than the other options. I don't think we'll ever be able to take the car out of Vancouver.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:38
|
|
|
http://vancouver.ca/docs/eastern-core/viaducts-study-summary.pdf looks super thorough e: 
rawrr fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
rawrr posted:http://vancouver.ca/docs/eastern-core/viaducts-study-summary.pdf Cool, gonna check this out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
rawrr posted:http://vancouver.ca/docs/eastern-core/viaducts-study-summary.pdf Yeah. This is what I was going to post. It has been cited in the NaPo as well: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/vancouver-traffic-worst-in-canada-study-says quote:But the Lower Mainland will continue to have a traffic congestion problem while its population grows and areas south of the Fraser River and east of Langley are underserviced by rapid transit, said Walton, the mayor of North Vancouver. So yeah. Traffic sucks a lot outside of the city centre, but cars going in and out are decreasing and have so for the past few decades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 22:53
|
|
|
Turns out that study was done in 2011. There's a bunch more recent/relevant pdfs here: http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/viaducts-study.aspx but it's a lot of stuff to digest to form a meaningfully informed opinion.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
Other than mobility impaired people and people who have to haul a bunch of crap for work, nobody needs a car in Vancouver. The transit system is a goddamned wet dream compared to everywhere else in Canada except maybe Montreal and whenever I'm making a relatively speedy 65km trip from Langley to Horseshoe Bay for like $3 I wonder why anyone would even bother driving. That said a decent car sharing scheme that supported the whole GVA would be pretty sweet. It looks like there's a couple but they only serve the downtown core where cars are extra useless.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Terebus posted:I don't think the replacement will handle the traffic... Terebus posted:I'm not a traffic engineer
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
--
Melian Dialogue fucked around with this message at 05:15 on Feb 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
Melian Dialogue posted:This isn't true. Both Car2Go and Evo support pretty much the entirety of Vancouver Proper from UBC to Boundary St. They don't only serve the downtown core. Modo also serves from Surrey to North Vancouver--Victoria too. quote:Succinct and perfect. Guess what, your little confirmation bias-laden observations aren't a suitable alternative for real research and analysis, so I really don't care what joe-schmoe from Port Moody who drives in every day has to feel about the impact on traffic. But my right to drive.  I wish there was an easier way to convey to the public that every square kilometre of road costs more to run and maintain than every kilometre of rapid transit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Melian Dialogue posted:This isn't true. Both Car2Go and Evo support pretty much the entirety of Vancouver Proper from UBC to Boundary St. They don't only serve the downtown core. I guess I meant just Vancouver, as opposed to the rest of the GVA. You can drive out of Vancouver, but you have to start and end your trip there, so if you live outside there you're sol. I can't figure out if Modo has similar restrictions. Square Peg fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Oct 28, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
OSI bean dip posted:Modo also serves from Surrey to North Vancouver--Victoria too. Square km to linear km?
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:36
|
|
|
Bill Tieleman at the Tyee has a good analysis of the NDP's failure. In particular, he is absolutely right to contextualize this election as part of a greater, unsuccessful strategy:http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2015/10/27/NDP-Was-Not-Ready/ posted:First, the federal NDP's 2015 loss and the failed campaign strategy are hardly unique. Take a look at the depressing BC NDP campaign of 2013, when the BC Liberals snatched away what many assumed was a guaranteed victory for the provincial New Dems. I'm perhaps not as eager as some others to see Mulcair go (though I agree that whatever happens, it needs to be a democratic decision), but the party's staffing, strategies, and organization need a complete overhaul.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Ikantski posted:Square km to linear km? Yes. It's hyperbole but pavement costs more to maintain than rail.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
You guys sure get indignant easy. I'm glad you can read I clearly stated those are my opinions as a layman. I'm going to check out those studies rawrr posted and get better informed. I'm all for better transit and a better road system. Like I said before, he main reason I'm skeptical of the viaduct teardown is because it seems like a way to just squeeze more condos into downtown and improving the traffic grid just seems to be a secondary concern. The linked studies can definitely change my mind though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Improving traffic flow in terms of throughput is and should be a secondary concern. The more throughput you add, the more people will attempt to drive on it, returning congestion to the previous levels. Usually it lags by a few months, but the result is the same. You can and should attempt to improve traffic flow in safety terms, but that's not what anybody is talking about in these discussions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:45
|
|
Yes, it's like a lava lamp.
|
lmao at viaduct tears gently caress you and gently caress Vancouver
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
PittTheElder posted:Improving traffic flow in terms of throughput is and should be a secondary concern. The more throughput you add, the more people will attempt to drive on it, returning congestion to the previous levels. Usually it lags by a few months, but the result is the same. You can and should attempt to improve traffic flow in safety terms, but that's not what anybody is talking about in these discussions. Lolllll induced demand trope
|
|
#
?
Oct 28, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:lmao at viaduct tears Always the voice of reason in a sea of spandex assholes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
THC posted:Tell me more. It wasn't ever really beyond the basic planning stage but the Hill reporter for the Huffpop found the documents and reported it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/en-gb/581/024/760/rename-the-east-calgary-landfill-to-the-stephen-j-harper-research-archive/ Finally! An ePetition I'd actually sign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
until you make transit faster than driving people wont care theyll shovel thousands of dollars out for the faster, more private commute
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 00:52
|
|
|
Do it ironically posted:until you make transit faster than driving people wont care theyll shovel thousands of dollars out for the faster, more private commute It's already faster if you live near rapid transit. For me to get to work from where I live, it's a 5 minute walk, 25 minutes on the train, then maybe a 5 minute walk again. For me to drive, it would be 1 hour to drive and then 10 minutes to park and walk. There's little excuse for a lot of people who drive into downtown Vancouver other than they just don't care about forking out 4x the money.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 00:55
|
|
|
Health Services posted:Bill Tieleman at the Tyee has a good analysis of the NDP's failure. In particular, he is absolutely right to contextualize this election as part of a greater, unsuccessful strategy: This article in the Tyee also rings true: quote:But the people who run the NDP are political junkies. The clutch of strategists who steer the party, incapable of thinking politically or historically, were convinced that the breakthroughs in 2008 and 2011 owed to the fact that they'd suddenly gotten better at sending emails, were suddenly running more efficient campaigns. They favoured what was not only a purely national explanation for what was clearly at least partially an international phenomenon, but one that even more specifically rested on the story of their own personal genius. quote:
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Jan posted:But... m-m-m-my urban eyesore! We are!? Ohmigod, that's great news! That viaduc always felt to me like a little part of Detroit in Montreal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 01:43
|
|
|
It would be pretty interesting to require representation in parliament from all age groups.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 02:02
|
|
|
Whoa guys, whoa, I've just had a crazy drunk idea: What if we made it mandatory that parties fully dissolve after two consecutive campaigns, that party names are banned from reuse for twenty years, and all parties are handed equal funding from a federally controlled "trust fund". 
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Rime posted:Whoa guys, whoa, I've just had a crazy drunk idea: A fund that is preferably controlled by some kind of Protectorate...
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Rime posted:Whoa guys, whoa, I've just had a crazy drunk idea: Sounds like a great way to ensure the public forgets about the bad things the Conservatives did when after two elections they disband and run identical candidates with an identical backroom team but a different name and different colours.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Craig Scott is pretty salty over losing, isn't he?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 02:33
|
|
|
He was the shadow cabinet minister of democratic reform, and he would know. Disclaimer: I worked in his constituency office for a few years.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
Kafka Esq. posted:He was the shadow cabinet minister of democratic reform, and he would know. I don't care what he was shadow minister for*, how does he know that after repeatedly promising - both before and after the election - that this would be the last Canadian Federal election under FPTP that the government won't honour its promise? Also, his concession Facebook post was super salty, and it sure doesn't look like he's over it yet. *Unless he's, like, the Shadow Minister, and he protects Canada from magical threats
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 02:41
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:I don't care what he was shadow minister for*, how does he know that after repeatedly promising - both before and after the election - that this would be the last Canadian Federal election under FPTP that the government won't honour its promise? Craig Scott posted:I honestly do not believe that — at the leadership level of the Liberal Party — there is a commitment to proportional representation. What part of that statement is wrong? The Liberals never promised PR. Was there ever a motion to support PR at a convention, even?
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Haha you're actually defending his lies that he might commit in future you partisan poo poo fucker
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
JohnnyCanuck posted:I don't care what he was shadow minister for*, how does he know that after repeatedly promising - both before and after the election - that this would be the last Canadian Federal election under FPTP that the government won't honour its promise? Would you be very surprised that the Liberal government would introduce a non-proportional voting system? That's rich.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:44 |
|
|
Terebus posted:I live in downtown and I think it's a bad idea to tear down the viaducts. I don't think the replacement will handle the traffic and they'll just use the area to build more condos so I'm not sure how that's beneficial. They are an eyesore though. I think city council paid for a before/after traffic assessment but I'm not sure how much I trust that. What's the benefit to tearing the viaducts down? The benefit is it will create residences for an estimated 2500 people. Add onto that all the amenities, restaurants, and retail that come along with new building development. Removing the viaducts opens up the potential for a whole new neighbourhood where there is currently fenced off police impound lots, parking and other unused spaces. We all like to trash condo developers, but unless you're posting from a tent in Trout Lake Park you're currently benefiting from the fact that some developer at some point was allowed to build a condo/apartment/house.
|
|
#
?
Oct 29, 2015 03:28
|
|
