The Official Transit Thread

[Common sense]

Know a good way we could make money...licence bicycles. Make them have a plate and charge them something nominal like $25/yr. But then the next time that I see a cyclist blow a stop sign or use a cross walk to cross an intersection or something else illegal I can call them in and hopefully we can generate revenue from fines.

Does this mean Critical Mess won't happen anymore, because *gasp* cyclists have to start obeying the law now!?

[inane]

Does this mean Critical Mess won't happen anymore, because *gasp* cyclists have to start obeying the law now!?

And imagine how much money we'd get if we actually enforced the laws for cars!??!

[ronthecivil]

And imagine how much money we'd get if we actually enforced the laws for cars!??!

We do enforce the laws for cars. I don't know if we could afford having a cop on every block, or if your average voter would like the idea of getting dinged every time they go 5km/h over the speed limit.

[Common sense]

And imagine how much money we'd get if we actually enforced the laws for cars!??!

Without getting into that argument again, all users of a road have to be accountable for whatever they do, whether it be speeding past a red, jaywalking, or biking on the wrong side of the road.

[ronthecivil]

The thing that gets me is that every time Translink comes with their hand out for more because god knows what they did the however many million we just gave them, they want to put the burden of paying for their shortcomings on the motorist. The people buying gas prop up the transit system. But even if they dare to whisper transit fares are going up $0.25 the transit riders are up in arms. If this carbon tax does what they say it will and gets people off the road and onto transit, Translink will lose even MORE money.

Know a good way we could make money...licence bicycles. Make them have a plate and charge them something nominal like $25/yr. But then the next time that I see a cyclist blow a stop sign or use a cross walk to cross an intersection or something else illegal I can call them in and hopefully we can generate revenue from fines.

I highly doubt any money from fines would make up the money it would cost for the beaurocracy. You don't need licensing to ticket people that do dangerous illegial manouevres anyways.

Mind you, if there were proper bike routes, it wouldn't matter.

[ronthecivil]

Without getting into that argument again, all users of a road have to be accountable for whatever they do, whether it be speeding past a red, jaywalking, or biking on the wrong side of the road.

Common sense for the win. One thing I hate about BC is it's always group A vs. group B, when it's quite easy to actually make things work for both instead of fighting.

[inane]

Common sense for the win. One thing I hate about BC is it's always group A vs. group B, when it's quite easy to actually make things work for both instead of fighting.

You think that's really specific to BC? It's pretty common place everywhere--see every election since the dawn of time for an example.

It's bullshiate but people let it work.

[old_time_hockey]

And imagine how much money we'd get if we actually enforced the laws for cars!??!

I agree. This whole speed kills BS is just that. There are far more dangerous offenses.

Lets go after the people who don't know how a 4-way stop works. Lets go after people who instead of admitting mistake and turning into a parking lot to make a u-turn insist on making a turn out of a straight thru lane. Lets go after the people who don't signal. And my biggest pet peeve of all in Richmond, lets go after the douches whos 2 brake lights are burnt out but their N is covering the 3rd light or a bunch of stuff animals and Hello Kitty crap.

But having said that, cyclists either don't know the rules of the road or care not to follow them. So a licencing system is needed.

[old_time_hockey]

I highly doubt any money from fines would make up the money it would cost for the beaurocracy. You don't need licensing to ticket people that do dangerous illegial manouevres anyways.

Mind you, if there were proper bike routes, it wouldn't matter.

Yeah but you need a way to call in repeat offenders like you can with a motorist.

[inane]

http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2009/09/2...reeway-society/

Sarah Mirk in the Portland Mecury covers the history of freeway expansion and contraction in the city that wants to become America’s greenest.

While other American cities have built, built, built, Portland’s freeway history is boom and bust: massive road projects were planned, mapped, and sold as progress by one generation, then killed by another. When current transit planners visit from exotic Houston and DC to admire Portland’s progress, what they are really admiring are the roads not built—freeways erased from the maps decades ago.

What struck a chord with me this morning was that she quoted Robert Moses, who was called in to Portland to design their first freeway plan. I happen to be reading “Wrestling Moses” at present, which describes the epic battle between Moses and Jane Jacobs. Quite extraordinarily Moses lost that battle – and a vibrant Manhattan we see now is the evidence of the extent of his failure.

There was, when I first came here, an odd sort of self congratulation. Vancouver was always very proud of stopping its downtown freeway – quite rightly. But the rest of the region – and indeed the north east corner of the City itself – is carved up by freeways. And while the roads lobby often recites the myth that “nothing has been built in twenty years” there was a steady pressure of stealth expansion – the addition of HOV lanes – and constant manoeuvring to ensure that nothing should get in the way of the traffic or the plans to build even more freeways. In fact expansion has been significant since the LRSP was signed with lost of piecemeal “improvements”and now the addition of the Golden Ears Bridge, the expansion of the Sea to Sky and now the major building projects on Highway #1 and the South Fraser Perimeter Road. None of these are in the City of Vancouver itself - but that is sophistry. We remain, as a region, dominated by automobile use. The rate of spending on roads has always greatly exceeded that for transit – and other modes – and the share of trips remains almost constant.

Portland also is threatened by a major bridge expansion “the current six-lane I-5 bridge to Vancouver will become a 12-lane, $4.2 billion bridge called the Columbia River Crossing (CRC)” just like the new Port Mann.

“It’s another one of these roads that’s being espoused as ‘We have to have it in order to make everybody’s lives easier,’” says Ballestrem. “But it’s going to do the same thing that all these other big roads did. Building a bigger road is just going to encourage driving the automobile.”

[That's] Val Ballestrem, education manager of the Architectural Heritage Center, who wrote his master’s thesis on Portland’s anti-freeway movement

And, of course, the same is true here. What seems to be different now is that those in power no longer fear anti-freeway movements. They have learned a lot from the success of Jane Jacobs in organising neighborhoods – not just in Greenwich Village but in Spadina too. Whatever restraints were built into the old processes have been removed. There is still a lengthy process, with much show of “consultation” and “extensive studies” but the end result was never in doubt. Proponents could claim very early on that is was all a “done deal” because they had already ensured that no other result was possible. It did not matter what the consultations heard, or what was in the studies, because there was no way to stop the project. Which, of course, was what the “elite” had long ago decided.

Canada in general now seems to be completely out of step with the rest of the world. Peak oil and global climate change are now widely accepted realities. Most countries – even the United States – recognize that business as usual is not an option even as they continue to argue about who should go first and how much should be done. And the people who run large multi-national corporations, who have been practising deliberate deception on these issues, even seem to be reluctantly accepting that their business model needs to change. But somehow, BC seems to believe that the very real constraints of finite fossil fuels and the capacity of the atmosphere to absorb ever more carbon dioxide do not apply to us.

You might have thought that the loss of the forest industry to the pine beetle and the loss of the salmon fishery – which is primarily due to open net fish farms – both in recent years and both on the watch of the present administration – would at least introduce a note of caution. On the contrary, it actually seems to have encourage them to speed up the process. The P3 contract for the SFPR is not yet signed yet the “pre-construction” activity rushes on. The first pilings for the new Port Mann Bridge had to be put into the bed of the Fraser before the election, even though the project financing had completely fallen apart. All kinds of things – really important things that the BC Liberals promised were sacrosanct a few months ago like healthcare and education – are now being cut. But nothing it seems can stop the freeway juggernaut here.

When these new freeways open they will be eerily quiet. For one thing, the expectation that port expansion will bring vastly increased trade to Vancouver now seems very unlikely. Though no doubt the current flow of coal from Wyoming to China will continue and probably increase, that, of course, moves by rail. Gasoline is going to be very expensive – and the trivial impact of “alternative fuels” is unlikely to change that very much. Indeed, many of them depend on much higher prices to make them viable. As long as we follow the current economic philosophy that tries to keep wages and salaries as low as possible, and direct any and all benefits to only the wealthy, it is unlikely widespread car use will continue to be possible. Of course, it also likely that some will remember the wisdom of Henry Ford. He broke with other early twentieth century capitalists and paid his workers decent wages so they could afford to but and rive the cars they built. Writers like Howard Kunstler project that current trends in the US suburbs will see them become wastelands, but that, it seems to me, ignores the huge political debt that the current hegemony owes to suburban voters. These were the people who, in BC, decided that Gordon Campbell was the only leader to be trusted with the economy. Many left wing critics south of the line are disappointed with the lack of change in Washington since Obama was elected. That, it seems to me, reflects the reality of power. The ballot box can only do so much – and even then can be greatly influenced by the availability of lots of money.

It is more than likely that we will see a lot more building in the suburbs – preferably as close to the new freeway capacity as possible. A lot of farmland and green zone is going to be lost to subdivisions, office parks and shopping plazas – which is all that a lot of the development business understands. A few brave souls will make a point about green roofs and triple glazing, and driving a hybrid, but none of that will make very much difference. Any more than the hideously expensive carbon capture and storage will reduce the impact of the tar sands and the gas shales.

The saddest thing for me is that it need not work out like this. There is plenty of evidence now that denser, walkable neighbourhoods and really good electric powered transit produces very desirable places. That it is not that hard to produce a spread sheet analysis that will convince any investor that developments that reduce energy use are going to produce attractive rates of return as energy prices rise. It is also indisputable that a healthier society that is physically more active as part of daily life – when human power is a much bigger part of the energy used in transportation – reduces the biggest growing burden North America faces – health care costs. Is it too late to save much of the river delta? Complacency is certainly not going to help as the sea level rises.

But what can we do about it?

[ronthecivil]

Yeah but you need a way to call in repeat offenders like you can with a motorist.

I don't think we NEED that. It's a pretty expensive and uneffective need.

[old_time_hockey]

I don't think we NEED that. It's a pretty expensive and uneffective need.

Then I should be able to take the law into my own hands when a cyclist blows past all the cars stopped while my wife and 2 children are on a crosswalk and runs into the stroller then spits at my wife telling her to get the f@ck out of the road.

[inane]

Then I should be able to take the law into my own hands when a cyclist blows past all the cars stopped while my wife and 2 children are on a crosswalk and runs into the stroller then spits at my wife telling her to get the f@ck out of the road.

Sounds like you're really logically thinking this through...

[ronthecivil]

Then I should be able to take the law into my own hands when a cyclist blows past all the cars stopped while my wife and 2 children are on a crosswalk and runs into the stroller then spits at my wife telling her to get the f@ck out of the road.

Be able to? I would have done it anyways. At least take the bike and throw it under the next truck.

Now had he not spit and apologised, I would be mad, but not raging.

Edit: Even if the guy was a crackhead breaking into your car on a daily basis I don't think calling in does any good anyways.

Edited September 28, 2009 by ronthecivil

[old_time_hockey]

Sounds like you're really logically thinking this through...

So you are blaming the pedestrian on a cross walk in this instance. Please explain...I'll go make some popcorn.

[inane]

So you are blaming the pedestrian on a cross walk in this instance. Please explain...I'll go make some popcorn.

Again, you guys are just so good at taking one sentence and twisting the shiate out of it to mean something else. It's really quite impressive!

Please please please explain to me how you take my sentence, that you're not thinking logically, and twist that into I am blaming the pedestrian. How does that work in your brain?

[old_time_hockey]

Be able to? I would have done it anyways. At least take the bike and throw it under the next truck.

Now had he not spit and apologised, I would be mad, but not raging.

Edit: Even if the guy was a crackhead breaking into your car on a daily basis I don't think calling in does any good anyways.

I wasn't there. I just heard about it from her later. But if he had a plate I could have tracked that loser down...or the cops could have.

[old_time_hockey]

Again, you guys are just so good at taking one sentence and twisting the shiate out of it to mean something else. It's really quite impressive!

Please please please explain to me how you take my sentence, that you're not thinking logically, and twist that into I am blaming the pedestrian. How does that work in your brain?

I'll talk slowly for you.

I say plates on bikes are a good idea so people performing illegal manouvers can be reported and if they do it enough fined.

Ron says that isn't practical...and Ron may be right in the fact that it will take resources to do this that probably are better spent elsewhere.

I gave an example of where having a plate on a bike would have made a difference in getting recourse on a cyclist who broke the law. And perhaps we need to take the law into my own hands in that situation.

You tell me I'm not thinking logically.

So either you don't:

-Like the idea of registering bikes and cyclists with plates (though you never said that)

-Think that what the cyclist did was wrong

Or you think that:

-The person in the crosswalk was wrong

I think you are having a hard time following the whole convo

[inane]

I'll talk slowly for you.

I say plates on bikes are a good idea so people performing illegal manouvers can be reported and if they do it enough fined.

Ron says that isn't practical...and Ron may be right in the fact that it will take resources to do this that probably are better spent elsewhere.

I gave an example of where having a plate on a bike would have made a difference in getting recourse on a cyclist who broke the law. And perhaps we need to take the law into my own hands in that situation.

You tell me I'm not thinking logically.

So either you don't:

-Like the idea of registering bikes and cyclists with plates (though you never said that)

-Think that what the cyclist did was wrong

Or you think that:

-The person in the crosswalk was wrong

I think you are having a hard time following the whole convo

You actually said:

Then I should be able to take the law into my own hands when a cyclist blows past all the cars stopped while my wife and 2 children are on a crosswalk and runs into the stroller then spits at my wife telling her to get the f@ck out of the road.

Taking the law into your own hands means vigilante justice which is what I was commenting on. That that little rant isn't logical. Why do you then assume I am for this or against that when I never said anything about either?

edit--I guess I am against licensing because it's just another level of bureaucracy that would likely have little results. Enforcement for all modes of transport is what's needed, but, cars should be targeted as they are much more dangerous than other means. I'm not saying that's good or bad or whatever, it's just factual therefore cars should be monitored for safety more often. I know they are, but look at all the deaths every day. More needs to be done.

Edited September 28, 2009 by inane

[ronthecivil]

I wasn't there. I just heard about it from her later. But if he had a plate I could have tracked that loser down...or the cops could have.

lol, by the sounds of it he would probably have preferred the cops.

I think the problem here is that this guy was the kind of idiot that wouldn't care what the laws are anways, the typical me first king of the world type. Unfortunately, you weren't there to give him a much needed attitude adjustment. That's the solution to this problem, not plates on bikes. You can't legislate away idiots unfortunately.