ronthecivil Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 You actually said: 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? It's not illogical in the least to want to protect one's family. It's pretty foolish to assume that if you spit in someone's wifes face after running over her children that a right cross over the top should not be expected! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 It's not illogical in the least to want to protect one's family. It's pretty foolish to assume that if you spit in someone's wifes face after running over her children that a right cross over the top should not be expected! No, but it's illogical for vigilante justice to be a solution to the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahzdeen Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 No, but it's illogical for vigilante justice to be a solution to the problem. It's hard to be logical during an illogical situation. Where's the logic behind running over a stroller and spitting in someone's face? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) No, but it's illogical for vigilante justice to be a solution to the problem. I don't agree with Tiger's solution, but he was proposing putting decals on bikes as a way to enforce the law. My also logical response is it still won't be enforcable and it will be costly. We have enough logic to understand each other's points, and both wish that guy got his donkey kicked for being a reckless jackass. That is all. And since when does logic operate the world anyways? P.S. Protecting one's family is not vigilante justice! Edited September 28, 2009 by ronthecivil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_time_hockey Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) No, but it's illogical for vigilante justice to be a solution to the problem. Which is why I am suggesting that there needs to be a way to notify the authorities about dick smacks like that guy. But if there is no way to do that, I will defend my family. Some towns in Europe licence their cyclists. Why couldn't it work here? Edited September 28, 2009 by old_time_hockey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 (edited) Bombardier venture awarded Chinese contract (AP) – 5 hours ago TORONTO — Train maker Bombardier Inc. said Monday its Chinese joint venture has been awarded a $4 billion contract to build 80 high-speed trains for China's railway ministry. Bombardier Sifang Transportation Ltd. said it will manufacture the trains in China and that engineering and project management will be done in China and Europe. Bombardier's share of the contract is estimated at $2 billion. The first train is scheduled for delivery in 2012 and the last one will be completed in 2014. The Zefiro trains will have maximum operating speeds of 380 kilometers (236 milies) per hour and use energy-saving technologies developed by Bombardier. The contract is a significant deal for Bombardier, which has been hoping to boost its rail business as the Canadian plane and train maker copes with declines in sales of regional jets and corporate jets caused by the global economic recession. The trains will be made in Qingdao, a sea port and industrial city north of Shanghai in northeastern China. Bombardier Sifang employs more than 3,000 people in China. Established in 1998, Bombardier Sifang is a joint venture between Bombardier and CSRSifang Locomotive and Rolling Stock Ltd. "This is a landmark order for next-generation rail equipment and the result of a positive and productive, long-term relationship," Andre Navarri, Bombardier Transportation's president and chief operating officer announced from Berlin. Montreal-based Bombardier's train division is based in Berlin. Desjardins analyst Benoit Poirier said in a research note that "further orders from China and other countries might follow in the near future." "We estimate that Bombardier could bid on at least 3,000 cars in Asia over the next three years (worth about $4.5 billion, assuming $1.5 million per car). Considering Bombardier is a market-share leader in this region, we would expect the company to win a significant amount of this business," Poirier wrote. Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. Edited September 28, 2009 by nitronuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 Mayors suggest Evergreen Line switch to LRT to save money The Evergreen Line was originally proposed to run at grade using a light rail system, before the decision to use SkyTrain technology. By Jeff Nagel - BC Local News Published: September 28, 2009 3:00 PM Updated: September 28, 2009 3:09 PM TransLink can save $400 million in one easy step by switching plans for the Evergreen Line from expensive SkyTrain technology back to the originally envisioned at-grade light rail system. That's the suggestion from area mayors who say the move would save a big chunk of capital money and go a long way to helping the transportation authority get on sustainable financial footing. "Given these economic times, maybe we go back to the drawing board and have a look at it," said Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts, who also chairs the Mayors Council on Regional Transportation. She told a Metro Vancouver board meeting Sept. 25 a shift back to light rail would save a significant amount of money and would be supported by northeast sector residents along the line. Port Moody Mayor Joe Trasolini said he'd be happy to switch technologies away from SkyTrain if it gets the line built through his city. "You could build it with today's budget," he said. "They've done all the technical research on it. The tunnel engineering is the same." Coquitlam and Port Moody originally supported the light rail idea, which would have meant more local stations and a slower overall trip along the line – more of a community system than a high-speed commuter route. "If you're going from Coquitlam Centre to Lougheed Mall and it takes two or three minutes longer is that going to kill you?" Trasolini asked. But transportation minister Shirley Bond is defending the switch to SkyTrain technology, noting the decision was based on a solid business case and endorsed by both the province and TransLink. "Although the Evergreen Line’s ALRT [skyTrain] technology has higher construction costs than LRT, it has significantly lower annual operating costs, significantly shorter travel times for commuters, and would have two-and-a-half times more ridership by 2021," Bond said in a statement. "These benefits clearly outweigh the relatively small additional cost of SkyTrain versus LRT.” TransLink CEO Tom Prendergast told the board he has heard suggestions Ottawa might pull its funding for the Evergreen Line if federally preferred SkyTrain technology was abandoned or if the project takes too long to move forward. He noted a significant section of the route would have to be tunneled, regardless of the technology. And he said there would have to be a fresh cost analysis done on a light rail option. Watts said the apparent senior government bias to SkyTrain is a problem that threatens to hurt the outlook for rapid transit extensions in Surrey as well. "South of the Fraser, we want at-grade light rail," she said. "You see it all over the world. And for some reason it's just not on the table. So we've got to pay that much more money that we don't have." Prendergast, who was hired a year ago, said he backs objective decision-making on rapid transit technologies for future lines – something he said hasn't happened here so far. The renewed debate over Evergreen Line technology came as Metro Vancouver board directors passed judgment on the funding options TransLink has tabled for its new 10-year plan. They endorsed the preferred option of TransLink and area mayors for new sources of funding from the province – such as road pricing or tolling – coupled with a vehicle levy to deliver $450 million more per year. "Our regional land-use plan will not work if we don't have the appropriate transportation plan to support it," said Metro chief administrator Johnny Carline. Prendergast warned them the base case scenario would force drastic cuts of 40 per cent to bus service in some areas and spell "chaos" for the region. Another "funding stabilization" option to generate an extra $130 million a year so the region can tread water would still mean reductions of spending in some areas, he said. Cycling infrastructure spending would be cut and road maintenance grants to cities would be reduced, leaving them to pick up those costs or scale back road repairs. Since TransLink cannot adopt the $450-million plan – extra sources from the province are so far not forthcoming – the Metro board motion calls on TransLink to give priority for bus and rapid transit extensions to the historically underserved eastern and southern areas. Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, however, warned TransLink's plans are unaffordable and argued scarce funding should be used to sustain service to areas with strong existing ridership rather than areas with low transit use if cuts are required. "There are significant subisides going into many of the South of Fraser routes that are questionable in terms of business efficiency," he said. Some Metro directors also suggested TransLink could save money by eliminating its plan to add fare gates to the SkyTrain system to help enforce payment. Prendergast said the capital cost of that is estimated at $70 to $80 million, but noted those costs were to be entirely covered by the provincial and federal governments. TransLink has committed $400 million for the $1.4-billion Evergreen Line, but there's still a $173-million shortfall after federal and provincial contributions. TransLink's share translates into annual costs of $40 to $50 million – money the authority says it can't afford with either the base plan or funding stabilization option. BAD IDEA. I believe it was said the cost difference between LRT and SkyTrain is only $150-million, definitely not $400-million, because both require almost the same amount of tunneling, elevated guideway, and at-grade guideway. Not to mention a new OMC, and a second SkyTrain OMC wouldn't just be for the Evergreen but the entire SkyTrain system. It's absolutely asinine to suggest going back to LRT. Absolutely asinine. And if they want community service, there's something called a bus....don't spend $1.2-billion on a bus with steel wheels that does not compete with the car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted September 28, 2009 Share Posted September 28, 2009 Any time a mayor opens their mouth re transportation decisions you know something bad is going to come out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted September 28, 2009 Author Share Posted September 28, 2009 ^ especially Trasolini of Port Moody and Burnaby's Corrigan...both are complete idiots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Common sense Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Any time a mayor opens their mouth re transportation decisions you know something bad is going to come out. Agreed. Surrey's Dianne Watts says that given these economic times, they'll have to rethink the plan. The problem lies in the fact that the recession will be over long before the LRT becomes antiquated, and then the NE sector's stuck with an out-of-date, slow and ineffective mode of transportation. Heh. Imagine if the RAV was LRT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 http://i.gizmodo.com/5368477/worlds-larges...r-13-miles-long Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Agreed. Surrey's Dianne Watts says that given these economic times, they'll have to rethink the plan. The problem lies in the fact that the recession will be over long before the LRT becomes antiquated, and then the NE sector's stuck with an out-of-date, slow and ineffective mode of transportation. Heh. Imagine if the RAV was LRT. If by rethink they either come up with the money or delay it, fine. If they had read the original report doing the option analysis they would know that LRT has one of the lowest cost benefit ratios of all the options looked at. You shouldn't even be allowed to be on one of those boards and spending taxpayer dollars if you can't figure out a cost benefit ratio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanuck14 Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 (edited) Port Moody Mayor Joe Trasolini said he'd be happy to switch technologies away from SkyTrain if it gets the line built through his city. "You could build it with today's budget," he said. "They've done all the technical research on it. The tunnel engineering is the same." Coquitlam and Port Moody originally supported the light rail idea, which would have meant more local stations and a slower overall trip along the line – more of a community system than a high-speed commuter route. "If you're going from Coquitlam Centre to Lougheed Mall and it takes two or three minutes longer is that going to kill you?" Trasolini asked. According to the study ALRT will be 10 minutes quicker then LRT and will cost $150 million more, think Joe needs to read up on the report. He starting to sound desperate almost. Edited September 29, 2009 by Vanuck14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 According to the study ALRT will be 10 minutes quicker then LRT and will cost $150 million more, think Joe needs to read up on the report. He starting to sound desperate almost. You forgot it would also have twice the capacity and a lower operating cost. Funny how that is being glossed over at a time when translink is having trouble keeping up with it's operating costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 A study out of Melbourne, Australia, to determine if major investments in roads and highways has produced what you all think will happen when we build more roads and freeways--a reduction in travel time. http://www.abp.unimelb.edu.au/gamut/pdf/ha...en-achieved.pdf Guess what? In sum, the results from this study suggest that the core of travel times savings benefits, which is an increase in average travel speeds, has not to date eventuated in Melbourne’s urban road network during the years under review. Indeed, based on the evidence presented and analysed in this paper, one could be led to the conclusion that investments in Melbourne’s urban road network have resulted in more time being used by Melbourne’s motorists rather than less time. Hence major road infrastructure initiatives and the consequent economic investments have not yet delivered a net economic benefit to either Melbourne’s motorists or the Victorian community. Equally concerning is the plausible conclusion from this analysis that over their remaining economic life such major urban road network investments are unlikely to result in major travel time savings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 A study out of Melbourne, Australia, to determine if major investments in roads and highways has produced what you all think will happen when we build more roads and freeways--a reduction in travel time. http://www.abp.unimelb.edu.au/gamut/pdf/ha...en-achieved.pdf Guess what? Looks like they don't have a good cost/benefit analysis. So don't do it. Not all road projects are worth the money, but then again, some are. You have to look at it on a case by case basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahzdeen Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 Looks like they don't have a good cost/benefit analysis. So don't do it. Not all road projects are worth the money, but then again, some are. You have to look at it on a case by case basis. no no no Ron... more roads = bad. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 no no no Ron... more roads = bad. :lol: I love how you laugh it off as though I'm making this shiate up. Did you even read it? I constantly provide links to sources backing up my claims--where are yours? All you have is anecdotal bs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahzdeen Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I love how you laugh it off as though I'm making this shiate up. Did you even read it? I constantly provide links to sources backing up my claims--where are yours? All you have is anecdotal bs. Dude it was a joke... calm down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted September 29, 2009 Share Posted September 29, 2009 I love how you laugh it off as though I'm making this shiate up. Did you even read it? I constantly provide links to sources backing up my claims--where are yours? All you have is anecdotal bs. Adding more freeways to Melbourne didn't result in travel time savings. Ok. What's your point? Melbourne already had a lot of freeways, and average travel speeds (80km/h or so) looked pretty darn fast to start with. Certainly faster than anywhere in metro Vancouver! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now