News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

christopherplace said:
I think a healthy dose of shame is useful. For instance, for most of the population, driving a pickup truck is completely unnecessary. It's a vanity purchase that leads to increased death.

So, we should socially ostracized pickup truck drivers and make them feel like dum dums.
Click to expand...
Seriously? You actually think shaming is a route we should take in society?? That’s right shame people for driving cars because they have 3 kids live out in the suburbs because that’s the place that works best for their situation.
I suppose you think we ought to shame all those people who are overweight because they’re not eating properly and are taxing health system.
Why don’t you get out and start shaming all those homeless people and drug addicts because of the poor choices they made.

Also, how are you going know which truck drivers to shame? A good number of truck drivers actually user trucks for things. My neighbor’s, a plumber and he drives a pick up truck. Maybe I should go tell him to use his bike to carry his tools and pipes around.
 
christopherplace said:
I think a healthy dose of shame is useful.
Click to expand...
That is how you generate polarization, and a reversal of not only the edge policy, but all the associated good that has built up over 50 years in the city.

We will probably end up with a weight per axle per km tax soon enough with the breakdown of the relationship between road use and fuel use already. Just need to pitch it as a right wing idea "screw those elites in their electric cars dodging taxes and free riding".

Finding the barriers for small and very small truck adoption in regulation and removing them (federally) seems wise. If the feds have to buy 1000 Canadianized KEI trucks a year to ensure a market so be it. Quad cabs with full beds that have a smaller footprint than my VW TAOS would be wildly useful and in demand.
 
I think the answer is more carrots and some strategic sticks. Give people a pathway (intended) to other modes being a possibility where it is possible.

I'm amazed by a coworker of mine that bikes from Deer Run to downtown on an ebike, in the warmer months, rather than take transit or drive. In talking to him he does it because of the poor transit services to Deer Run and expensive parking and other driving costs to get to downtown. Granted he does drive downtown in the winter but when there's a realistic other option like taking an ebike on the city's pathways he takes it.

So, how do you get more people to consider other realistic options?
Better transit at peak hours to areas outside the timbit? As someone who lives in the timbit I'm all for the PTN but I hope it includes better peak-time service to areas that are close to C-Train stations (Deer Run to Canyon Meadows)

High-quality bike infrastructure? As a fall, spring, and summer rider I appreciate the existing infrastructure as it made it possible for me to ride safely to work. The worst part about riding is interacting with cars, continue to make that safer with continued investment and ridership should match or exceed that investment.
 
darwink said:
That is how you generate polarization, and a reversal of not only the edge policy, but all the associated good that has built up over 50 years in the city.

We will probably end up with a weight per axle per km tax soon enough with the breakdown of the relationship between road use and fuel use already. Just need to pitch it as a right wing idea "screw those elites in their electric cars dodging taxes and free riding".

Finding the barriers for small and very small truck adoption in regulation and removing them (federally) seems wise. If the feds have to buy 1000 Canadianized KEI trucks a year to ensure a market so be it. Quad cabs with full beds that have a smaller footprint than my VW TAOS would be wildly useful and in demand.
Click to expand...
As a driver of an EV I will say, they're not the whole answer. We need EVs and and and... So using EVs as a reason (scapegoat) to bring in a weight per axel tax is brilliant. Smaller utility vehicles is a huge untapped area. Maybe a weight per axel tax creates a market for them, the car companies obviously don't see a market for them at this point or they would be here. I do love spotting a primarily Japanese brand import van, they're cool.
 
Last edited:
I think the way to go is to discourage or encourage certain uses via policy or cost measures. For example as the price of gasoline goes up, whether naturally or artificially, it will have effects on the types of vehicles people drive. Costs of operating vehicles whether electric or gas driven will have effects on whether people choose a vehicle altogether, and should influence people's decision on where they live, etc... Policies such as improving infrastructure for cyclists/pedestrians will also influence people's choices.
 
Last edited:
Tarsus said:
This last paragraph sums it up well. Realistically acknowledging that roads and cars won’t go away, and that some people have no choice but to drive vehicles and instead of shaming people for driving cars we need to work towards better infrastructure for those who can’t, or don’t want to drive cars. I am 100% good with that.
Click to expand...
And acknowledge that cars have their place in cities but it's not everywhere at maximum speed and capacity, all the time.

Any local street should have zero priority on vehicle speeds or storage when trade-offs are required. Every street within a few blocks of a school should have zero priority for vehicle speed. Everything close to transit station should prioritize pedestrian access, directness and walk quality over vehicles, always. Every main street should prioritize sidewalk width, pedestrian safety and crossing safety over vehicle speed and capacity.

This would actually be a radical change in practice as we currently do very little of this. It's a future that would not preclude cars from most streets, but would radically change the expectation of design in most areas to reflect what's more important than vehicle speeds, storage and capacity - people.
 
Last edited:
I have a question about the intersection of Crowchild and 12 Mile Coulee Road. With the proposed Ascension development by Highfield, the intersection of Crowchild and 12 Mile Coulee Road is proposed to be a “Continuous Flow” intersection but there still appears to be traffic lights and the proposed diagram doesn’t look to be much different than what’s already there. Could someone please explain what that is? Also it seems that there’s been some concern that a proper interchange should be built but some on County Council feel that there’s no room to build one. Is that really true?
 
An interchange is planned at that location, it is just a very long term plan. Hopefully the County preserved the land necessary to accommodate it. I bet they did. I am not sure what the interim intersection configuration is, or how it is expected to operate.
 
YYCguy said:
some on County Council feel that there’s no room to build one
Click to expand...
The County can buy the land to do so if they are so concerned about access to their development and commute speed of their commuters through the intersection.

I really like it when a government with the power of expropriation says they don't have the land. BUY IT.

What they are really complaining about is the cost.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top