No, it’s to own a car for personal use. Singapore is a city state, emphasis on the city part. The article also says it only takes 60 minutes to drive end to end so the need for a car is probably minimal. The fee they are referring to here was created to reduce the amount of cars on the roads to help with traffic. Singapore has a pretty robust public transit system so for most people it probably isn’t a deal breaker. I’m glad to see a country taking action to limit car dependance.
I think it’s just a way to distract from the fact that it’s the first time since 2018 that they have to deal with a loss and people seem to be getting tired of Legault. The bridge probably won’t happen, especially if they don’t win next election. Worst case of the two existing bridges, one is becoming more and more unsafe to use and repairs are always way too much trouble to deal with (because of the CN ownership) so if there was a third bridge, one of the two existing ones might eventually get closed.
I forgot about that worn out bridge. Our province is so bad at bridges. I could tell you about 4 bridge projects that are stuck in the mud. The dumbest being the Honoré Mercier bike path. What idiot decided to let the federals build half a bike section and not finish the Montreal side of it?
We’re approaching 1B$ in repairs necessary to keep it usable… Honestly, I don’t know how much we should spend on a 100 years old bridge that’s owned by a private corporation… A bridge further east and transforming that one into a bridge for public/active transport only might be a better plan in the long run… But the tunnel under the Saint Lawrence is completely idiotic.
I would just laugh at their lack of knowledge. My tires are filled with a tubeless compound that fills holes. Anything short of a sidewall blowout barely slows me down.
I’ve heard of hunters placing wires strung across MTB trails at neck height. In Spain several people have died or become tetraplegic due to them. You can’t see the wire in time to do anything about it.
Thumbtacks won’t pierce the walls. Two inch nails with rubber bands wrapped around the bottom creating a base might do something like that, but that’d be wrong and illegal and a silly idea that’ll get you some unwanted attention
I’m trying to picture this contraption you describe (for educational, completely non-practical reasons of course), where does the cotton and rubber bands go?
One of the better features of e bikes is that you won't get into sweating or exhaustion as easy as with a regular bike. This means you can just cover yourself in some plastic poncho to stay dry while riding without getting damp inside from sweating.
To add to this you won’t sweat as much in heat either because you can wear breathable clothing and the wind from your movement really cools you off substantially on a bike even without pedal assist so with it I’d imagine you’d barely break a sweat barring high humidity.
I can’t find a fixed value for the number of spaces in the Burrough, however this CBC article suggests that 29.8% of the Burrough is parking (bike lanes are 2%).
The burrough is 16.5km^2. Therefore 4.917 km^2 is parking. Parkingindustry.ca offers 8" x 16" as the average parking space in Canada, which is 0.000011891589 km^2. I’m going to round up to 0.00002 km^2 to make math easier and absorb non-stall area of parking lots.
That gives us at least 245,850 parking spots in the Burrough. So the percentage of parking lost is 0.1%.
Villeray–Saint-Michel–Parc-Extension resident parking permits cost $100 for most cars.
Is that 29.8% the percent of total land or the percent of total street space? The article’s wording is kind of vague.
As an aside, I also find it very frustrating how one woman quoted in the article said this:
“When you’re doing a project like the bike lane, have a compromise in mind,” Bailakis said in an interview outside. “Why do the old people, kids, families get booted out [of the conversation] just to please one people: the bike people?”
It’s such a gross way to portray the topic. They just automatically assume the car as default and treat bikes like some thing that only the “bike people” use. I might ask her why she believes my sister, who had her driver’s license suspended because of a medical condition, doesn’t deserve the same rights as those physically fit to drive. My sister can ride a bike just fine, but just can’t drive, and yet car-dependent urban design strips her of what ought to be equal rights to mobility.
Clearly children and the elderly are literally physically incapable of using any mode of transit besides a car, thus our car-dependent hellscape is actually an act of charity out of the pure goodness of our hearts!!
Is that 29.8% the percent of total land or the percent of total street space? The article’s wording is kind of vague.
Dunno, I assumed total area, and balanced that by giving nearly half the area to “parking area” that didn’t count towards the number of stalls.
I haven’t been up there, so I don’t know that the burrough is like. I’d also be unlikely to see anything not within 1km of a metro station even if I did go, so my view would be biased anyways.
Alternatively, the population of the burrough is 143,85, so they are removing one stall for every 575 residents (all residents, not just driving residents).
Within the “truck” class of vehicles, EPA fuel efficiency standards are based on weight. It’s easier to build heavy trucks and SUVs that meet those standards, than light trucks.
Effectively, the US government legislated heavier trucks and SUVs.
Probably? You know you could actually look it up, it’s well documented. Obama’s EPA rules are responsible for this. They’re well intentioned but poorly designed
Lolol bruh i could care less about unenforced EPA “regulations”. I said “probably… more likely” as a counterpoint and a joke really. Why don’t you research the personal conflicts of interest for my point first that I was talking about before you go all “dO yOuR rEsEaRcH”?
Ya’know what ill help you out since you didnt provide any burden of proof like an arguer SHOULD do.
Bush administration unveiled a controversial National Energy Plan, which consisted chiefly of $33 billion in public subsidies and tax cuts for the oil, coal, and nuclear power industries, as well as provisions to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for industrial oil drilling.
Ofc they’re both guilty, they are the establishment and two sides of the same coin. Doesn’t mean one can’t have more vested interest potentially. Also lol what EPA rules did Bush even try to pass tho? Besides opening the Arctic for drilling primarily.
fuckcars
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.