When you skip the sponsor-ads it’s only about 35 to 40 min, max of actual content. So if you have premium or vanced I don’t think their episodes are much longer than they should be
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.
This is the most BS governement we had over the past 20 years. Legault doesnt even pretend like he gives a single fuck about environnement. He would build a nuclear central in the middle of Québec city if he beleive that would give him more votes. I hate that stupid governement with passion. I’m still pretty confident nothing will happened with that project, but why even keep talking about it.
A nuclear power station in the middle of Quebec city would actually be environmentally beneficial so I don’t know what you were trying to prove there but it didn’t work…
Lol. I’m not entirely against nuclear, but if you think a nuclear central in the middle of any widely populated city is a good idea (especially the capital of a province with the potential for 100% renewable energy from hydro, wind, solar), I suggest you reevaluate your knowledge on the subject. Or maybe join the CAQ.
Nuclear power is extremely safe, especially in a zone where there’s very little seismic activity and it’s clean energy.
Getting your energy from a source that’s not thousands of km away is also much safer as it relies on much less infrastructure.
Generating power for the major cities without needing to transport it from the northern part of the province would allow us to send the surplus to the USA to help decarbonise their production and since it’s not for local use it might as well come from a source that’s more at risk of shutting down because of wildfires or, in the long run, climate change.
And I’ll continue voting left, thank you very much.
All right, as long as we’re talking Fukushima level safety, I’m on board. Lets ditch hydroelectricty and build a nuclear central in the middle of north America’s oldest city
Yeah, if you can’t see the difference between the locations then I guess this conversation isn’t worth continuing… Anti-nuclear “greens” are killing the movement’s credibility…
Edit: Looking back at your first comment “most bs government in 20 years”, guess you’re not very old to not remember the Liberals that got elected 20 years ago!
C’est vrai que c’est pas pareil! Ça remonte à quand le dernier tremblement de terre au Québec déjà!? Oh la semaine passée vraiment? Anyway je suis prêt à prendre le risque, de toute façon j’habite pas à Québec donc c’est pas mon problème.
Pour mon 1er commentaire, je maintiens que c’est le pire gouvernement depuis “au moins” 20 ans, oui. Pire que les libéraux de Charest, oui. C’est un parti de division : catholique vs les autres, Montréal vs le reste de la province, québécois de souche vs immigrants, propriétaire vs locataires, entrepeneurs vs salariés. Ce parti ne fait qu’accentuer les divisons entre les québécois, a des fins purement électoralistes. Et je sais pas pourquoi mon âge t’intéresse, mais il y a 20 ans, j’étais déjà en age de voter et non, c’est pas moi qui a fait élire les libéraux, ni le pq d’ailleurs. Tu chercheras l’UMP.
C’était quoi la magnitude déjà? Combien il y en a au Québec vs au Japon? C’est correct, je comprends, c’est dur d’admettre qu’on comprend pas de quoi on parle 😉
Lol, c’est vrai que les japonais sont un peu stupides, toi tu l’aurais assurément prédit cet évènement imprévisible, avec ton intelligence supérieure qui trouve bonne l’idée de sacrer une centrale dans le milieu d’une ville de 500k habitants (je peux pas croire qu’on discute sérieusement de cette joke-là), et ton expertise en nucléaire probablement appuyée sur un cégep en science-humaine et un couple de vidéos youtube. Mais sérieusement, je t’en pris, explique-moi: Comme le nucléaire est une source magique et infini d’énergie sans conséquence négativ, pourquoi est-ce qu’il n’y a pas déjà une centrale nucléaire dans toutes les villes? Complot organisé par les “mauvais” écologistes qui savent pas de quoi ils parlent, partenariat secret entre drags-queen-capitalistes et le parti libéral, scientifiques corrompus? Et pour les déchets, on va les mettre dans la cour au chalet de tes parents je suppose? C’est 100% sécuritaire, non? Ou ben on les ship dans un pays en voie de développement?
“No one is against secure bike paths,” Spanoudakis said in a recent interview. “The point of contention is why does this need to be done with the removal of 250 parking spots, which (is) going to impact the quality of life in the neighbourhood?”
Spanoudakis distanced herself from the acts of vandalism targeting bike paths, but said the borough’s plan to eliminate parking for bike paths has polarized the community. “We clearly feel that we are being pitted against the needs of the cyclists and it shouldn’t be that.”
Cyclists subsidize motorists. Cyclists pay more into the system than they cost, motorists pay far far less. The needs of cyclists should always come before the needs of motorists. That is just basic decency and fairness.
I would argue that’s overly simplistic. In Melbourne, where I’m from, cycling infrastructure is passable in the inner city suburbs where house prices average well over a million dollars very high, and effectively only available to wealthier people. The outer suburbs, where there is no cycling infrastructure and limited public transport but affordablish housing, life is such that cars are necessary.
In cases such as this, motorists subsidizing cyclists is the rich being subsidized by the poor. I would far prefer a system where cyclists (and public transit) are subsidized by the rich, and longer term plans are implemented to remove the mandate of cars to the working poor, which in my example would mean current cyclists funding current motorists (with an intention to convert them to former motorists).
Relative to motor vehicles cyclists cause zero damage to roads. All pay taxes. Motorists are therefore subsidized by cyclists.
Melbourne’s bike network is extensive and goes through many areas of the city. Not just to million dollar homes.
Many people ride bikes because they can’t afford cars.
Suburbia is further subsidized by cities and North American suburbs should never have existed in the way that they do.
Everything about your logic is backwards and focused on car drivers and suburbanites experiencing no discomfort during a transition to sustainability while all discomfort is placed on others.
Relative to motor vehicles cyclists cause zero damage to roads. All pay taxes. Motorists are therefore subsidized by cyclists.
This is not at all in dispute.
Melbourne’s bike network is extensive and goes through many areas of the city. Not just to million dollar homes.
I don’t agree with this. The inner suburbs have good bike lanes, places like pakenham or cragieburn do not. I admit the million dollar number was a bad way of phrasing what I actually mean (and distracts because it’s a wrong claim), which is unaffordable. Yes you can safely ride from like glenroy which is well connected with bike lanes, but family homes in glenroy exceed $800k which is ludicrous for a low income family.
Many people ride bikes because they can’t afford cars.
Absolutely. Many others drive cars because they can’t afford to live close enough to the city for riding to be safe and practical. Different housing needs drive different outcomes here.
Suburbia is further subsidized by cities and North American suburbs should never have existed in the way that they do.
Absolutely agree. However they do and a conscious, deliberate effort is needed over time to correct this.
Everything about your logic is backwards and focused on car drivers and suburbanites experiencing no discomfort during a transition to sustainability while all discomfort is placed on others.
A lot of your points I unreservedly agree with, so if you feel they have anything to do with my logic then your contradicting yourself. In your whole.paragraph there’s only a single point that I don’t agree with.
I don’t see how this addresses my point so allow me to restate it. When there is a conflict or compromise over limited resources between a vulnerable class of travelers that pay more than their own way and a privileged class that enjoy public subsidy, the former class should clearly receive priority. What is the conflict you are trying to highlight, where everyone’s needs could not be met if Melbourne cared to try?
Right, your statement that currently cyclists subsidized driver’s isn’t being disputed, nor is the fact that cars cost more to service associated infrastructure (as for some reason other replies are arguing).
My point is that in many places, cycling is only an option for the wealthy due to a lack of infrastructure in poorer areas. Melbourne could meet everyone’s needs if it cared to try, however it currently does not, which is to the detriment of the the less privileged and that is the point I am making.
i detest signs like these with such a burning passion, they show that people want their streets to be safe but cannot be arsed to actually get them to be made safer, so they put up a sign as if that’s going to do jack shit.
If you want people to drive safely, get the local government to traffic calm the street, if nothing else it’s common for there to be a procedure for getting permission to place some flower boxes on the street to make your own traffic calming.
I’d go even farther than that: I’d argue that those signs are an admission of incompetence by the engineer who approved their installation.
I’m becoming more and more convinced that the path towards improving the situation is to directly target the engineers themselves by going after the license of those who fail to design streets appropriately for all users. Even if they follow established government guidelines or industry best practices, that shouldn’t be a defense because the guidelines and best practices are wrong to begin with.
City’s should look at what the Finnish people are doing, IMO they seem to do it very well. Here is a great video for anyone interested in cycling pathways and how much thought goes into them.
Not everyone lives in a cityscape hellhole so we are going to need higher speeds to be able to not suck up people’s free time just to be able to get within range of a job without living in a sardine can apartment complex.
Not everyone can live within 1 mile of their job, and travel via bike – nor does everyone want to.
If you’re going to limit everyone and everything to 5mph, then you need an alternative that provides a quicker means of travel in rural/suburban areas.
Yeah, 6.2mph is silly even just from a riding perspective. I am not the most fit and I'm fairly sure I would need to force myself to ride that slow (and it'd probably feel less stable). Around other people sure.
12.4mph is not so bad, at least with my underpowered ebike I'd have to really put in a lot of power to go above that and it'd use up too much battery power (and thus range). If anything I stay around 9/10mph for efficiency (and it's just a comfortable riding pace, also I have an upright riding position so not the most aerodynamic). My ebike's motor cuts off at 15.5mph (even though again, it doesn't really go that fast) because EU rules (even though I'm in the US).
This is an article about imposing speed limits on existing bike paths for existing people with existing bikes. Nobody (sadly) wants to take away your Dogde Ultra RAM 40K, and you’re still free to live wherever you want, dipstick.
Get back to r/fuckcarscirclejerk and have fun burning your strawmen with your fascist friends there.
fuckcars
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.