General Road and Highway Discussion

[SammyOES]

Dan, “violence has historically been effective repeatedly in achieving ends” is an inane nonsense statement. It doesn’t even make sense because the scope of the violence, purpose, and results is so fucking broad. But, please, show me sources that back up the idea that violence is effective at changing policy in a democracy. And note, effective doesn’t mean has worked before. It means that it works well and for a reasonable cost/benefit versus other avenues.

And if you think you understand climate change policy and have come to the conclusion that you need to convince SUV drivers to not drive SUVs you absolutely don’t understand the problem. Both the human/policy problem and the climate change problem.

[danbrotherston]

Dan, “violence has historically been effective repeatedly in achieving ends” is an inane nonsense statement. It doesn’t even make sense because the scope of the violence, purpose, and results is so fucking broad. But, please, show me sources that back up the idea that violence is effective at changing policy in a democracy. And note, effective doesn’t mean has worked before. It means that it works well and for a reasonable cost/benefit versus other avenues.

And if you think you understand climate change policy and have come to the conclusion that you need to convince SUV drivers to not drive SUVs you absolutely don’t understand the problem.  Both the human/policy problem and the climate change problem.

Alright, here, I'll post this video...for the third time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4G1Gjv...osophyTube

By the way, calling a statement "inane nonsense" doesn't help. You can make legitimate complaints "it's broad and lacks context" which is true, but that doesn't make a statement "inane" or "nonsense".

And I think if you understand climate policy (and road safety policy for that matter) and you have come to the conclusion that we shouldn't bother convincing SUV drivers to drive smaller vehicles, you absolutely do not understand the problem. The climate emergency (and road safety) will not be solved by one solution, we need EVERY solution.

(For the record, larger vehicles like SUVs are pushed by car companies for several reasons, they are higher margins, they avoid CAFE fuel standards, they are easier to achieve a higher crash test safety rating on because they are bigger and north american safety ratings only consider vehicle occupants, this is not a preference thing, these vehicles are pushed by for profit by corporations).

[bravado]

I think that the approach is asinine, but SUVs are a significant reason why our vehicle emissions have been rising instead of declining like they should have with modern technology.

They aren’t #1 for emissions, but it’s moving the goalposts if we are only allowed to spend effort protesting and controlling the #1 emitter.

[ijmorlan]

(For the record, larger vehicles like SUVs are pushed by car companies for several reasons, they are higher margins, they avoid CAFE fuel standards, they are easier to achieve a higher crash test safety rating on because they are bigger and north american safety ratings only consider vehicle occupants, this is not a preference thing, these vehicles are pushed by for profit by corporations).

This is why this kind of detailed prescription is not the best way to go. If we’d just had a gradually-increasing carbon fee/dividend since 1980, by now we would have dramatically lower emissions without all the loophole-related nonsense.

Of course, like planting a tree the second-best time is now, but we’re definitely a little late.

[ac3r]

I'm curious why Dan is so defensive - or at least acting indifferent about them/their tactics - in regards to this action group. I know he hates cars but it's hard to read the news about these vehicles being vandalized and - regardless of ones stance on personal automobiles - and not agree that this is dumb, annoying and pointless. Or is this just because he never really admits he is incorrect about something and doubles down on his points - wrong or right - when challenged about them, as is quite common? There could be a thread discussing how 1 + 1 is 2, but then it spirals into this 30 page discussion about how actually that is not always the case.

Like I don't see what there is to defend or at least not speak out towards a nonsensical activist group that is deflating tires of already owned SUV vehicles, knowing full well that doing this is not going to do anything. It isn't going to cause any of these vehicle owners to sell their vehicles. It isn't going to do anything to help climate change either (paper straws do more and those are basically pointless theatre)...because these vehicles are already on the road and just need their tires refilled. It isn't going to result in sweeping changes with any value - automobile manufacturers aren't going to suddenly stop making SUVs because some clowns keep going around deflating tires. It isn't going to gain any sympathy from people. It isn't going to do anything to advance the cause of environmentalism which you are seeing in this thread as well as online discussion. Even those of us here or those on Reddit, Facebook, Twitter et al. that are environmentalists and even those of us who dislike or do not even own cars don't see the purpose in what these people are doing (I've only been reading about this on here and Reddit and I think Dan is the only person I've heard from who hasn't been echoing the sentiments of the rest of the people...).

I could go on. There is nothing to defend here, nothing being achieved. All it is doing is making a mockery out of environmental actions, causing others to not take it seriously, disadvantages people (it's an easy repair, but not everyone has a pump or something) and is now wasting police resources as they investigate. Which will then waste more resources as it ends up court while a judge decides what punishment to give these morons. And it could end up resulting in violence. Maybe these clowns LARPing as environmental revolutionaries hit the wrong SUV one night and someone comes out, gives them a good punch in the face then waits for the cops to show up.

[SammyOES]

I think that the approach is asinine, but SUVs are a significant reason why our vehicle emissions have been rising instead of declining like they should have with modern technology.

They aren’t #1 for emissions, but it’s moving the goalposts if we are only allowed to spend effort protesting and controlling the #1 emitter.

Dan and these “activists” don’t understand climate change because the problem isn’t small optional choices that people make. Telling people “to make better choices” gets us nowhere. Literally nowhere. And, I’d like to point out, this protest isn’t even about the problems of individuals driving or lack of public transportation. It’s targeting a specific mode of individual transportation where even the best choices consumers can make (efficient electric cars) are still highly problematic for climate change.

The only way we tackle climate change is with broad based policy that forces climate change costs into every decision we make. It requires governments to write the rules so that businesses and consumers make every choice with climate change in mind.

And if we need Government support we need broad based public support to elect the Governments that will make these choices. And the easiest way isn’t to convince people that don’t care about climate change to suddenly care or make better choices. It’s to get a majority (or maybe even a plurality) of people that are currently apathetic to vote accordingly, talk accordingly, and act accordingly.

This “protest” will not move apathetic people to caring.

[SammyOES]

Alright, here, I'll post this video...for the third time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dh4G1Gjv...osophyTube

By the way, calling a statement "inane nonsense" doesn't help. You can make legitimate complaints "it's broad and lacks context" which is true, but that doesn't make a statement "inane" or "nonsense".

Your statement is inane. And I laid out why. And a YouTube video is a terrible way to back up your argument. I’m not going to watch it because there’s no way to see sources, fact check claims, see peer reviewed replies or expansions, and so on.

There are very serious people that study political science and history. If your claim is true then go back it up.

[danbrotherston]

(For the record, larger vehicles like SUVs are pushed by car companies for several reasons, they are higher margins, they avoid CAFE fuel standards, they are easier to achieve a higher crash test safety rating on because they are bigger and north american safety ratings only consider vehicle occupants, this is not a preference thing, these vehicles are pushed by for profit by corporations).

This is why this kind of detailed prescription is not the best way to go. If we’d just had a gradually-increasing carbon fee/dividend since 1980, by now we would have dramatically lower emissions without all the loophole-related nonsense.

Of course, like planting a tree the second-best time is now, but we’re definitely a little late.

CAFE fuel standards aren't really about CO2 emissions. They're about fuel economy (which indirectly affects CO2 emissions, but that wasn't the motivation). My opinion is that CAFE isn't really the problem...it's that the EPA allowed the auto industry to have a loophole allowing them to avoid CAFE...a loophole that exasperated a lot of problems.

Ultimately, regulatory capture is the problem...not fuel standards.

I'm all for a broad CO2 price and restriction, but it makes sense to regulate other things directly as well (e.g., other harmful emissions...why do we allow two stroke and small four stroke engines with no emissions controls at all!)

[SammyOES]

I think that the approach is asinine, but SUVs are a significant reason why our vehicle emissions have been rising instead of declining like they should have with modern technology.

They aren’t #1 for emissions, but it’s moving the goalposts if we are only allowed to spend effort protesting and controlling the #1 emitter.

I wanted to come back to this. I’m not against this protest because it’s not targeting the #1 source of emissions.

The current big climate goal is “net-neutral CO2 by 2050”. A goal which is both unlikely to be achieved and if achieved unlikely to be ambitious enough to stop a lot of climate damage.

We’re at a point where achieving this goal doesn’t mean driving fuel efficient cars. It means only driving cars that have no (net) emissions when driving, no emissions during manufacturing, no emissions when mining the raw materials, no emissions when transporting the cars around the world, no emissions when building the roads, no emissions when generating all the energy used at every stage, and so on.

I hope that we have the technological breakthroughs necessary that existing incentives will exist to achieve this. But that seems very unlikely. And so we need Governments to play a big role to (amongst other things):

* Create incentives (some monetary, some legal) that make companies move to net neutral technologies and processes.
* Fund/incentivize research to develop technologies we’ll need but don’t have.
* Make sure public projects aim for net neutral.

And so on.

One big problem we have is that people think reducing emissions by X% (say 50%) by an intermediate goal like 2035 means we’ll be on target. But if we do that with only the low hanging fruit (increasing fuel efficiency) it means we’re screwed achieving the rest. We need to work on the hard parts now so we can scale them up in time. And the hardest parts need the most government and public support.

So, yes, fuel efficiency is important. Every ton of CO2 we keep out now is good. But we can’t waste political capital and public support on minor fights that aren’t going to move the needle in the most important ways.

[danbrotherston]

I think that the approach is asinine, but SUVs are a significant reason why our vehicle emissions have been rising instead of declining like they should have with modern technology.

They aren’t #1 for emissions, but it’s moving the goalposts if we are only allowed to spend effort protesting and controlling the #1 emitter.

I wanted to come back to this.  I’m not against this protest because it’s not targeting the #1 source of emissions.

The current big climate goal is “net-neutral CO2 by 2050”.  A goal which is both unlikely to be achieved and if achieved unlikely to be ambitious enough to stop a lot of climate damage.

We’re at a point where achieving this goal doesn’t mean driving fuel efficient cars.  It means only driving cars that have no (net) emissions when driving, no emissions during manufacturing, no emissions when mining the raw materials, no emissions when transporting the cars around the world, no emissions when building the roads, no emissions when generating all the energy used at every stage, and so on. 

I hope that we have the technological breakthroughs necessary that existing incentives will exist to achieve this.  But that seems very unlikely.  And so we need Governments to play a big role to (amongst other things):

* Create incentives (some monetary, some legal) that make companies move to net neutral technologies and processes.
* Fund/incentivize research to develop technologies we’ll need but don’t have.
* Make sure public projects aim for net neutral.

And so on.

One big problem we have is that people think reducing emissions by X% (say 50%) by an intermediate goal like 2035 means we’ll be on target.  But if we do that with only the low hanging fruit (increasing fuel efficiency) it means we’re screwed achieving the rest.  We need to work on the hard parts now so we can scale them up in time.  And the hardest parts need the most government and public support. 

So, yes, fuel efficiency is important.  Every ton of CO2 we keep out now is good.  But we can’t waste political capital and public support on minor fights that aren’t going to move the needle in the most important ways.

You are welcome to throw your support, energy, money behind whichever environmental cause you feel is most effective.

But I really hate it when people tell others that they are focused on the wrong cause. Unless their policy is literally harmful (like EVs or suburban sprawl) if you just feel that they'd be better to spend their effort on what YOU think is the right focus area....I find it self defeating at best.

I advance my goals by spending my energy promoting them and recruiting for them. I don't advance my goals by telling others that their goals are wrong, unless their goals are actually harmful.

[jamincan]

I advance my goals by spending my energy promoting them and recruiting for them. I don't advance my goals by telling others that their goals are wrong, unless their goals are actually harmful.

Well, in this case, if you are spending your energy and/or money advancing your goal of inconveniencing people who drive SUVs in the name of our climate, I'm here to tell you that your goal is actually harmful. We need to have those people on side to support actual regulatory solutions to a societal problem. Pissing them off is not going to bring them on side, no matter what how much you try to convince yourself that it is a part of some sort of noble climate crusade. If this group insists on continuing, at least put a crazy face on it like Wiebo Ludwig so that climate activists who are actually serious about achieving regulatory change can easily distance themselves from the lunatics.

[jwilliamson]

King St has been paved between Marshall and Central. It was still closed on Saturday, but it looks like it could work any day now.

[Chris]

I wasn't sure if this finally deserves it's own thread now that they are officially studying the Lancaster train crossing issue so I'll put it here for now.

Region seeking ways to improve Lancaster Street railway crossing
https://kitchener.citynews.ca/local-news...ng-5811362


With the tracks so close to the intersection I don't see how an underpass or overpass would work here. It almost seems like it would be easier to move the yard somewhere else? Maybe some land out in the business park area along Bingeman or Shirley? I know nothing of what a train yard involves and imagine moving one is not a trivial endeavour.

[tomh009]

The tracks are roughly 50m from Victoria St, roughly the same as they are at Margaret St. And given the elevation difference between Victoria St and the tracks, an overpass over the tracks is much easier than an underpass.

The elevation is lower on the other side, requiring more distance, but you might be able to handle that by dead-ending the (Kitchener) southbound part of Breithaupt St, which in any case doesn't directly connect to the other direction in any case. If you do that, there is about 100 m to the (Kitchener) northbound Breithaupt St -- or about 150m to Wellington St -- so I do think an overpass would work here.

If necessary, the overpass height could be reduced by lowering the tracks some, adding to the construction complexity but reducing the cost of the overpass bridge itself.

[ijmorlan]

I wasn't sure if this finally deserves it's own thread now that they are officially studying the Lancaster train crossing issue so I'll put it here for now.

Region seeking ways to improve Lancaster Street railway crossing
https://kitchener.citynews.ca/local-news...ng-5811362


With the tracks so close to the intersection I don't see how an underpass or overpass would work here. It almost seems like it would be easier to move the yard somewhere else? Maybe some land out in the business park area along Bingeman or Shirley? I know nothing of what a train yard involves and imagine moving one is not a trivial endeavour.

Simplest, best, and by far the cheapest approach is simply to close the crossing to vehicular traffic, keeping it for bicycles and pedestrians only. Build a grade-separation for active transportation, or don’t, or not yet, or realize that such a grade separation is of insignificant cost compared to one for vehicles and just do it — the big problem is what the crossing does to motor vehicle traffic, not with having a level crossing as such. This one is much worse for traffic than typical ones because it is within the area affected by yard switching movements so it is less predictable and sometimes closes the crossing for significant periods of time.

This would enormously improve Lancaster St. E., which is not meant to take significant amounts of traffic, not to mention the intersection of Lancaster, Krug, and Cedar which does not work well with significant amounts of traffic coming down Lancaster.

There is an existing bridge 2 blocks South (West) at Margaret, and a planned underpass to the North (East) immediately next to the expressway which will connect Wellington with Edna. These two routes provide alternates for any existing trip that might use the Lancaster St. crossing. Note that the correct comparison is not between being at David’s Fries and crossing to the dental office at Victoria and Lancaster; the appropriate comparison is between alternate routes between typical points further away.

Also rename Otto St. to Margaret Ave. so people on Frederick realize that they can get to Margaret that way.