Jump to content

      













Photo

[Bicycles] Bike lanes and cycling infrastructure in Victoria and the south Island


  • Please log in to reply
7470 replies to this topic

#7461 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 45,301 posts

Posted 18 January 2019 - 10:18 AM

Just a reminder that we require some sort of description of the linked content when posting links to the forum. :)

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#7462 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,191 posts

Posted 18 January 2019 - 10:28 AM

Unfortunate...

Or is it ironic?



#7463 DustMagnet

DustMagnet
  • Member
  • 625 posts
  • LocationView Royal

Posted 18 January 2019 - 10:29 AM

No problems cutting down a tree for a bike lane, but ok to waste $2M and leave a tree in place instead of building a pool.

Could be protected vs non-protected species?  E.g. these are not Garry Oaks?



#7464 DustMagnet

DustMagnet
  • Member
  • 625 posts
  • LocationView Royal

Posted 18 January 2019 - 10:33 AM

Or is it ironic?

 Like a two-way protected bike lane, when all you need is a painted line.. 



#7465 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 13,868 posts

Posted 18 January 2019 - 10:59 AM

 

“We have a council right now that’s ready to declare a state of emergency on climate change.  And how they can look at this proposal to take this tree down as something that needs to happen?"

 

Should I be hopeful that some people might actually be starting to clue in?

 

Does chopping down mature trees in high-profile locations really seem like something you'd be doing if you were sincerely concerned about environmental issues, or about preserving the city's character, or about satisfying the expectations of tourists, etc.? Does it really seem like the sort of thing that would be happening in a place (any place, anywhere) that's supposed to be resistant to change?

 

Over the years we've seen so many supposed principles get quietly tossed into the bin. Ah, but modern height restrictions are still in effect. And parking lots and empty spaces are still sacred. As long as we stick to our guns about those two crucial points, Victoria will still be Victoria. Everything else can be torched.


  • Nparker likes this

#7466 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,191 posts

Posted 18 January 2019 - 11:04 AM

...Does chopping down mature trees in high-profile locations really seem like something you'd be doing if you were sincerely concerned about environmental issues...

It suggests to me there is a lobby more powerful than tree-lovers influencing CoV decisions.


  • rjag and A Girl is No one like this

#7467 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 10,358 posts

Posted 18 January 2019 - 11:22 AM

Could be protected vs non-protected species?  E.g. these are not Garry Oaks?

 

Central park has maple trees.



#7468 Brantastic

Brantastic
  • Member
  • 164 posts

Posted 18 January 2019 - 12:54 PM

I'm quite fond of the tree, but the intersection as is is rather awkward with it. Add in bi-directional bike lanes, and a centre island in the intersection messes up things even more. I can't see any kind of configuration where it would have worked. It unfortunately had to go. And the plans I've seen show five new ones being planted. Using climate change as an argument in this case is rather silly because it's one tree being removed to allow for sustainable transportation.

I do however think that the city needs to be more aggressive in their creation of an urban tree canopy in the downtown though. Other than Vancouver and Cook Streets, ours is rather sad compared to Vancouver's downtown canopy. 



#7469 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 13,868 posts

Posted 18 January 2019 - 02:02 PM

Back in the day we planted trees in the city to save the environment, whereas now we chop trees in the city to save the environment. I'm reminded of how it was justified to erase a prominent extant element of Victoria's history and heritage -- the JSB -- because doing so would open up a great view to Victoria's extant history and heritage. Chop down trees to save the environment, demolish heritage to celebrate heritage.

 

Do we never notice how there's always a reason/justification in this or that particular case? Every minute of every day we're encouraged to restrict our perspective and our recollections to this or that particular instance only. Anyway, I digress, so I'll leave it at that. (I'd hate to see VV turn into a board full of tangents and digressions.)

 

Historical photos show how Victoria did introduce a ton of trees downtown in the latter half of the 20th century. Back in the day most downtown blocks didn't have a single tree on them, and the chopping fetish was pretty much reserved for the garry oak neighbourhoods. Flash forward to 2019 and the comparably young downtown trees are nevertheless mature enough to be earning the chop as well. But for the noblest reasons, of course.

 

A cynical person might suggest that it's all part of the game, of creating crisis then addressing crisis then creating crisis again, etc. If a cynical person ever registers here I'm going to give him heck, that's for sure.


  • rjag likes this

#7470 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 21,191 posts

Posted 18 January 2019 - 02:04 PM

...A cynical person might suggest that it's all part of the game, of creating crisis then addressing crisis then creating crisis again, etc...

:thumbsup:



#7471 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,675 posts

Posted 18 January 2019 - 08:07 PM

Politicians aren’t involved in detailed design, so unless you think city engineers love to create crisis’ that jeapordise their own projects I don’t think the comment makes sense.
  • Mr Cook Street likes this

 



3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users


To advertise on VibrantVictoria, call us at 250-884-0589.