Waterloo Region Connected

Full Version: General Road and Highway Discussion
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
The Region's Bids & Tenders page provides the tender drawings for this project. Spoiler: it'll mostly look the exact same once they're finished. 

The only funny detail I noticed is that the contractor is responsible for painting the existing MUT. I guess the people that paved it in the first place didn't have to paint it?

https://regionofwaterloo.bidsandtenders....ee487ac9fa
(07-07-2022, 09:19 AM)the_conestoga_guy Wrote: [ -> ]The Region's Bids & Tenders page provides the tender drawings for this project. Spoiler: it'll mostly look the exact same once they're finished. 

The only funny detail I noticed is that the contractor is responsible for painting the existing MUT. I guess the people that paved it in the first place didn't have to paint it?

https://regionofwaterloo.bidsandtenders....ee487ac9fa

Probably it was constructed before the region agreed to paint and sign them (yes, somehow, this was a sticking point for our regional staff...good god they need to go).

Does the Tender document describe what the purpose of the work is? Is it just a reconstruction? How did we miss this one? Never mind...uphill battle...status quo and cuts are the default.
The Bleams Road extension beyond Manitou has started installing the bridge - steel spans are being placed. 

[Image: tBKa33j.jpg]
I wonder how this is going to affect traffic on Wilson once this is complete.
(07-12-2022, 12:08 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]I wonder how this is going to affect traffic on Wilson once this is complete.

Wilson has a new Multi Use Trail that is stuck between Wilson/Wabanaki and the bridge across the railway tracks. I think it’s in line for an upgrade to become more than just an industrial road soon.
Wasn't sure where to post this but it appears an "environmental" group that really hates SUVs for some reason is now doing a local campaign of vandalism where they go out and deflate tires. Last night, they deflated the tires of 60 SUVs across the region: https://twitter.com/T_Extinguishers/stat...0578693120

Ridiculous tactics and I won't blame anyone for beating the shit out of one of these people with a bat if they get caught.
(07-18-2022, 12:53 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]Wasn't sure where to post this but it appears an "environmental" group that really hates SUVs for some reason is now doing a local campaign of vandalism where they go out and deflate tires. Last night, they deflated the tires of 60 SUVs across the region: https://twitter.com/T_Extinguishers/stat...0578693120

Ridiculous tactics and I won't blame anyone for beating the shit out of one of these people with a bat if they get caught.

While I don't agree with their mischief (legal definition which includes property damage), it's not "for some reason" as if the negative externalities of SUVs were unknown.

* greater risk to pedestrians and cyclists in collisions
* greater likelihood of mot seeing those pedestrians and cyclists in the first place 
* higher emissions & pollution
* greater wear and tear to roads
SUVs are bad indeed but this is not going to help their cause. This is like PETA level nonsense.
(07-18-2022, 02:03 PM)Bytor Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-18-2022, 12:53 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]Wasn't sure where to post this but it appears an "environmental" group that really hates SUVs for some reason is now doing a local campaign of vandalism where they go out and deflate tires. Last night, they deflated the tires of 60 SUVs across the region: https://twitter.com/T_Extinguishers/stat...0578693120

Ridiculous tactics and I won't blame anyone for beating the shit out of one of these people with a bat if they get caught.

While I don't agree with their mischief (legal definition which includes property damage), it's not "for some reason" as if the negative externalities of SUVs were unknown.

* greater risk to pedestrians and cyclists in collisions
* greater likelihood of mot seeing those pedestrians and cyclists in the first place 
* higher emissions & pollution
* greater wear and tear to roads

I mean, all of those things are true, but SUVs seem benign next to pickup trucks, and as far as I can tell, they ignored those.

It's a stupid campaign in any case; what is the best possible outcome this group thinks is going to come from this?
(07-18-2022, 02:30 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-18-2022, 02:03 PM)Bytor Wrote: [ -> ]While I don't agree with their mischief (legal definition which includes property damage), it's not "for some reason" as if the negative externalities of SUVs were unknown.

* greater risk to pedestrians and cyclists in collisions
* greater likelihood of mot seeing those pedestrians and cyclists in the first place 
* higher emissions & pollution
* greater wear and tear to roads

I mean, all of those things are true, but SUVs seem benign next to pickup trucks, and as far as I can tell, they ignored those.

It's a stupid campaign in any case; what is the best possible outcome this group thinks is going to come from this?

A lot of modern "SUVs" (which has become quite a large umbrella term) are very similar to modern cars, as a result of manufacturers simplifying their platforms and having the two styles meet in the middle. The fuel consumption and visibility issues (aside from height) are quite close these days, and from my understanding a lot of the visibility issues are a result of crash safety standards anyways. There are of course some monstrous SUVs though, which are incomparable to cars.

In other words, just targeting SUVs instead of all motor vehicles is about as naive as deflating tires.

But hey, putting potentially 240 tires in the landfill and forcing the production of another 240 is a net environmental benefit?
(07-18-2022, 02:30 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-18-2022, 02:03 PM)Bytor Wrote: [ -> ]While I don't agree with their mischief (legal definition which includes property damage), it's not "for some reason" as if the negative externalities of SUVs were unknown.

* greater risk to pedestrians and cyclists in collisions
* greater likelihood of mot seeing those pedestrians and cyclists in the first place 
* higher emissions & pollution
* greater wear and tear to roads

I mean, all of those things are true, but SUVs seem benign next to pickup trucks, and as far as I can tell, they ignored those.

It's a stupid campaign in any case; what is the best possible outcome this group thinks is going to come from this?

They didn't ignore them, they acknowledged that trucks are often used by tradespeople. Like I said, I don't agree with it because of the possibility of vehicle damage, but I think it was a smart move to not target pick-ups as you know there'd be people with valid work trucks who got deflated and not just penis-extender pickups.

The reactions to this on r/kitchener and r/waterloo are mostly irrational anger with a soupçon of overt threats, and valid work trucks getting hit would only make it worse.
(07-18-2022, 02:30 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-18-2022, 02:03 PM)Bytor Wrote: [ -> ]While I don't agree with their mischief (legal definition which includes property damage), it's not "for some reason" as if the negative externalities of SUVs were unknown.

* greater risk to pedestrians and cyclists in collisions
* greater likelihood of mot seeing those pedestrians and cyclists in the first place 
* higher emissions & pollution
* greater wear and tear to roads

I mean, all of those things are true, but SUVs seem benign next to pickup trucks, and as far as I can tell, they ignored those.

It's a stupid campaign in any case; what is the best possible outcome this group thinks is going to come from this?

This campaign is a strange move from a bunch of radicals that will only piss people off..

But SUVs are not benign due to their immense numbers:
The growth of SUVs have single-handedly stopped any emissions savings we could have had in the last 20 years due to more efficient combustion technology.
They contribute (majority) to the rising numbers of pedestrian injuries and deaths due to their worse sight lines, higher hoods, and heavier weight.
That increased weight is consuming infrastructure at a faster rate than otherwise could have been, and not being taxed appropriately for it.
They have accelerated the already growing size of cars, leading to more congestion and even more inflated parking lots.
They're obviously driving up prices and contributing to the auto financing debt "crisis" - and still using the frames and engines from smaller cars that would save people money and emissions if they just bought that!

All of these facts are true for trucks, but we kinda already knew it for them... Someone buying an SUV today has no idea the increased costs that they are incurring vs the sedan/wagon that their parents would have bought in the same stage of life.

Deflating their tires is just not going to work to convince people anyways.
SUVs and other vehicles and the systems of which they are a part have major problems.

That being said, the criminals responsible for this campaign of vandalism should be tracked down and punished to the full extent of the law, and any legitimate activist who knows what’s good for their cause will disassociate themselves from this sort of criminal activity.
(07-18-2022, 12:53 PM)ac3r Wrote: [ -> ]Wasn't sure where to post this but it appears an "environmental" group that really hates SUVs for some reason is now doing a local campaign of vandalism where they go out and deflate tires. Last night, they deflated the tires of 60 SUVs across the region: https://twitter.com/T_Extinguishers/stat...0578693120

Ridiculous tactics and I won't blame anyone for beating the shit out of one of these people with a bat if they get caught.

Whether you agree with their tactics or not, you can still blame people for committing a violent assault or attempted murder against another person for any reason at all, least of all for minor mischief.

Frankly, I don't want to know anyone who thinks that kind of violence is acceptable.
(07-18-2022, 03:11 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: [ -> ]
(07-18-2022, 02:30 PM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]I mean, all of those things are true, but SUVs seem benign next to pickup trucks, and as far as I can tell, they ignored those.

It's a stupid campaign in any case; what is the best possible outcome this group thinks is going to come from this?

A lot of modern "SUVs" (which has become quite a large umbrella term) are very similar to modern cars, as a result of manufacturers simplifying their platforms and having the two styles meet in the middle. The fuel consumption and visibility issues (aside from height) are quite close these days, and from my understanding a lot of the visibility issues are a result of crash safety standards anyways. There are of course some monstrous SUVs though, which are incomparable to cars.

In other words, just targeting SUVs instead of all motor vehicles is about as naive as deflating tires.

But hey, putting potentially 240 tires in the landfill and forcing the production of another 240 is a net environmental benefit?

If someone chooses to throw out a deflated tire instead of just reinflating it, that's on them. They aren't slashing tires, they've been very clear about this (even if certain media outlets have outright lied about it), it's hard to know if this even qualifies as vandalism.