this post was submitted on 05 Oct 2023
97 points (95.3% liked)

Fuck Cars

9639 readers
474 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

I have potentially devastating news.

The provincial government of Québec announced in April that the "third link", a tunnel to cross the river between Québec City and it's suburbs, would either be car-free, or it would not be built. At the time, a lot of people across the province celebrated. Some car brains were unhappy, but that's fine. They're never happy anyway, whatever is done. Studies showed that current traffic did not require a new automobile bridge, and that it would invite traffic that the city couldn't handle.

Yesterday, there were provincial elections in that region, and the party in power lost a seat. They immediately started playing defense and said "maybe we should consult the local population on whether we should make it automotive after all".

We all know where this is going. They'll make that dumbass bridge for cars. The prime Minister can't walk back on his word a third time and still win his elections in 3 years.

I may not live in the region, but I truly believe these people should have access to rapid transit to Quebec. My taxes shouldn't go towards building an automobile bridge to our beautiful city of Québec. I believe strongly that an automotive bridge would create enough induced demand to gridlock Québec City. This is so wrong and I'm sitting here, powerless.

I don't know what I can do. I don't even live there. It just makes me sad that we can make the REM in Montreal, but then put doubt in the Third link in Québec. We can't have nice things.

top 13 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Jeanschyso@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Yerbouti@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eh...

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...

[–] Yerbouti@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Yerbouti@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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!

[–] Yerbouti@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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 😉

Ok buhbye là!

[–] Yerbouti@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago

Eille tit gars, j'ai dis buhbye, envoye scram avec tes niaiseries