Scott
My feedback
12 results found
-
5 votes
An error occurred while saving the comment Scott
commented
Some old methods should be revisited, I think.
Cities are nothing but hard surfaces. They don't absorb water, they drain it - and quickly. Rapid run-off is a problem, as is failure to replenish subsurface water.
Considering that Vancouver exists in a rainforest climate, this city has a great opportunity to showcase to the world many types of rainfall management techniques, and which may reduce human impact on the ecosystem.
@Tax Free There are many examples of porous surfaces which don't create mudscapes. I'm suggesting that some sidewalks be wooden, not all. Certainly, all those side-streets really don't need impervious concrete.Concrete is supposedly more cost-efficient in the long run, as maintenance costs are low. The cost to the environment though is high. There may be innovative ways to treat wood which increase its lifetime / durability / fire-resistance, while retaining its natural character.
@CH Trees can be a wisely-managed renewable resource (although they aren't yet in BC). Where do you think concrete comes from? Talk about destroying a landscape! As for carbon cost, trees are relatively local, and their growth captures carbon. Logging and transportation costs may be reduced significantly through using different methods. As for maintenance costs, what's wrong with local job creation? What's wrong with making wood products in BC instead of shipping raw logs around the world as we do now? Perhaps an analysis of the numbers might show it economically feasible, even beneficial. Certainly there are wooden walkways being used in parks already which are proving relatively low maintenance and low cost while protecting the natural health and ambience of the park.
Cities are rigid, controlling, inhumane contrivances derived to beat nature into submission. Grid design is unnatural, doesn't relate to the natural flow of a terrain or even human travel patterns. I think redesign of whole neighbourhoods (as done historically in places like Paris), incorporating winding wooden sidewalks among forest and dwellings, would create a much more appropriate way to live in our local landscape and ecosystem than is done now.
I envision, for example, a neighbourhood like the West End a completely road- and vehicle-free place, a collection of tree-house-like apartment structures replacing the current box towers, interspersed among and rising slightly above a thriving forest similar to Stanley Park, with a meandering electric LRT (or even tree-top gondolas) and wooden paths for transport, essential services and shopping located underground (as in downtown Toronto).
Scott
shared this idea
·
-
4 votesScott
shared this idea
·
-
5 votesScott
supported this idea
·
-
20 votesScott
shared this idea
·
-
14 votesScott
supported this idea
·
-
17 votes
Great idea. The Vancouver Park Board has examined opportunities for small wind energy generation at locations further west like Jericho.
An error occurred while saving the comment Scott
commented
As long as the kites don't get tangled up in it!
-
48 votesScott
supported this idea
·
-
70 votesScott
supported this idea
·
-
92 votes
Some interesting ideas here.
First, a bit of clarification: London doesn’t prohibit cars from entering the city centre; rather it imposes a fee to discourage their use. This is commonly called congestion charging and it can serve multiple purposes: first, it reduces motor vehicle congestion so that the people who really need to drive (e.g. goods movement, taxis, and essential service vehicles) can get around without getting stuck in gridlock; second, it provides a potential revenue source which can be directed to support improvements to more sustainable modes (public transit, active transportation).
Congestion pricing is an interesting idea for Vancouver — both as a means to reduce congestion and to generate revenue to improve transit service. It might make more sense to think about it at the regional (rather than city centre or municipal) level, though, given that it would affect travel patterns across the metropolitan area. It would also…
Scott
supported this idea
·
-
229 votes
Transit (and transit fares!) are controlled by TransLink, not the city. Having said that, reducing or eliminating transit fares is an interesting idea.
Unfortunately it’s not very feasible, at least as TransLink is currently funded. Unlike most North American cities, Vancouver’s transit problems aren’t due to a lack of demand but rather a lack of capacity. Anyone who’s ever tried to squeeze onto one of our busy buses or trains knows this all too well — there isn’t enough space even when people have to pay, let alone accommodate the additional demand that would be created if transit were free. Compare this to cities with fare-free zones, which are typically struggling for increase demand, and which typically have (a) less frequent service and/or (b) plenty of extra capacity to accommodate more riders.
In Vancouver, we need to provide more transit capacity to meet existing demand — and a LOT more…
Scott
supported this idea
·
-
226 votesScott
supported this idea
·
-
314 votes
Included in the Draft Greenest City Action Plan.
Scott
supported this idea
·
