Ding ding ding. Red light running, illegal parking, speeding, rolling through stop signs, distracted driving, etc etc etc. It would raise billions to just enforce the law on drivers, while making DC far safer and more pleasant.
Nobody thinks it’s acceptable, we just recognize this is a rare, one-off occurrence that is in no way the norm like you’re trying to present.
Why? London City Airport is likewise close to the London Cable Car.
Yeah, this sounds like a good thing, not a bad thing.
Hot take: the City should build a gondola to the islands.
Building a gondala like London's IFS Cable Car would provide a permanent connection to the islands for pedestrians and cyclists that could function in all weather conditions. Gondalas work in ski resorts during snowstorms; they would also work in Toronto winters.
A cable car would preserve the sense of taking a special "voyage" to the islands that's currently provided by the ageing ferries. It would also be a tourist attraction, providing beautiful views over the Toronto skyline.
A cable car could run entirely on green energy, with no need for diesel engines.
A cable car could also be strung high enough to allow ships to pass underneath, removing the need for an expensive moveable bridge.
A cable car could carry upwards of 2,500 passengers per hour, beyond the capacity of the current ferries or their proposed electric replacements.
A cable car could be partially privately financed and open up opportunities for private sponsorship, removing the need for taxpayer subsidies, just like in London.
Would it be expensive and a potential political boondoggle? Sure. But it would be dope as fuck and a great solution to all the issues at play.
It’s such a car brained comment. The nicest cities are the ones with the least vehicles, designed for people to live and visit, not cars to speed through as quickly as possible.
He’s great. I hate that the OLP membership voted for Crombie.
Hot take: the City should build a gondola to the islands.
Building a gondala like London's IFS Cable Car would provide a permanent connection to the islands for pedestrians and cyclists that could function in all weather conditions. Gondalas work in ski resorts during snowstorms; they would also work in Toronto winters.
A cable car would preserve the sense of taking a special "voyage" to the islands that's currently provided by the ageing ferries. It would also be a tourist attraction, providing beautiful views over the Toronto skyline.
A cable car could run entirely on green energy, with no need for diesel engines.
A cable car could also be strung high enough to allow ships to pass underneath, removing the need for an expensive moveable bridge.
A cable car could carry upwards of 2,500 passengers per hour, beyond the capacity of the current ferries or their proposed electric replacements.
A cable car could be partially privately financed and open up opportunities for private sponsorship, removing the need for taxpayer subsidies, just like in London.
Would it be expensive and a potential political boondoggle? Sure. But it would be dope as fuck and a great solution to all the issues at play.
"biking in winter is soo ez man! grow a pair! blub blub blub!"
I mean, yes, it is, and if you're healthy and physically fit, you really should give it a shot. You'd be surprised by how nice it is, aside from the psychotic drivers treating you like subhuman filth.
You're so close to getting it. Considering there will be tens of thousands of new residents moving into the neighbourhood, and the roads and public transport system are already beyond capacity, we need to build infrastructure to support more space-efficient modes of transportation. Single occupant vehicles are the single most space inefficient mode of urban transport, while bicycles are among the most efficient. Reducing speed limits is not enough to get people to actually slow down - narrowing the road by adding bike lanes and other traffic calming measures is the only way to force drivers to stop treating Bloor like a highway. Many people can't drive to work, sure, but not all trips are commutes; most trips in Toronto are 5km or less, a distance easily cyclable by most people.
Yeah, this is effectively advertising for Reform, not some “gotcha” by Channel 4. It lets Reform clearly state their actual views while allowing Farage to pretend he’s entirely innocent. Channel 4 is carrying water for Reform here.
If they want to get paid above the wage they’re already being paid to do their job, yes, they should do something above the bare minimum. Paying tips isn’t “decency,” it’s an optional mark of respect, acknowledgment and thanks for good service, which OP did not receive. Why do they “deserve” a tip for handing OP a bottle, while your McDonalds cashier does not?
What did the server do to deserve the extra dollar?
No, we weren’t speaking about Uganda, just like we weren’t speaking about whether or not Black people can be racist before you tried to change the subject to distract from your absolute ridiculous and patently untrue claim that anyone who comes to the United States for any period of time for any reason is an immigrant.
British houses are generally poorly insulated, not well insulated, hence the Insulate Britain campaign, and many places around the world do not have aircon.
Yep, you got me, someone who recognizes the expulsion of Indians from Uganda was a racist policy, someone who recognizes that the definition of racism has not been updated to include an asterisk that Black people cannot be racist, and someone who recognizes that people staying temporarily in a country on non-immigrant visas are not immigrants.
Were you one of the people making the claim that black people can be racist
Of course Black people can be racist. People of any race can be racist. Was the expulsion of Indians from Uganda in 1972 not racist in your view?
You'll see that the definition has been updated to reflect the reality.
If you check, the definition of racism actually has not been updated to reflect that Black people cannot be racist.
You continue to miss the mark.
What mark is that? That everyone in the United States is apparently an immigrant, regardless of their immigration status? Is everyone on Earth an immigrant in your reality?
The commentary that you're attempting to make is that white people temporarily working in a country self-identify and get called expatriates, while non-white people doing the same get called immigrants. You have attempted to make that point by calling OP an immigrant. You're doing the exact same thing as when "racist bigots are speaking of illegal immigrants flooding across the border," as you wrote - you're inaccurately calling someone the wrong immigration status. For some reason, you think it's bad when they do it, but fine when you do it.
OP is not an immigrant if they do not intend to settle permanently in the United States, nor is anyone else working temporarily in a country with no intention to permanently settle. Asylum claimants and refugees are likewise not illegal immigrants. In immigration law, these terms matter. However, I honestly take no more issue with you calling OP an immigrant than if you called them a talking purple flying horse - both are completely wrong, but hey, if you want to live in fantasy world where words have no meaning and dictionary and legal definitions don't matter, be my guest.
What happened when you told the bartender you didn't want to tip 22%?
I am aware that non-white people temporarily working in the US often get accused of being immigrants, along with asylum claimants at the border. That doesn't change that the law and dictionary definition makes those claims both legally inaccurate and factually untrue, and it doesn't justify you inaccurately labelling OP of being an immigrant despite them self-identifying as an expat and you having precisely zero evidence of their immigration status.
Just because you've received comments about being an immigrant doesn't justify you doing the same thing to other people. The point of the Guardian article and of Bourdain's comments wasn't to change the definition of the word "immigrant" to also cover white (and non-white) expatriates, it was to ensure that non-white expatriates are also accurately described as expatriates rather than being inaccurately described as immigrants.
OP has not given any indication that they are an immigrant. Asylum claimants at the border are not necessarily immigrants. Anyone arriving on a non-immigrant visa without the intention to switch to an immigrant visa is not an immigrant. You are not an immigrant. The only people who are immigrants, by law and by definition, are those who have arrived in the United States with the intention to pursue or already possessing an immigrant visa.
What’s wrong with calling someone an immigrant?
There's nothing wrong with it, you just don't seem to know "immigrant" means. Look it up - here's the link again, helpfully explaining the disctintion between migrant, immigrant, refugee, and asylum seeker: https://www.rescue.org/article/migrants-asylum-seekers-refugees-and-immigrants-whats-difference
You assume I mean to demean them.
I didn't assume that; you just don't know "immigrant" means.
Gee, I wonder
Correct, I am claiming you have done something wrong, per the second definition. You are inaccurately describing people as immigrants who are legally and literally not immigrants, by definition and by the law. Neither your coworkers nor OP are immigrants if they're on non-immigrant visas with no intention to immigrate.
So you had coworkers who were inaccurately accused of being immigrants and that makes it fine to inaccurately accuse OP of being an immigrant, despite it being both legally and by definition untrue?
More about your intention, I'd say. If you're coming to work for a couple of years with zero intention to immigrate or get a green card, you are not an immigrant. Employment visas like the one OP likely arrived under are literally called non-immigrant visas.
An immigrant is someone who makes a conscious decision to leave his or her home and move to a foreign country with the intention of settling there. https://www.rescue.org/article/migrants-asylum-seekers-refugees-and-immigrants-whats-difference
Downvoted because this is absolutely the right idea. We’ve seen from modern, progressive cities around the world like London that congestion pricing is an incredible way at reducing traffic and pollution while generating billions of revenue for public and active transport infrastructure. Sadly, you won’t have much luck convincing car-brained Americans who think it’s their god-given right to drive their F-150 over 13 children while going 50 miles over the speed limit on their way to work. It’s particularly funny to read so many commenters whining that this is a regressive tax on the poor when we know for a fact that vehicle ownership is directly correlated with income; the rich are the most likely to drive and the poor are the most likely to rely on crumbling, underfunded public transport systems.
I think all highways into cities should charge a minimum $50 fee for all non-city residents.
The10thDentist