Quote:
Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut
Don't build the roads, half the region says you're anti-car, half the region says you're pro-car. Build the roads, same thing. Can't win.
|
I thought the original post about this road widening effort showing that the region is 'anti-car' was being sarcastic, or a parody of the usual 'one more lane bro' crowd.
I mean, per the article, Surrey is spending more money to 4-lane a section of 132 than the city plans to spend over the next 10 years on either cycling or walking capital expenditures (per their 10 year servicing plan), the article confirms that provision for walking and cycling when they widen 132 is an afterthought (it will include "integrated cycling-walking facilities where possible") and the article mentions a number of other, more expensive road widening projects that are also underway, as well as the new road recently built through a park to help cars get on their way faster.
Who could read all this and conclude that it shows the region is anti-car, it doesn't make any sense?