Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Bureaucrats Don't "Think Different"
owlgorithm writes "Apple's new store in Montreal has three parking meters on the street in front of it. The city is in the middle of a campaign to reduce downtown parking. In Apple's ever-conscientious attempt to improve design, they offered to reimburse the city for the parking meters and their revenue if the city would remove them. Answer: Non — because 'We've never done it before, so we can't.'"
TFA says turn 3 meter spots into no parking zone.
This is not news. This is not funny. This is not even mildly interesting. Check the Firehose again editors -- there must be a few tidbits in there that don't go against your personal beliefs and would make better stories to put up front than this lame pos.
Parking meters are not intended to make much by way of direct revenue. It's the fines for not paying or exceeding the time which produces the bigger income.
No, that's more cars on the roads, circling around in search for a parking spot.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
TFA is an editorial, not an article. It is the opinion of the Montreal Gazette. No bureaucrat ever said "We've never done if before, so we can't." The quote was made up to make a point in the editorial. It's not real.
If you want to read the real article, go to the source (sorry, it is en francais. Run it through the Babelfish if you are desperate.)
I don't disagree that the city is being a bit obstinate, but I can see why they wouldn't want to change streetfronts on Apple's request. If they do it for them, they'll have to do it for every other downtown storefront. Besides, and I am not exaggerating, the $35,000 Apple is promising probably wouldn't even cover the cost of tasking a union city crew to remove the meters, rebuild the sidewalk and put the meters someplace else.
Would have been much funnier if the city had agreed to remove the parking meters, taken the 35k and put 3 much larger and more obtrusive No Parking signs there instead.
:)
Or perhaps one of those 3-ft tall walls with the words 'NO PARKING' stencil-sprayed on it in big 18 inch letters...
Umm... Just make sure the sign is bilingual and that the French is much larger than the English words otherwise you face a fine and maybe a court date.
Yeah, I don't get it either. "Since you're trying to reduce the number of parked cars, how about we help you by offering free parking!"
They suggested the strip be turned into a no parking zone instead, and offered them 3 years worth of revenue for the meters to do it.
That ought to reduce the number of parked cars, non?
I'm really disinclined to believe the "quotes" and "motives" from TFA when it looks more and more to me like an editorial rather than an actual news article (one that conveniently caters to Canada's old anglophone/francophone blood feud at that). The only other source of information I can easily find is this, which includes:One would assume that, of all people, Apple's architectural design team could "think differently" and find some way to redecorate the meters in order to not ruin the ambiance or whatever, and the city seems amenable to that, but wanting the meters removed outright sounds less like "They're ugly" and more "They inconvenience our car-driving customers."
At least read the summary.
That's not the point of this whole exercise. The parking meters and the parked cars do not conform to Apple's "vision" of their store, so they want them gone.
They don't want any cars out front, whether or not it belongs to their customers.
After 15+ years what has been the result of these policies? Snarled traffic, increased traffic, traffic idling in slow speed stop and go driving, increased smog from more vehicles operating in the most inefficient speed and rpm range for the internal combustion engine.
Frankly, my friend, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about if you're so pampered as to think that Portland traffic is ever "snarled."
Try driving in Atlanta for a couple of years before complaining about traffic. Portland is paradise in comparison; I tell you this from experience. You don't know what snarled or stop and go driving are like until it takes you 45 minutes to go 10 miles on a 8- to 10-lane interstate every damned day.
I've been shocked by the total lack of aggression in drivers here. They usually drive at or below the speed limit (like the law requires) instead of tailgating and trying to run off the road anyone doing less than 10-15 over the speed limit like they do in Atlanta. People here are also a LOT friendlier about letting people over to merge. As much pooh-poohing as you do of traffic calming devices, I seriously suggest that you live in an area that doesn't have them before dismissing the idea that traffic engineering can modify the behaviors of drivers.
There is a VERY marked difference in aggression between Portland and Atlanta, and I suspect that difference in how traffic is engineered here has something to do with it.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
here in the northwest yes, around 50% of the power is hydroelectric, but this is only about 25% in redmond because they are not close to any major rivers.
Help Me! I'm trapped in the tubes! Oh noes! Here comes a internet!
Although initial setup costs of Nuclear generators might be much more expensive AFAIK the cost per MW of a nuclear generator is far lower then just about anything else available, if anybody has some numbers that says otherwise they're welcome to correct me. BTW How the hell did a discussion on parking in front of an Apple store turn into a discussion on power generation, this has got to be the most extreme slashdot non-sequitur I have ever seen.
I may agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to face the consequences of saying it.
Actually, hydroeletric is one of the cheapest sources of energy. The facilities last way longer that the alternatives, there's no much personnel involved in operations and there's no fuels to be bought. Usually, operating cost per Kw/h is one quarter of that from coal. Really, I have no idea where you got this idea of hydro being the most expensive source of energy, it's one of the silliest comments I've ever seen here.
Your ad could be here!