The Official Transit Thread

[ronthecivil]

No it wouldn't nearly be that easy cause you need to differentiate the people who drive for work and the people who choose to drive to work. This is the stupid thing about cars. Over 95% of a typical day they are parked, yet we spend billions and billions accommodating the 5% of the time they're actually being used. It's lunacy.

If someone has their car parked at home, I don't think it's going to affect traffic all that much or dirty the air really.

Although I was a little foolish in my example. I forgot the person living in Abbottsford is outside of translinks area and wouldn't be paying the levy, or probably be subject to the odometer thing (I can't beleive you oppose this, it charges more to those that drive, period, and rewards not driving). Yep, to do things your way, it would have to be all gas tax. Maybe your a little tired, but a flat rate for simply owning a car isn't fair or at all effective as a carrot/stick to reduce the amount of vehicle use. (It is a nice carrot to commute in from Abbottsford though!)

[ronthecivil]

What it sounds like it means is a bunch of politicians telling translink they still want the expensive plan, but they still don't know where they're gonna get the money from. Then they all gave themselves the little cavaet that if they don't have enough money, the plan they want can't happen.

Sounds like bs to me.

Sounds like the sleep did you well, at least you made sense that time.

[Ramathorn]

[Buggernut]

^ That reminds me.

What are your thoughts on kicking a passenger off the bus for having a noisy crying toddler?

I'm for it. The accompanying parent should be responsible for shutting the kid up. They can take the kid outside and settle it down off the bus, and catch the next one, instead of causing a nuisance to the driver and all the other passengers.

[BradMayFan]

^ That reminds me.

What are your thoughts on kicking a passenger off the bus for having a noisy crying toddler?

I'm for it. The accompanying parent should be responsible for shutting the kid up. They can take the kid outside and settle it down off the bus, and catch the next one, instead of causing a nuisance to the driver and all the other passengers.

Honestly I see things like that as something you have to be prepared to put up with on transit.

[Ramathorn]

A few days ago I was waiting for the Burrard Station bus. Its always full around 8-9 which I hate. so when it finally came, I was one of the lucky ones to get on because it was so full. This mother behind me got on and the bus driver was telling her she couldn't fit on because she was a little over wie....... well you know what i mean. And she had two kids with her. So the bus driver closses the door and drives along with her kids still on the curb, while shes on the bus. He then kept on going as she was yelling at him to stop and he didn't. Two blocks later he opened the door to let her off. Man bus drivers these days can be so......

Edited September 27, 2009 by ThePecc98

[nitronuts]

I'm for kicking out nuisances too...especially since it affects the driver's capability of driving the bus safely.

[inane]

If someone has their car parked at home, I don't think it's going to affect traffic all that much or dirty the air really.

Although I was a little foolish in my example. I forgot the person living in Abbottsford is outside of translinks area and wouldn't be paying the levy, or probably be subject to the odometer thing (I can't beleive you oppose this, it charges more to those that drive, period, and rewards not driving). Yep, to do things your way, it would have to be all gas tax. Maybe your a little tired, but a flat rate for simply owning a car isn't fair or at all effective as a carrot/stick to reduce the amount of vehicle use. (It is a nice carrot to commute in from Abbottsford though!)

I don't oppose it, I earlier said I think it or one or all of the possibles should be done. I just think it's more complicated than simply looking at the odometer...

[Columbo]

I don't oppose it, I earlier said I think it or one or all of the possibles should be done. I just think it's more complicated than simply looking at the odometer...

A gas tax is more complicated that looking at the odometer?? How so? It seems infinitely simpler.

[ronthecivil]

A gas tax is more complicated that looking at the odometer?? How so? It seems infinitely simpler.

Uh, I guess Inane has some very complicated measure in mind. And really, one point on that is if someone drove to Kamloops they would be paying the same as if they were driving around in circles downtown all day.

As gas tax, since the tax is already there, would by far be the simplist, and not only rewards driving less but rewards people driving fuel effecient vehicles, so it's by far the most effecient and least regressive. So they should just do that. That's why I always go for that as a way to pay for things.

Kind of like if they legalised and taxed marijuana voila now you have the money to open up Riverview and all of the drug treament centres in how I visualise fixing that problem.

[Denrik]

I'm for kicking out nuisances too...especially since it affects the driver's capability of driving the bus safely.

I never thought of it that way but it's so true. Except mom's never think they should be punished for what their child is doing. On my bus last week the driver told the mom to stop the kid from screaming and all she did was shake a rattle.

[old_time_hockey]

I'm for kicking out nuisances too...especially since it affects the driver's capability of driving the bus safely.

How do you know the child isn't sick and the mother is taking the child to see the Dr? When a child is sick there is no reasoning and often times not much you can do to calm the child.

I am more for banning people who stink or people talking loudly on their cell phones. That is more of a disturbance than a child.

[inane]

A gas tax is more complicated that looking at the odometer?? How so? It seems infinitely simpler.

Man you guys, stop extrapolating what I say to mean something else.

I never said a gas tax was more complicated. I said the odometer answer wasn't as easy as it sounds. In no way did I say anything about a gas tax being simple/difficult or anything...

You guys need to go to debating 101 cause this is painful.

Just because someone says 'I don't believe x' DOES NOT MEAN 'therefore y is true'. I know it's a tried and true method, but really, it is crap.

'Wow the (insert political party here) really screwed up that new project.'

'Yeah, but imagine if (insert other political party here) were in power!'

That's a lazy, meaningless argument. Don't do it. It's bad for your health.

Edited September 27, 2009 by inane

[ronthecivil]

Man you guys, stop extrapolating what I say to mean something else.

I never said a gas tax was more complicated. I said the odometer answer wasn't as easy as it sounds. In no way did I say anything about a gas tax being simple/difficult or anything...

You guys need to go to debating 101 cause this is painful.

Just because someone says 'I don't believe x' DOES NOT MEAN 'therefore y is true'. I know it's a tried and true method, but really, it is crap.

'Wow the (insert political party here) really screwed up that new project.'

'Yeah, but imagine if (insert other political party here) were in power!'

That's a lazy, meaningless argument. Don't do it. It's bad for your health.

Uh, why isn't the odometer answer as easy as it sounds. You fail at debating for not countering what should be an easy overhead smash of a lob then.

Either way, I think it's clear that vehicle leavy>per km insurance rate>vehicle leavy as a fund raising measure. At least if your parameters are ease of administration, effect on discouraing private vehicle use, shifting tax from business to the working poor, and the enviroment are your parameters.

But since your not providing anything useful other than debating theory, how about I once again give free advice to translink. Instead of putting a gun to ones head to pay a leavy, make it optional and provide them with a discounted bus pass instead, as a way of getting more people bought into the system volentarily.

[inane]

Uh, why isn't the odometer answer as easy as it sounds. You fail at debating for not countering what should be an easy overhead smash of a lob then.

Either way, I think it's clear that vehicle leavy>per km insurance rate>vehicle leavy as a fund raising measure. At least if your parameters are ease of administration, effect on discouraing private vehicle use, shifting tax from business to the working poor, and the enviroment are your parameters.

But since your not providing anything useful other than debating theory, how about I once again give free advice to translink. Instead of putting a gun to ones head to pay a leavy, make it optional and provide them with a discounted bus pass instead, as a way of getting more people bought into the system volentarily.

I've already said why the odometer answer isn't as easy as it sounds. If you think I fail at debating cause you can't read what I write, so be it.

As for the discounted bus pass, the people that drive to work don't give a shiate about a discounted bus pass. You think your typical driver is going to change to the bus because the bus pass is now $20 cheaper (or whatever dollar figure)? They already spend thousands on their car, a discounted bus pass is meaningless.

[ronthecivil]

I've already said why the odometer answer isn't as easy as it sounds. If you think I fail at debating cause you can't read what I write, so be it.

As for the discounted bus pass, the people that drive to work don't give a shiate about a discounted bus pass. You think your typical driver is going to change to the bus because the bus pass is now $20 cheaper (or whatever dollar figure)? They already spend thousands on their car, a discounted bus pass is meaningless.

What if they used transit for work, but had a car for the weekends and running errands. Do you really think of the 100k people a day going into downtown daily on skytrain, none of them have cars?

[ronthecivil]

No it wouldn't nearly be that easy cause you need to differentiate the people who drive for work and the people who choose to drive to work. This is the stupid thing about cars. Over 95% of a typical day they are parked, yet we spend billions and billions accommodating the 5% of the time they're actually being used. It's lunacy.

I guess that's your reason? What difference does it make, they are still using the roads and contributing to taxes. At least the people that drive for work would be able to write off their insurance as an expense. That's a pretty weak reason really.

[old_time_hockey]

The thing that gets me is that every time Translink comes with their hand out for more because god knows what they did the however many million we just gave them, they want to put the burden of paying for their shortcomings on the motorist. The people buying gas prop up the transit system. But even if they dare to whisper transit fares are going up $0.25 the transit riders are up in arms. If this carbon tax does what they say it will and gets people off the road and onto transit, Translink will lose even MORE money.

Know a good way we could make money...licence bicycles. Make them have a plate and charge them something nominal like $25/yr. But then the next time that I see a cyclist blow a stop sign or use a cross walk to cross an intersection or something else illegal I can call them in and hopefully we can generate revenue from fines.

[inane]

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2...s_in_portl.html

More Portlanders are biking to work than ever before, according to U.S. Census Bureau data announced today by Mayor Sam Adams.

Census Bureau's annual American Community Survey data showed 6.4 percent told the survey that they bicycled to work in 2008. This makes Portland No. 1 in bicycle commuting among the 30 largest cities in the country, the mayor's office said. The percentage of walkers and transit users also rose.

"Our small investment in bicycling infrastructure and education are paying off in a big way," Adams said. "Once again the data backs up our belief that when Portlanders are given a safe, convenient alternative to driving they will get out of their car and onto a bike."

As The Oregonian reported on Tuesday, the survey shows 17,365 Portlanders rode their bicycles to work. That's up from 10,987 in the 2007, a big jump from 4 percent to 6 percent, said Charles Rynerson, state census data coordinator at the Population Research Center at Portland State University.

Across the Portland metro area, 21,921 people rode bicycles to work. Statewide, 37,582 people pedaled to work.

Census officials caution that the annual survey comes from such small samples that it is much less reliable for small areas like cities than for large areas like states. Still, the survey data are consistent with a rising number of cyclists the city auditor's office has counted on the four most bike-accessible Willamette River bridges.

Adams has been the commissioner in charge of the Portland Bureau of Transportation since 2004.

What I bolded is important--it does work

[inane]

http://blog.smartgrowthamerica.org/2009/09...nsit-ridership/

A new report released yesterday chronicles how the record public transportation ridership of 2007 and 2008 helped cut carbon dioxide emissions by 37 million tons in 2008 — and more importantly, how increasing transit ridership in the future is an essential strategy for helping us reach our ambitious national goals of cutting emissions and preventing climate change.

Edited September 28, 2009 by inane