Raph Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 You mean our very antiquated and inefficient public transit system? lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electro Rock Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Good car commute. Good bike commute. Choose one, because in this city you're just not going to have both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kass9 Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Some of you hippies really do support Gregor 'the Clown' Robertson, eh? F transit, I like using my car. Cyclists piss me the hell off. One thing that really pisses me off about them is that they NEVER abide by the same rules on the road as the car users do. How many times have you seen a hippy cross in a red light on their bike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockhart Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Commuting on bikes won't work here. They should focus on improving transit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustavo Fring Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Some of you hippies really do support Gregor 'the Clown' Robertson, eh? F transit, I like using my car. Cyclists piss me the hell off. One thing that really pisses me off about them is that they NEVER abide by the same rules on the road as the car users do. How many times have you seen a hippy cross in a red light on their bike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 Some of you hippies really do support Gregor 'the Clown' Robertson, eh? F transit, I like using my car. Cyclists piss me the hell off. One thing that really pisses me off about them is that they NEVER abide by the same rules on the road as the car users do. How many times have you seen a hippy cross in a red light on their bike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 It is not just high occupancy - it is also time savings. As they say time is money My significant other attends her temple pretty much every day and it is about 20-25 minutes by car. If she were to use transit it would be in excess of 2.5 hours both ways. As far as people coming in from the suburbs, businesses they own or in which they are employed pay taxes to the City of Vancouver. And by way of a tax on gas drivers already contribute to transit - in Vancouver and in the Metro Vancouver area, And in April 2012 another two cents a litre was tacked on to help pay for the Evergreen Line SkyTrain extension to Coquitlam. Vancouver and surrounding areas were quite different before the advent of cars as regular mode of transportation. I cannot see any way of going back to the good old days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustavo Fring Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Cars are not a functionally good use of resources either for transport or distribution. That's a quantifiable fact. We pay a huge societal cost for convenience and style, and have only really done so for the last 60 years or so. We should at least be honest about that. When we design our city around cars, as we have been doing for the last few decades, we are letting the tail wag the dog. OMG! Oh, the humanity! What did people ever do before cars saved their ability to travel a long distance to go to temple? Good. That's what the article was about anyway. If you decide to drive into the City you will pay for it for which we will distribute said funds. Stores need to exist in every municipality so it is a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul anyway. I don't think Vancouverites will drive to Burnaby just so they don't have to pay for parking. I wasn't talking about going backward, I was talking about moving forward.... into a modern city as exist all over the world. Those with decreasing car usage are vibrant. Those that have a growing number of vehicles are choking and gridlocked. Cars were a great idea..... for last century. This century we need a better solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Electro Rock Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Commuting on bikes won't work here. They should focus on improving transit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Youre so smart... not. Believe it or not we need cars/trucks to transport goods that we require on a daily basis. Yes we have railroads but to ship goods we still need trucks to distribute! Think of it this way hippie, that organic salad your eating right now was probably shipped to Whole Foods via guess what? A gas powered truck. So yes I do believe cars/trucks are a good use of resources to transport and distribute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raph Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Cars were a great idea..... for last century. This century we need a better solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 So do you agree with Mayor Robertson's solution to the replace the 20th century mode of transportation, cars, with the 21st century solution, bikes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 Primarily, I believe that intercity commuters and recreational drivers should pay a premium for their convenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 They already do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 Good. What's the problem as focused in the article then? People who think they shouldn't pay for their convenience? People who think the city works had an unending supply if financial resources to support vehicle infrastructure? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 The article points out that despite the inordinate contribution by drivers, Vision Vancouver is piling on driven by its ideology which you apparently share according to the content of your posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 That's your view. I read it as being about enforcing parking bylaws. I think they should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gustavo Fring Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 How about Vancouver generates more revenue by ticketing cyclists who breach the City By-Laws???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theminister Posted March 30, 2013 Share Posted March 30, 2013 Yes, I suppose you would read it that way. However the article points out the massive increase in parking revenue and limiting the ability to challenge the ticket. in 2009, the city collected $16 million from parking meters and fines. In just three years that figure increased 147 per cent to $39.5 million as Vision jacked up rates to the highest in North America (only recently topped by Chicago), extended meter hours to seven days a week until 10 p.m. and limited the right of citizens to fight tickets by eliminating their access to the courts. How about Vancouver generates more revenue by ticketing cyclists who breach the City By-Laws???? I read the war on cars as ideologically driven and that is your clear position. So yes you are in lockstep with Mayor Moonbeam and his Lack of Vision party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wetcoaster Posted March 30, 2013 Author Share Posted March 30, 2013 I agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.