ahzdeen

Because increases on transit don't make any sense right now. What, do you want to run more buses through urban neighborhoods? The provincial and federal governments have already put aside money for the evergreen line but Translink can't make the money to build it (ie, they can't collect enough revenues to even cover their own costs). Are the governments supposed to foot that bill to? Might as well make translink part of the government then (and then there will be screaming of indignation when transit decisions are made for political reasons more than they already are now). You make transit attractive and cost effective areas and translink will have no choice but to build it there. As it stand right now, you need the dense housing first (or at least plans for dense housing). Look at the expo line stations. If that's not proof that you can't just build stations and hope density happens, I don't know what is.

Which is why you put in demand management to limit the number of cars. You give people alternatives (you know, dense transit nodes and those sorts of things). You build them into the new highways and bridges and whatever. The point is, you don't ignore a problem because the solution isn't the best. The new highway is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.

No, you have to deal with problems that are here now with solutions that will take effect now, not 5 years down the road. How do you propose we fix the congestion problem in surrey/langley? Building dense housing and giving them transit options is not an option because it'll take years before that even begins to touch on the issue. In the meantime, we have pollution and economic (trucking and other commercial vehicles) problems. Ignoring the problems 5-10-15 years into the future is bad but ignoring the problems of today is just as stupid.

You're still ignoring the problem that's already there. The choices aren't eat or don't eat, there's a healthy medium.

Because you can't ignore something that's already there. It's akin to saying "I have cancer and AIDS. Let's ignore this cancer and just fight the AIDS".

Because highways=bad.

It's always one or the other with you inane. There can be both. We just haven't gotten to that point yet. Right now, it would seem that a lot of areas are in a period of transition. Areas that have built highways to expand have realized that there needs to be more public transit. Public transit wasn't a priority before and the way cities are laid out, it's impossible (and not very realistic) to only build public transit and ignore trucking and car traffic with the current infrastructure. The only way you're going to get a city built for public transit is to raze the whole city and surrounding area to the ground and start over. Since that's not happening, you have to move incrementally with emphasis on both cars/trucks and public transport. Although I've never been, what's San Fransisco like? You always see their trolleys on TV (tourist icon, I know) and I hear their BART is pretty good. They're kind of like Vancouver though, a couple major highways and a minor one.

That's not 2 different things. Highways are about getting vehicles from point A to point B faster and more efficiently than if they had to deal with traffic lights every block. That includes cars, trucks, and (ideally) buses.

I also brought up Korea. Korea has a decent transit system doesn't it? They also use the highways as part of their transportation network. I simply used LA as an example. Just because it doesn't work in one area doesn't mean it can't work in another (see that new train in Seattle, I hear that thing's a massive flop. Doesn't mean trains will not work anywhere). You said highways are almost purely for cars. I'm saying that doesn't have to be the case. Buses on highways can be an integral part of a public transit system and an alternative to say, putting rapid transit out to Langley.

really? greyhounds take the highway. there's a bus from surrey to langley that takes the highway. They're proposing bus lanes on the new highway reno by the Port Mann. I call BS.

What? The fact that other cities use their highways for buses somehow makes that a stupid idea? What's wrong with buses using highways?

Highways are part of the road system. How come the buses can't use the highways? Wouldn't it make a lot more sense for a bus to travel across the Port Mann than having to go from Coquitlam Centre by bus to Braid, then by skytrain to Columbia, then transfer skytrains to Surrey, then bus to where ever you need to go in Surrey? Plenty of other public transit systems use the highways (in fact, in LA, they have seperate lanes and stations on the highway just for buses). I know for a fact that Korea has a very extensive system of buses that use the highways. Isn't the new highway 1 widening supposed to include a bus lane? We should abolish/toll the heck out of highways because Translink has chosen not to use them?

and again we go in circles. highways make it so that people can use their cars. Cars = money for the government in the form of taxes. In the current system, transit is being subsidized by other forms of taxation, not exactly pulling their weight.

Because costs are more than revenues? That's basically what i boils down to doesn't it? Of course it's not. But we were talking about tolls. Do you pay income tax and then pay GST/PST when you spend your money? It's the cost of living here, you play by the local rules. Do I like it? Not really. Do think it'll go over better than an increase in gas taxes? Probably. Is it better than increasing gas taxes? Probably not. Are transit riders even pulling their weight when it comes to these infrastructure costs? Nope.

You charge for transit for the similar things. But notice that translink is in the red? That means that the fares received can't even pay for their own costs, let alone help pay for road infrastructure.

The cost associated with owning a vehicle are the costs of moving yourself from a-b. Those costs are integrated into the costs of moving you from a-b. Not thinking that they are is ridiculous. That's like saying eating is free, but you have to buy the food, which is a cost of getting the food, but not a cost of eating.

So you think just our income taxes and pst go towards the cost of roads? Where do the gas taxes go? Where does the GST/PST paid on maintenance/parts go? There are costs to driving that transit users don't pay. There is money that goes to the government due to the fact that people drive their cars. Now it's not a "toll" in the sense that you go up to a booth and pay for a particular stretch of road, but it's a "toll" in the sense that you are paying for the privilege of using the roads. Is it a broad based toll? (Meaning, does it matter if you use a particular road and not another) Yes. But is it still a toll? Of course it is. You pay for the privileged of driving. The more you drive, the more you use the road, the more you pay in taxes. Is it enough? Probably not, but I'd bet it's more than transit users are paying to use those same roads.

transit riders don't pay gas tax (or it's included in their fares, since they, you know, use roads). Everyone doesn't pay an equal amount. You use the roads more, then you use more gas. You use more gas, you pay more tax. Is that hard to fathom?

Right, but the transit fares also go to somewhere else, not just the roads. The maintenance of the fleet, paying workers, etc. I don't have the numbers, but I would hazard a guess that taxes on drivers pay for far more of the road infrastructure than bus fares. But don't buses use roads too? Are you saying that transit riders pay for the roads they use? I wouldn't be surprised if I found out drivers were subsidizing transit along with the cost of road infrastructure..

The tax is just a broad toll. Where else are they going to use their cars? Just because it isn't tied down to a particular project doesn't mean that the money isn't going there. The way you say it is something like temujin (was that his name? the anarchist?) would say. Users pay for only the stretch of road that they use. I say that it's being implemented anyway using gas taxes. Again, you say tomaeto, I say tomato.

either way, the user pays for the privilege to use the service (roads). You say tomaeto, I say tomato.

tolling is a relatively newer concept for us. Yet, have motorists not paid "tolls" through gas taxes and other means since then?

Seriously Inane, do you think transit pays for itself? Where do you think that money comes from?

But highways with tolls pays for itself (eventually), transit doesn't (which is the problem)

But for more transit, you need more money. And around and around we go.