ronthecivil Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I'm sorry, I don't have all those exact figures in front of me. I know in your mind that makes my entire argument baseless, so be it. Even nitro agrees with me on this one though Well, until you do have figures, there is no way of proving that your statement that drivers are currently not paying their share for the privilege of driving will fall on the deaf ears of a public already feeling it's being taxed to the gills to operate a motor vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 It's 7-cars. Agreed, transit can't work for everyone but a balance can be made by taking out the choice riders from the road. Transit usage with in the region is about 12%, increasing it to 25% would bring us to Toronto and Montreal standards. I didn't know that Vancouver's goal was to emulate Toronto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I didn't know that Vancouver's goal was to emulate Toronto. I like how you put that. The after-bite is a little sour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) Well, until you do have figures, there is no way of proving that your statement that drivers are currently not paying their share for the privilege of driving will fall on the deaf ears of a public already feeling it's being taxed to the gills to operate a motor vehicle. You still haven't answered my question. Do you think anything on my list is free? I can make up figures, would that make you answer the question? edit: here. http://www.commutesolutions.org/calc.htm Now I didn't make that, so don't go yelling at me about the numbers. It's based in California, so that makes a difference as well. Edited July 31, 2009 by inane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amkia Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) i really hope that region wide tolling does not happen. because i live in surrey, i need to cross the putulo and alex fraser bridge atleast twice a day between going to university and work. the only other option that i have would be to move to burnaby or coquitlam, but students cant really afford that with rising tuition... Edited July 31, 2009 by amkia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 I didn't know that Vancouver's goal was to emulate Toronto. Not to emulate Toronto and Montreal, they never mentioned that. But I know that it's what Toronto and Montreal have, and just putting it out there as a comparison. 25% is very high for North American standards. Second highest even. Next to that would be NYC at 40%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Maybe they will plant GPS chips on every windshield and make you pay for every kilometre you drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 http://www.commutesolutions.org/TCODBro.pdf as a follow up to the true cost calculator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) You still haven't answered my question. Do you think anything on my list is free? I can make up figures, would that make you answer the question? edit: here. http://www.commutesolutions.org/calc.htm Now I didn't make that, so don't go yelling at me about the numbers. It's based in California, so that makes a difference as well. AWESOME! That's a great tool. Now, all you need to do is determine the average lower mainland commuters distance travelled, and see if the taxes and tolls collected cover it. Keep in mind that gas already is taxed by translink, the province, and the feds to the tune of almost half the cost of the gas. It's a huge revenue generator. I would say for the sake of trying to prove your "the driver isn't paying his share" statement though that health costs would have to be taken out here. I suspect that healthcare is where any money not diverted to transportation objectives ends up at. Edit: Of course, those costs are to the driver, not the government. But you can cherry pick line items out of that for public policy things. Why would I argue the number itself, it's not like I have something better. The only number I might quivel over is the land use/rent cost. The cost of the land is roughly worth the construction/maintanence cost of the road itself. That said, in goverment outlays for transportation, that cost was paid for at some time. Edited July 31, 2009 by ronthecivil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) http://www.commutesolutions.org/TCODBro.pdf as a follow up to the true cost calculator Interesting read Another factor is the business use of a vehicle is also 58cents per mile. Edited July 31, 2009 by jmfaminoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Not to emulate Toronto and Montreal, they never mentioned that. But I know that it's what Toronto and Montreal have, and just putting it out there as a comparison. 25% is very high for North American standards. Second highest even. Next to that would be NYC at 40%. New York City. What's the percentage for the entire metropolitian area that stretches over three states? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) New York City. What's the percentage for the entire metropolitian area that stretches over three states? Not to mention that many people over there do not even have a driver's license or own a car. Edited July 31, 2009 by jmfaminoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 don't get me wrong, in the opportunities i can, I take co-workers to and from work... my wife come with me when we work at relatively the same times.... so I do my best to contribute and I understand the need for improvements. I just feel in my situation I've got no choice but to drive. Yet nothing is being done to help me (the evergreen live is potentially being scrapped) and your asking me to pay more and more each year for someone elses benefit. There are hundreds of thousands of people living in north fraser and the fraser valley that don't work in their area. Yet we aren't receiving any help at all.... the golden ears bridge.... that's it, at least that is a step in the right direction and the toll is understandable. solution?? 4 lane highway (2 each direction) that runs along the south end of the inlet (next to the west coast express tracks) that is a $3-5 toll for direct connection to the port at the north end of clark road. I'd pay $10 daily to cut my daily commute from 2 hours to 45 min..... Highways are banned within City of Vancouver limits. I would be opposed to any road expansion within city limits, BUT I am for maintaining what road capacity we have - as in being against the cycling lane on Burrard Bridge. Downtown and the City of Vancouver doesn't need more cars, it needs less of that. The Evergreen Line won't be scrapped, it's just Translink's way of pressuring the provincial government for more money. It's a bluff, as the responsibility of the Evergreen Line is with the Ministry of Transportation...not with Translink. The province has done so much work for the project already, and it's their project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 AWESOME! That's a great tool. Now, all you need to do is determine the average lower mainland commuters distance travelled, and see if the taxes and tolls collected cover it. Keep in mind that gas already is taxed by translink, the province, and the feds to the tune of almost half the cost of the gas. It's a huge revenue generator. I would say for the sake of trying to prove your "the driver isn't paying his share" statement though that health costs would have to be taken out here. I suspect that healthcare is where any money not diverted to transportation objectives ends up at. Why should health care be taken out? Suspect all you want, but we don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amkia Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Maybe they will plant GPS chips on every windshield and make you pay for every kilometre you drive. Sshhhhhhh, dont give them ideas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Colt 45s Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) Sshhhhhhh, dont give them ideas From last I heard, I think they are going to try that in Oregon. Funny thing is that you already pay for it in your gasoline taxes. If you drive more, you consume more gas and therefore are paying more in highway taxes. And from the last I checked, that was supposed to be used to fund transportation. Personally, and I think that everyone else would agree, I wish the government would stop the nickle and dime approach to taking the people's money. They are almost as bad as the phone company. Edited July 31, 2009 by jmfaminoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Why should health care be taken out? Suspect all you want, but we don't know. Well neither do you, which is why I get ansy when you make statements like "drivers do not pay their share of their true cost of driving" without anything to back it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Highways are banned within City of Vancouver limits. I would be opposed to any road expansion within city limits, BUT I am for maintaining what road capacity we have - as in being against the cycling lane on Burrard Bridge. Downtown and the City of Vancouver doesn't need more cars, it needs less of that. The Evergreen Line won't be scrapped, it's just Translink's way of pressuring the provincial government for more money. It's a bluff, as the responsibility of the Evergreen Line is with the Ministry of Transportation...not with Translink. The province has done so much work for the project already, and it's their project. No they are not. If the province wanted to ram a highway right through the middle of town it might be politically unpopular, but there is not a thing the city of Vancouver could do about it. The city does not have the power to ban highways through town any more than they have the power to ban nuclear weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Well neither do you, which is why I get ansy when you make statements like "drivers do not pay their share of their true cost of driving" without anything to back it up. Again, do you refute any of the points I made other than noise pollution? If you disagree with me and think none of those things I listed cost anything say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnickers87 Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Not sure if this is really the space for this, but yesterday I was listening to Pratt rant about the Bike lane on the Bridge and he reminded me of Rush Limbaugh. "Your roads have been taken away from you", "they have taken over the city", "Gregor Robertson is the stupidest politician ever", " we must rise up and throw him out on his @ss". I was waiting for him to say we should all grab our guns and secede. Good ol Pratt, the guy doesn't leave the 10km radius around his house Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now