The Analyst Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 inane, not that this is really related to provincial tolls, buildings are privately owned and operated. So good luck using "we need more housing" as a plee to get companies to arbitrarily tear down and rebuild for a 20% expansion. The cost just does not justify the need to expand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lateralus Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 So we should just give up, quit planning anything. This kind of attitude is shocklingly lazy and unproductive. Did I say that? Did I? HUH? WTF??? Relax man..... They way he described the changes needed, basically change the entire transportation structure, the way people have been doing things for years and years is going to cost a massive amount of money, we've already seen this. Planning sure, cost effective and done properly sure.....this hasn't been done yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 I agree with hov lanes and all that. I'm surprised you think taking away parking would be more popular than tolls. Seems to me drivers take their right to park wherever they want pretty seriously. Anyone that has to drive through Vancouver would know that the main purpose of those parking lanes in effect is to slow down getting through there. With no left turn slots all you need is someone pulling out or pulling in to block both lanes. If the buses were there it would get them out of the way as well. Also, anyone that frequents those areas knows it's almost impossible to find a spot and that the majority of the parking is off street, and a lot easier to deal with than plugging a meter. Business won't like it, but I would rather see business taxes lowered to encourage business than subsidising them with cheap city land. It might be harder to park once you get there but at least you would be able to get there. And with deregulated parking, if the market wants all that parking, business will eventually provide it. Of course, that would have to be taxed, but it's not hard to see how good tax policy and a lack of regulations would ultimately let prices and the market decide how much parking there should or shouldn't be. The parking tax being a very VERY effective control for how much there would be should it swing in the extreme one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 That's quite true, but keep in mind that transit ridership increased substantially after the congestion charges went in place. Even if it means traffic simply moved outside the congestion charge zone, it still means that people are driving shorter distances: driving less. I don't know, some suburbs are VERY far away from other suburbs here in Vancouver, I suspect it would be even more the case in these larger cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 inane, not that this is really related to provincial tolls, buildings are privately owned and operated. So good luck using "we need more housing" as a plee to get companies to arbitrarily tear down and rebuild for a 20% expansion. The cost just does not justify the need to expand. That's not what you said, you're making a point about something neither of us said. You said "We can't expand upwards because of the city of vancouver's building height by-law...." I said that's wrong. Building out the city at the current height bylaw would allow for thousands and thousands more units. I never said it was easy, or would be fast, or would be magically added to existing buildings, or whatever else you want to go on about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Did I say that? Did I? HUH? WTF??? Relax man..... They way he described the changes needed, basically change the entire transportation structure, the way people have been doing things for years and years is going to cost a massive amount of money, we've already seen this. Planning sure, cost effective and done properly sure.....this hasn't been done yet. Ok so what's your point it saying planning hasn't been done yet? Do you want a cookie for pointing out the obvious or were you trying to say something? And yes, change is scary and could be expensive. What do you think not changing will cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 inane, not that this is really related to provincial tolls, buildings are privately owned and operated. So good luck using "we need more housing" as a plee to get companies to arbitrarily tear down and rebuild for a 20% expansion. The cost just does not justify the need to expand. There are many locations where they could do 1000% expansions. If your only 20% away from max that perticular location is probably good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Analyst Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Ok, I totally agree, I've been telling my wife for years that our buildings need to be bigger... but there is obviously a reason why they are not doing it... I have no clue why... but it's not being done. now that i think about it, why would the supplier want to flood the market with units and dilute the property values.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nitronuts Posted July 31, 2009 Author Share Posted July 31, 2009 ^ a lot of developments are happening right now, and some have been stalled by the recession. Nothing happens overnight, it takes time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Ok, I totally agree, I've been telling my wife for years that our buildings need to be bigger... but there is obviously a reason why they are not doing it... I have no clue why... but it's not being done. now that i think about it, why would the supplier want to flood the market with units and dilute the property values.... Uh, because developement is not a monopoly and controlling prices by colluding the control the supply is illegal? Also, so long as prices are higher than the developement costs, they will make money? If developers are making enough money to take each other to court to see who owns the stadium and hockey team I think their profit margins are high enough to suffer a slight downturn in profits. Besides, the more you sell the less margin you need to make $$$$. You know, capatalism and the market??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 An older, but certainly relevant cost break down for ya ron. http://bc.transport2000.ca/learning/backgr...ost_report.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahzdeen Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 An older, but certainly relevant cost break down for ya ron. http://bc.transport2000.ca/learning/backgr...ost_report.html hahahaha.... i almost spit out my water after opening that link. The first 5 things on that list are for both buses and cars (yes, more cars, but both use the road). Road construction, road maintenance, road land value, protection services, air, noise, and water pollution. All shared between cars and buses. Those numbers alone attribute to 1.7Billion in that report. But you're right, let's ignore the fact that per person, the public transit subsidy was huge (that itself is a completely different problem). But seriously, let's try to find a more biased report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 An older, but certainly relevant cost break down for ya ron. http://bc.transport2000.ca/learning/backgr...ost_report.html Ya, I suspect it's probably closer to break even at the moment since gas taxes have gone up a lot since 1991. It should be the kind of thing the goverment should do an updated report on, as if it turns out that road use is still subsidised then you have a good case for increasing prices to pay for any improvement, or even to pay for the system as is. That kind of clear accounting of dollars goes far. It would at least show how greedy the feds are with regards to how much they take vs. how much is spent. Lobbying the feds to put some of their gas tax dollars back into the region (like replace three cents of the fed tax in exchange for three percent for translink, repeat said procedure throughout the country) would probably be fairly acceptable politically as well. I like how it includes for example the cost of congestion, the cost of which should be included in any new project in the form of congestion pricing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbo Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 This is a fantastic idea. I hope it goes through. And to all the bleeding heart drivers, quit crying and shut up already. It's not your god-given right to drive everywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) hahahaha.... i almost spit out my water after opening that link. The first 5 things on that list are for both buses and cars (yes, more cars, but both use the road). Road construction, road maintenance, road land value, protection services, air, noise, and water pollution. All shared between cars and buses. Those numbers alone attribute to 1.7Billion in that report. But you're right, let's ignore the fact that per person, the public transit subsidy was huge (that itself is a completely different problem). But seriously, let's try to find a more biased report. busses don't require new roads. cars do. busses, use new roads but if all road construction were to stop right now, busses would be fine. it's not perfect, and i said it's old. but it speaks to ron's 'tax covers costs and then some' stance. I'm looking for more up to date information, but surprise surprise, the government isn't very open with how it spends our money.... Edited July 31, 2009 by inane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 hahahaha.... i almost spit out my water after opening that link. The first 5 things on that list are for both buses and cars (yes, more cars, but both use the road). Road construction, road maintenance, road land value, protection services, air, noise, and water pollution. All shared between cars and buses. Those numbers alone attribute to 1.7Billion in that report. But you're right, let's ignore the fact that per person, the public transit subsidy was huge (that itself is a completely different problem). But seriously, let's try to find a more biased report. It's a step in the right direction at very least. Putting land value in is pretty sketchy imo. The cost of the land would have been in the intial project cost of any project. With that kind of thinking the subsidy to stanley park, which although not being there might lower the property values of some nearby units would more than offset that if developed to it's full potential, well, it would be staggering. I would like to see their urban sprawl breakdown. I wonder if it includes the savings to joe taxpayer when he saves money on a per square foot basis of his new sprawling abode. Sprawl might cost municipal goverments, but from a highways perspective the cost of any sprawl should be covered in the congestion charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lateralus Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 Ok so what's your point it saying planning hasn't been done yet? Do you want a cookie for pointing out the obvious or were you trying to say something? And yes, change is scary and could be expensive. What do you think not changing will cost? No no...I'm saying cost effective planning hasn't been done yet, it seems the projects that have been done cause debt and major financial issues. Good point. There needs to be balance.. I guess it's hard to look at transportation as critical, such as health care and education but it is... BTW - I'm still driving.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 (edited) busses don't require new roads. cars do. busses, use new roads but if all road construction were to stop right now, busses would be fine. it's not perfect, and i said it's old. but it speaks to ron's 'tax covers costs and then some' stance. I'm looking for more up to date information, but surprise surprise, the government isn't very open with how it spends our money.... Ya, all this griping about the HST, when obviously if that doesn't happen they will simply tax something else. I could care less how they tax, I am more intested in how they spend. P.S. If roads were designed solely for private motor vehicles they would be much cheaper and take less land. Trucks and buses add enourmously to costs. Edit: It looks like the cost analysis is carrying costs of the existings roads as well. And as was mentioned, it should all be based on a per person kilometer travelled criteria. Obviously a bus carrying more people would end up taking a lesser share of things like congestion, air pollution, etc. Edit2: This has got to be the first time EVER that I have actually supported the idea of a goverment study. We can call it "transportation and taxes, where the money comes from, where it goes, and who is paying the lion's share" or something to that effect. Edited July 31, 2009 by ronthecivil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Columbo Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 If people are really concerned that an extra $100 vehicle levy will severely impact the lives of low-income families, can't they just give a rebate to low-income persons? Like they do with GST, income tax, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahzdeen Posted July 31, 2009 Share Posted July 31, 2009 busses don't require new roads. cars do. busses, use new roads but if all road construction were to stop right now, busses would be fine. it's not perfect, and i said it's old. but it speaks to ron's 'tax covers costs and then some' stance. I'm looking for more up to date information, but surprise surprise, the government isn't very open with how it spends our money.... right. new areas of housing would not require busses. Not saying all new roads will be used by busses, but to completly ignore that point serves as a flag to the credibility of the report. 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