aGENT Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 My fear is that replacing the tunnel is just an opening to try and beat our newly established widest bridge in the world. Care to address my larger point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I think we should chill out and see what the SFPR does to traffic patterns before we start assuming we know what the tunnel will do. Just like good old Falcon said back in the day. But how can you agree with most of it, but want more highways? Am I being punkd? Is that you Ashton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I think your premise that it's a non-starter is dumb. Check out other places where they put it to the people for a vote or referendum or similar. People are willing to pay if they know exactly where the money is going. That's one big problem with the way we do it now--we take taxes or whatever and put it into this big pot where it disappears. If you taxed or collected money and tied it directly to a specific item, I think you'd have better luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I think we should chill out and see what the SFPR does to traffic patterns before we start assuming we know what the tunnel will do. Just like good old Falcon said back in the day. But how can you agree with most of it, but want more highways? Am I being punkd? Is that you Ashton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I think we should chill out and see what the SFPR does to traffic patterns before we start assuming we know what the tunnel will do. Just like good old Falcon said back in the day. But how can you agree with most of it, but want more highways? Am I being punkd? Is that you Ashton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No5Butcher Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Just a quick question, but here it goes.There seems to be a commonality in opinion that transit service needs to be expanded. I agree that Greater Vancouver would be better served with more transit options. Prior to the economic downturn, and possibly even since (I haven't checked Translink's last couple of budget reports), Translinks share of road construction and maintenance costs has been paid for through revenue from gas taxes. The Skytrain as a whole was also roughly revenue neutral. The extra subsidies, be it through parking taxes, property taxes etc., were used primarily to fund busses. Likewise, the recent major infrastructure projects with federal monies (Port Mann Highway One and the SFPR) have been paid through the Gateway Program, which is entirely funded by gas tax revenue. Provincial contributions are murky as gas and carbon taxes just get thrown into general revenue. With that in mind, would everyone who is in favour of expanded transit be in favour of expanded transit if it meant that fares would be raised to the extent that transit was revenue neutral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahzdeen Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Just a quick question, but here it goes.There seems to be a commonality in opinion that transit service needs to be expanded. I agree that Greater Vancouver would be better served with more transit options. Prior to the economic downturn, and possibly even since (I haven't checked Translink's last couple of budget reports), Translinks share of road construction and maintenance costs has been paid for through revenue from gas taxes. The Skytrain as a whole was also roughly revenue neutral. The extra subsidies, be it through parking taxes, property taxes etc., were used primarily to fund busses. Likewise, the recent major infrastructure projects with federal monies (Port Mann Highway One and the SFPR) have been paid through the Gateway Program, which is entirely funded by gas tax revenue. Provincial contributions are murky as gas and carbon taxes just get thrown into general revenue. With that in mind, would everyone who is in favour of expanded transit be in favour of expanded transit if it meant that fares would be raised to the extent that transit was revenue neutral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted October 24, 2012 Share Posted October 24, 2012 Just a quick question, but here it goes.There seems to be a commonality in opinion that transit service needs to be expanded. I agree that Greater Vancouver would be better served with more transit options. Prior to the economic downturn, and possibly even since (I haven't checked Translink's last couple of budget reports), Translinks share of road construction and maintenance costs has been paid for through revenue from gas taxes. The Skytrain as a whole was also roughly revenue neutral. The extra subsidies, be it through parking taxes, property taxes etc., were used primarily to fund busses. Likewise, the recent major infrastructure projects with federal monies (Port Mann Highway One and the SFPR) have been paid through the Gateway Program, which is entirely funded by gas tax revenue. Provincial contributions are murky as gas and carbon taxes just get thrown into general revenue. With that in mind, would everyone who is in favour of expanded transit be in favour of expanded transit if it meant that fares would be raised to the extent that transit was revenue neutral? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.