People who complain about the "cost of driving"

[ronthecivil]

The whole transit system is the best example of how screwed we are.

Bad news people. You can look forward to more expensive gas, more expensive and crappier transit, and a never ending assault on your tax dollar to try to keep up.

If we are lucky, it will also be congested. If it's not, the only reason is the economy has gone into the tank.

Prices near transit may one day be affordable to someone with a good job, but if they are, it means that good jobs are very few and far between.

So rather than talking about icebergs on the titanic, go to the ballroom, have a drink, and enjoy what time you have.

[CanadianLoonie]

The whole transit system is the best example of how screwed we are.

Bad news people. You can look forward to more expensive gas, more expensive and crappier transit, and a never ending assault on your tax dollar to try to keep up.

If we are lucky, it will also be congested. If it's not, the only reason is the economy has gone into the tank.

Prices near transit may one day be affordable to someone with a good job, but if they are, it means that good jobs are very few and far between.

So rather than talking about icebergs on the titanic, go to the ballroom, have a drink, and enjoy what time you have.

The end-results of government central planning!

[ronthecivil]

As for the education proffessors here trying to tell us how driving a car is subsidised, well, that's irrelevant. It's what people are used to, so getting them to change their ways will only result in them revolting. So have fun in your ivory tower.

Incidentally, there's a reason it's subsidised. All those people driving to work and shops and stuff generate economic activity and taxation. It's like an investment on the part of the government.

Besides, if we are comparing apples to apples....

Trucking is subsidised even more. (Hurray for commerce!).

Transit is subsidised even more. As much as the cars and trucks plus whatever it takes to operate them.

The trains don't really get subsidised on a yearly basis, but thousand of kilometers of free land handed over to private industry is a pretty sweet subsidy.

Now if this bothers you, don't worry! As noted, the government is going to be running a tight budget, like it or not (political party is irrelevant). Needless to say, this is a very traditional area to squeeze. And if underinvestment for 40 years happened in the good times, just wait until it gets tight!

[inane]

Those who drive pay the taxation. Government does not pay taxation on its fuel. Those who ride Translink do not pay for the roads they are using through fuel taxation. They only pay indirectly for it through the price of goods.

It's a lot more complicated than that. Look into it.

[inane]

Unless people drive regularly (Commuters) this should not even be a topic. The gas you say that comes from ground is taxed on taxed to pay for buses and the precious bike lanes 5 - 10 people use.

What would be fair, people who bike on roads getting a license and insurance and obeying traffic laws my gas..... sorry taxed plus tax gas pays for.

If you use the roads you should pay for them!

Is this English?

[inane]

As for the education proffessors here trying to tell us how driving a car is subsidised, well, that's irrelevant. It's what people are used to, so getting them to change their ways will only result in them revolting. So have fun in your ivory tower.

Incidentally, there's a reason it's subsidised. All those people driving to work and shops and stuff generate economic activity and taxation. It's like an investment on the part of the government.

Besides, if we are comparing apples to apples....

Trucking is subsidised even more. (Hurray for commerce!).

Transit is subsidised even more. As much as the cars and trucks plus whatever it takes to operate them.

The trains don't really get subsidised on a yearly basis, but thousand of kilometers of free land handed over to private industry is a pretty sweet subsidy.

Now if this bothers you, don't worry! As noted, the government is going to be running a tight budget, like it or not (political party is irrelevant). Needless to say, this is a very traditional area to squeeze. And if underinvestment for 40 years happened in the good times, just wait until it gets tight!

Same argument goes for transit. Read some of the links I posted (I know you won't but I'll offer it up anyway) and educate yourself.

[ronthecivil]

I already know what they have to say inane. I am already just as educated on the matter as you.

You should consider reading what I have to say. All of the transport options are subsidised because they all contribute to the economy.

They are all going to take a hit.

And frankly, I would rather bet on the masses getting their way than trying to enlighten people. Especially when times get tough.

Sure, gas taxes will go up. So will insurance costs. And every other cost associate with driving. But the money isn't going to go to transit.

Just like the drivers, they can look forward to higher fares and worse service.

The belt tightening will spare nobody.

[inane]

I already know what they have to say inane. I am already just as educated on the matter as you.

You should consider reading what I have to say. All of the transport options are subsidised because they all contribute to the economy.

They are all going to take a hit.

And frankly, I would rather bet on the masses getting their way than trying to enlighten people. Especially when times get tough.

Sure, gas taxes will go up. So will insurance costs. And every other cost associate with driving. But the money isn't going to go to transit.

Just like the drivers, they can look forward to higher fares and worse service.

The belt tightening will spare nobody.

If you ever provided any evidence or documentation or research that backed your 'position', I would.

[ronthecivil]

It's called logic inane.

If a bus was such a greater economic engine than people in a car, private industry would be competing with translink to provide service. Such a place does exist (it's called Hong Kong FYI) but as it turns out you would need to be as dense and rich as Hong Kong for that to work out.

As for why we will have no money, it's called demographics. With the age pyramid going upside down, it means that the amount of money we have to spend on pretty much everything is going to go way down. There is such a place that has been spending about 20 years enduring this (it's called Japan FYI) and if you look at how economic events everywhere else in the western world is going you would see things are playing out exactly the same way.

And if you think that the people advocating for the bus are going to be drowned out, remember, drivers outnumber them on what, a ten to one ratio?

And while drivers grumble, parents (who last I checked are at threat of having to look after their own kids come September, Yikes!) tend to have a lot more pull. Thankfully for them, the number of kids keeps going down, so the cuts won't be AS painful.

But where they are going up happens to be in the most expensive department, good old healthcare. Which is about to be filled with the huge numbers of non tax paying seniors. And if you don't think that will influence things (it's called voter demographics FYI) then you are in for a huge shock.

If you don't believe me, then simply look at the upcoming (?) translink referendum. Unless the question is "Should we abolish translink?" then I will go right ahead and predict the answer right now. It's NO, in case you are wondering.

[inane]

It's called logic inane.

If a bus was such a greater economic engine than people in a car, private industry would be competing with translink to provide service. Such a place does exist (it's called Hong Kong FYI) but as it turns out you would need to be as dense and rich as Hong Kong for that to work out.

As for why we will have no money, it's called demographics. With the age pyramid going upside down, it means that the amount of money we have to spend on pretty much everything is going to go way down. There is such a place that has been spending about 20 years enduring this (it's called Japan FYI) and if you look at how economic events everywhere else in the western world is going you would see things are playing out exactly the same way.

And if you think that the people advocating for the bus are going to be drowned out, remember, drivers outnumber them on what, a ten to one ratio?

And while drivers grumble, parents (who last I checked are at threat of having to look after their own kids come September, Yikes!) tend to have a lot more pull. Thankfully for them, the number of kids keeps going down, so the cuts won't be AS painful.

But where they are going up happens to be in the most expensive department, good old healthcare. Which is about to be filled with the huge numbers of non tax paying seniors. And if you don't think that will influence things (it's called voter demographics FYI) then you are in for a huge shock.

If you don't believe me, then simply look at the upcoming (?) translink referendum. Unless the question is "Should we abolish translink?" then I will go right ahead and predict the answer right now. It's NO, in case you are wondering.

Right, so you have none. Thanks.

Oh and the Surrey Board of Trade, Business in Vancouver and similar left wing hippy groups support more transit too.

http://www.biv.com/article/20140613/BIV0118/140619960/business-group-backs-metro-vancouver-transit-plan

http://www.downtownvancouver.net/Media/DVBIAMediaRelease-June2014.pdf

[ronthecivil]

My evidence is transit in Hong Kong, the Japanese economy, demographic trends, and political action groups. It's called history my friend.

I support more transit too. Problem is we have no realistic way to pay for it.

Just like a lot of people support more money for schools, or hospitals, or a whole host of other things.

So even if you find a source of money to pay for your (or the surrey board or trades, or whoever's) then get in line. Not in BC at the moment, but I don't need to listen to the news to know that (for example) the teachers strike isn't any closer to being fixed. And it's a safe bet that no matter how it goes, the amount of money available for other things, is going to be less.

[ronthecivil]

So as example, let's just drill into your own articles where they discuss the old 7.5 billion dollar plan they have dreamed up.

The remaining costs would be covered through additional ridership revenue, tolls from the new Patullo Bridge, and either an increase in or reallocation of the province’s carbon tax. Furthermore, the mayors are pushing for road pricing in the long-term.

But B.C. Transportation Minister Todd Stone said Victoria would not reallocate any of the carbon tax.

"That is not going to happen. There will not be a reallocation of the existing carbon tax, and I think I've been very clear with the mayors of the Lower Mainland that when you get to the place of suggesting new funding sources, don't touch provincial revenue,” he said.

An additional carbon tax paid for by Metro Vancouver residents is a possibility, according to Stone. However, it would have to be taken to Metro Vancouver residents for approval.

So we already know that the province isn't giving any of it's money up (they need it!) so it's up to the residents of Vancouver to tax themselves.

The great idea is to push the price of the already highest gas prices in North America, to even higher!

I wonder how that one will go over. Actually, no I don't.

So when the referendum comes along, and it fails, then I will once again be proven to be correct.

And you can tsk tsk from your ivory tower.

And the same old thing will continue to repeat itself over and over.

[ronthecivil]

But give Mr. Price credit, he got one thing right....

Price countered that the cost of the plan is reasonable, especially compared to what the province has already spent on the Port Mann bridge and plans to spend on a new bridge to replace the Massey tunnel.

“The real question here is, if not this, then what?” he said. “What is the default if the referendum fails? We don’t just maintain the status quo: things get worse. Transit has to be cut, and significantly.”

Sure, but there's a heck of a lot more people that get pissed about being stuck on the highway, so politically, it won't matter so much. They call it pavement politics for a reason.

[ronthecivil]

Oh, and light rail for Surrey is terrible. They could build rapid bus lines and do the exact same thing for cheaper.

Not that there is any danger of the plan being approved anyways.

[inane]

See you don't get it. People stuck on the highway, train, bus it doesn't matter. We need an efficient system for all. Better bus means more room for others elsewhere etc. You're so stuck in the past it's quite remarkable. No wonder you're such a pessimist it must be scary even imagining something different.

[ronthecivil]

Is it truly pessimistic when one is realist about a sure thing that happens to be negative?

I have no problem thinking of something different. But you have to live in the real world. In the real world, you have to win over the crowd, and you have to be able to afford it.

In the real world, the crowd is about to vote down the ability to afford the latest imagination of something different.

It's not my fault the prospects are grim. I do have to call it like I see it though......

[inane]

Is it truly pessimistic when one is realist about a sure thing that happens to be negative?

I have no problem thinking of something different. But you have to live in the real world. In the real world, you have to win over the crowd, and you have to be able to afford it.

In the real world, the crowd is about to vote down the ability to afford the latest imagination of something different.

It's not my fault the prospects are grim. I do have to call it like I see it though......

We can afford it, there are a number of different options to be able to afford it. We just have to collectively choose one. What you seem to constantly ignore is the cost of doing nothing. You're so concerned about not spending any money to fix problems that you ignore the more money we'll waste by not fixing the problem. Yes, it's more money up front, but long term it saves money, time, business, all of it.

Your focus is too narrow and you know it, that's what's disgusting about your position.

[aGENT]

Your focus is too narrow and you know it, that's what's disgusting about your position.

lol...it's not HIS position it's the public's. That's your battleground...not sure why you choose not to see it.

[inane]

lol...it's not HIS position it's the public's. That's your battleground...not sure why you choose not to see it.

You just can't quit me can you.

[aGENT]