$1.2 Billion for bike paths...

[Flubber]

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Dri...243/story.html

Ben I was asking if you had a cite for the idea that drivers pay the cost of roads. You may have misunderstood although I have never engaged you much on the transit issue.

Your article says nothing about road revenues and costs except with respect to a new tax. But about that

The revived vehicle tax, which could mean $75 to $100 a year for each vehicle in Metro Vancouver, is being considered as the transportation authority tackles a looming cash crunch — and potentially deep cuts to its bus service — by the end of 2011.

Although nothing has been finalized, a staff report last year suggested an annual charge of $100 a vehicle would raise $140 million a year.


According to TransLink, it needs to generate at least $150 million a year just to maintain existing services and $300 million a year to expand bus and rapid transit service and build roads and bridges to meet the demands of an increasing population in the next 30 years.

So to summarize whule it shows an intent to subsidize transit, all it says is that they will put in a tax of 75-100 in a sitiation where a study of a 100 tax shows it will be slightly deficient to meet current needs and not at all sufficient to meet their needs for the future.

So put simply it demonstrated that planned tax WOULD NOT PAY for the roads and bridges and expanded bus and transit service, does it not?

"Transit" is largely about cars and the fact that transit reduces the number of cars a lot. Calgary's system isn't bad and the c-train system is packed during rush hours. The bus system from my house is pretty good if I get to the main line about a km away. Friom there it takes the same route as I would driving to work .


But transit is a separate issue and perhaps a separate thread. The topic here is bike paths. I like them. They prevent death and injuries and once in place are not expensive to maintain. They attract people to cycle to work which is good for them and also prevents air pollution etc etc -- I see no reason why government money not be used to build such trails but the costs must be reasonable to be the potential benefits

Oh and as a cyclist I would not object to paying a levy to help with local bike trail improvements. A little money can go a long way when really all we need is a graded hard surface that doesn't turn to mud in the rain. If a few major trails are built out from the downtown core its not that hard for cyclists to use secondary roads to get to them. Relatively inexpensive to put in place, low maintenance once in place and available for all

[Ramo]

The question isn't if it is a large amount of money, it is if it is an efficient use of federal monies to pay for what is essentially a local matter. I don't think it is. If a city wants to establish a system of bike paths, let the city pay for it.

Some jurisdictions aren't sufficiently wealthy to afford city improvements, particularly in this economic climate where the federal government has much more ability to spend than localities. There are may be loss in administrative efficiency, but the recession basically renders that point moot.

I don't understand these bizarre jurisdictional hangups conservatives have.

[ricketyclik]

I don't understand these bizarre jurisdictional hangups conservatives have.

It's an "us and them" thing. Conservatives hate the thought of paying for something that someone else will use.

[DinoDoc]

It's an "us and them" thing. Conservatives hate the thought of paying for something that someone else will use.

Because I don't see the point of the National Government inserting itself into local matters and funding things that the city government can't be arsed to pay for.

[RGBVideo]

jurisdictions aren't sufficiently wealthy to afford city improvements, particularly in this economic climate where the federal government has much more ability to spend than localities

Yes, this is what it's all about.

Republicans push through federal pork for farmers in the midwest. Democrats push through federal pork for big cities in the northeast.

[RGBVideo]

There are may be loss in administrative efficiency

If money is given from the federal level and spent by the city level, there is no incentive to spend it efficiently and basically no oversight. This is an universal thing, not limited to US. Unless the city level authorities see a desperate need for what the funds are given for, very little of the funds allocated end up where it's supposed to go, basically the minimum required to make it look credible that funds were spent to where they were allocated for.

[RGBVideo]

Its easier to cut but a thief probably would not bother if all they get is the tire

Yeah, nobody really bothers to steal just the tire. A bigger problem is that if you lock only your tire, you might notice that the tire is taken off and rest of the bike has been stolen

Re: Cable locks vs U-locks
Cable locks are quick and easy to cut with the right hand-usable tools. In order to cut through thigh U-locks, you need tools with external power supply, which means noise and spent time. You'd really have to park your bicycle into a ghetto if someone would dare to cut it's U-lock without getting any problems with the police. Always buy and use an U-lock.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why cycle when you can walk? Now that's what I call a ****ing brilliant retort.

Running is usually faster. At least for those of us who know how to do it properly. Plus you don't have to spend 500 bucks on a bike.

Why use cars? Cars use highways, which costs TAXPAYER MONEY. It's called Conestoga wagons or horse & buggy, you might have heard of it. Don't require all these expensive TAXPAYER MONEY highways. Use horse & buggy instead of cars you arrogant morons!

Financed by gas taxes which car drivers pay, and car registration, which car drivers pay. We also pay for all the public transit too. It's not the drivers who are getting a free ride.

Why not raise fares until they are paying 100 percent of the cost to drive the bus?

Yeah, how INEFFICIENT it is to carry 80 people in a single traffic-jam-free car.

80 people? I've seen that on one main line, which should be replaced by a train. Meanwhile 4 lanes of road become congested to 2.

Most busses up here are lucky if they have a load of 10 at peak hours, let alone at off-peak.

It's much more EFFICIENT to have those 80 people each drive a separate car and have them all stay stuck in a traffic jam which causes them to pollute & spent time twice as much than with a normal car route. That way, there is 2 times as much time spent and 2*80 = 160 times more pollution spat to the city. How EFFICIENT

And it's much more efficient to have one bus empty, driving around from 8 to 8 every day rather then having people staying at home. Busses, great idea in theory, in practice, just another feel-good method of taxing people into supporting unionised driver jobs.

Efficient methods of transportation get people from A to B at a reasonably quick rate. Most busses I've ridden (with a few examples which should be replaced by trains), are far less efficient then the individual cars.

[Ben Kenobi]

So to summarize whule it shows an intent to subsidize transit, all it says is that they will put in a tax of 75-100 in a sitiation where a study of a 100 tax shows it will be slightly deficient to meet current needs and not at all sufficient to meet their needs for the future.

To make it entirely clear, they are lucky if they get 10 percent from their ridership. I've argued in the past that everyone who has a car registered should get a free bus pass, as their gas taxes are subsiding transit far more than the ridership.

So put simply it demonstrated that planned tax WOULD NOT PAY for the roads and bridges and expanded bus and transit service, does it not?

The point is that the tax is levied against drivers. Ie, drivers are subsidizing transit, which is the point I was trying to show.

"Transit" is largely about cars and the fact that transit reduces the number of cars a lot.

Skytrain? Sure.

Bus systems? No. Most people who ride them have no choice, and if given a choice between vehicle ownership and bus ridership, choose the vehicle if/when they have an opportunity.

Calgary's system isn't bad and the c-train system is packed during rush hours. The bus system from my house is pretty good if I get to the main line about a km away. Friom there it takes the same route as I would driving to work .

Vancouver it all depends on where you are. Anything along Broadway is ok, but the ridership volumes have pointed to a need for a train to connect UBC to the existing train line. The Busses run every five minutes, making the system actually viable.

Everywhere else you get whipsawed. I simply got tired of having an hour and a half added to a 30 minute commute.

But transit is a separate issue and perhaps a separate thread. The topic here is bike paths. I like them.

I have no problem with bike paths, provided that they are funded by the cycling enthusiasts. I use trails to hike in summer and ski in winter and I would not expect other people to pick up the tab for construction and maintenance. Part of my volunteer work sees me maintaining two of them.

They prevent death and injuries and once in place are not expensive to maintain. They attract people to cycle to work which is good for them and also prevents air pollution etc etc -- I see no reason why government money not be used to build such trails but the costs must be reasonable to be the potential benefits

It's not fair to everyone else. I don't ask people to fund my hiking and skiing. I shouldn't be funding your bike trails. If they are inexpensive to maintain, come up with the cash out of your own pocket and/or donate your time.

[Barnabas]

Buses are efficient if lots of people use them, Buenos Aires has 13 million people and all kinds public transportation are heavily used (buses, train, subway), there are over 300 Bus lines, they stop every two blocks, and during the day you don't have to wait more than 10 minutes for one.

I guess the issue is that in first world countries like the USA and Canada most people can buy their own car, so developing an efficient public transportation system would be troublesome due to lack of users.

Why doesn't that happen in Europe?

btw

1.2 billion dollars is like nothing for the USA

[RGBVideo]

Ben Kenobi, our most intelligent poster

Running is usually faster.

Plus you don't have to spend 500 bucks on a bike.

Yes, running is faster than cycling, and the minimum price of a bicycle is 500 dollars. That is correct. You are correct.

And it's much more efficient to have one bus empty, driving around from 8 to 8 every day rather then having people staying at home.

Yes, bus routes are usually empty. That's why they're upkept, so buses could drive around without any passengers.

Also, this point is great:

Most busses up here are lucky if they have a load of 10 at peak hours

I try to spell this out very clearly to you, without sarcasm:
Even if we presume that a single bus has 10 passengers in daily work commuter traffic, it's still much more efficient than a car which usually has a single passenger. Would you rather have 6-8 cars instead of a single bus?

I shouldn't be funding your bike trails.

Yes, no public funding for any roads. I agree! Brilliant!


edit:

I guess the issue is that in first world countries like the USA and Canada most people can buy their own car, so developing an efficient public transportation system would be troublesome due to lack of users.

This is historically true. It's a city-planning choice. Population density is kept low, suburbia-styled one-family houses are designed instead of high-rises, heavy & light rail are not planned while thinking about how to develop the city (to be fair, car-oriented road network is much simpler to design, which means KISS, which is always sound), manufacturing & related industry is kept far from residential areas because of lax pollution standards. Washington D.C. has a very high population density for an US city, so I'm not surprised to hear that bike-riding is enjoying a sort of a renaissance in there.

Crime is also an issue when you think about public transport vs. private transport. Driving in your own car is much safer than using public transport if the crime rate in the area is high.

[Flubber]

It's not fair to everyone else. I don't ask people to fund my hiking and skiing. I shouldn't be funding your bike trails. If they are inexpensive to maintain, come up with the cash out of your own pocket and/or donate your time.

Your base premise though is that "drivers" pay for roads from registration fees and gas taxes. That is the point for which I sought a cite. I do not dispute that transit is subsidized.

Because only if drivers pay for all the costs of roads can you demand the same for bike trail folks. I have yet to see proof on that point.

AS for volunteering my time, I am not exactly sure what I could do exactly. All the bike trails I take are narrow stips of pavement between 4-10 feet wide and they appear to be on a bed of crushed stone/gravel. In 9 years in Calgary I have not seen them be repaved or even patched (I guess the weight loads are not much). The most maitenance I have seen is when they repaint the line in the centre. From what I have seen in these trails I would say it is 68% cyclists, 30% walkers/runners and 2% rollerbladers boarders druring commute times-- At non commute times I would say its more like 70% walkers/runners


As for paying, I would stack up my tax contribution against my usage of public resources any day of the week so I make no apologies for how much I give government, thanks. That said, if there was a bike trail improvement fund, I would likely contribute

The reality for most trails is that direct tolls would not work. Since they are commuter routes, people are getting on and off at many different places and bikes and walkers are both able to go on and off the trails at various points. Fencing it off to impose a toll would eliminate much of the usefulness

ben-- should we also have a sidewalk levy? Or a walker charge?

[Al B. Sure!]

Running is usually faster. At least for those of us who know how to do it properly. Plus you don't have to spend 500 bucks on a bike.

Ben those sentences are, to be honest, completely retarded.

Those of us who know how to do it properly? You mean like run POSE? What does that mean, Ben?

And I'd be very impressed by someone who can run faster over long distances on even, urban terrain than a bicyclist. Maybe in a forest or something or over a mere 100 yards that might be true. 99% of the time and 100% under reasonable circumstances, it would not happen.

Plus, bicycling is less taxing than running. When I would run to work, I'd get pretty sweaty. Guys that bike would never get like that.

[MOBIUS]

It's an "us and them" thing. Conservatives hate the thought of paying for something that someone else will use.

Fixed!

It's an "us and them" thing. Selfish C*nts hate the thought of paying for something that someone else will use.

[Flubber]

Running is usually faster. At least for those of us who know how to do it properly. Plus you don't have to spend 500 bucks on a bike.

.

running is faster ?? In what fantasyland? On regular terrain I can do 25 km in an hour easily-- How many runners do that ?? Or are you assuming the cyclist has to change a flat enroute??