Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
View Post
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.
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 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
Comment