HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, the SkyscraperPage Forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web. The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics. SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1241  
Old Posted Apr 17, 2012, 6:45 AM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whalleyboy View Post
I agree with you. My grandparents live in a small village called nakusp its only a like a little over 1500 people there yet they have a few multi use paths. Infact one is along the lake there. It would be nice for them to be able to get money come in to put towards upkeep of it
Is that not the problem though? For 1500 people if every working person(assuming half work) put in $200 per year via carbon taxes then that still only equals to $150,000. About the wage of one trades men and some basic tools and supplies for a year, that aint going to build you anything. As far as Vanderhoof goes I stopped there last spring and the place is tiny in the middle of no where, literally, its pretty hard to compare it to Norway that still has pretty high density in its populated southern region(assuming thats where you were talking about). That and Norway actually drills for oil and pipes it out to sell it, and they get all the money they need for what ever project they want. Maybe when BC taps their offshore oil wealth and pipes the stuff out to the highest bidder we can have a bike path and side walk along every road, and a hospital in every town.

By the way who doesnt drive in these places? Unless your a kid or a drunk drug addict who hasnt been banished out to Vancouver yet you need a car. You cant live in these places without a car, and using it to go everywhere and do everything.

But my point is to just give them the money and they can use it in the most efficient way.

Last edited by cornholio; Apr 17, 2012 at 4:27 PM. Reason: added(assuming half work)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1242  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2012, 3:20 AM
mezzanine's Avatar
mezzanine mezzanine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,456
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
Is that not the problem though? For 1500 people if every working person(assuming half work) put in $200 per year via carbon taxes then that still only equals to $150,000. About the wage of one trades men and some basic tools and supplies for a year, that aint going to build you anything.

....

But my point is to just give them the money and they can use it in the most efficient way.
That's my whole point about the advantages of the CT going to general revenue. If you commit CT revenue to "transit and other infrastructure", you have a carbon-tax sized hole in gen revenue that has to be made up somehow and even worse, you may wind up with funding in search of a project.

IMO geometry just makes it difficult for any significant green infrastructure to be built in a fair and equitable manor versus other rural areas, versus metro vancouver.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1243  
Old Posted Apr 18, 2012, 2:09 PM
Gordon Gordon is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 683
The Carbon Tax is supposed to be revenue neutral. revenues are balanced off by tax cuts. the government should pass on the revenues from July's CT increase to Translink. 1.5cents\litre
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1244  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2012, 12:10 AM
Track Track is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 66
My understanding of the idea behind carbon taxes is that all money generated from it is supposed to be invested back into green technology development which will, in turn, provide alternates for people to get off of carbon-based products.

Also, I understand the argument against the tax going into transit from a rural perspective, but:

a) There's no guarantee that the money going into general revenue will benefit those areas either.

b) That 2 cents per litre gas tax is also being paid by rural areas, and is specifically going into transit, so the government doesn't really seem to consider this much of an issue in the first place. Which isn't necessarily a good thing, but it is something to consider in this argument.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1245  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2012, 12:22 AM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Track View Post

b) That 2 cents per litre gas tax is also being paid by rural areas, and is specifically going into transit, so the government doesn't really seem to consider this much of an issue in the first place. Which isn't necessarily a good thing, but it is something to consider in this argument.
This is incorrect. That 2 cents per litre gast tax is NOT also being paid by rural areas. It is only being paid by people gassing up within the Metro Vancouver area.

What is being proposed by the mayors is a *new* regional carbon tax anyway. That particular carbon tax is to pay for transit and so on. But the Provincial government, with its desire to ensure Translink is always cash trapped (so it can continue to be everyone's favourite whipping boy) simply refuse to resolve this issue...
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1246  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2012, 1:35 AM
Track Track is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 66
I didn't know that. In that case, I imagine that the same concept could be applied to a new carbon tax, though I imagine that a lot of people would be unhappy with a new tax.

Personally, as much as I hate to say it, a simple increase in transit fare prices would probably be the easiest way to earn Translink some cash.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1247  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2012, 1:59 AM
Pinion's Avatar
Pinion Pinion is offline
Lower Lonsdale YIMBY
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: City of North Vancouver
Posts: 2,143
Transit fares are already too high. I switched from transit to car recently because the price benefit wasn't high enough/service was too poor. They need to make transit more attractive, not less.

I'm a home owner and would gladly pay more property tax.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1248  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2012, 3:16 AM
racc racc is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by Track View Post
I didn't know that. In that case, I imagine that the same concept could be applied to a new carbon tax, though I imagine that a lot of people would be unhappy with a new tax.

Personally, as much as I hate to say it, a simple increase in transit fare prices would probably be the easiest way to earn Translink some cash.
Not really. Raise fares too much and people use transit less which reduces revenue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1249  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2012, 5:20 AM
Cypherus's Avatar
Cypherus Cypherus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 858
A friend of mine who has been taking the bus for years also switched to a car, vowing to never take the bus again due to poor service in the Surrey / Delta area. The increasing fare prices as well made it so she was just saving $600 a year by not owning a car, which is not much compared to the freedom and comfort you get with owning a car, as well as access to cheaper living arrangements beyond normal bus routes.

As such, the current state of mass transit in some areas of Metro Van is not going in the right direction as was originally intended....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1250  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2012, 5:29 AM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 8,403
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus View Post
A friend of mine who has been taking the bus for years also switched to a car, vowing to never take the bus again due to poor service in the Surrey / Delta area. The increasing fare prices as well made it so she was just saving $600 a year by not owning a car, which is not much compared to the freedom and comfort you get with owning a car, as well as access to cheaper living arrangements beyond normal bus routes.

As such, the current state of mass transit in some areas of Metro Van is not going in the right direction as was originally intended....
I use transit a lot but I will always have to own a car.

The only way I could do without one is if we had Japanese style transit, with heavy rail and / or grade separated mass transit lines running within a few blocks of each other in every direction, along with frequent rail services to even the most rural towns / locations. Even there, most families have a car for weekend trips, transporting pets, or just the ease of shopping for big items.
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my video production website at: http://www.hailstorm-media.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1251  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2012, 9:51 AM
Pinion's Avatar
Pinion Pinion is offline
Lower Lonsdale YIMBY
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: City of North Vancouver
Posts: 2,143
I was driving all over the valley this weekend looking at potentially moving to a cheaper place (as far out as Langley and Pitt Meadows), but the prices are not nearly cheap enough to justify the transportation prices/hassle. City of North Van is bad for transit, relative to its distance to downtown, but I sure appreciate the convenience more now.

The saleswoman at the showroom at Elements in Langley tried to convince us it would be 10 minutes by bus to the WCE. Yeah, right. We drove it afterwards - maybe 30 by bus, and neither me nor my wife work 9 to 5.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1252  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2012, 1:24 PM
Track Track is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion View Post
Transit fares are already too high. I switched from transit to car recently because the price benefit wasn't high enough/service was too poor. They need to make transit more attractive, not less.

I'm a home owner and would gladly pay more property tax.
I thought that the price difference between owning a vehicle and taking transit was bigger, but I suppose that was wrong.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1253  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2012, 2:01 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East Yaletown!
Posts: 3,583
Has anybody asked comrade Dix what he would do? It looks likely he'll be the next guy in charge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1254  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2012, 9:50 PM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
Has anybody asked comrade Dix what he would do? It looks likely he'll be the next guy in charge.
The BC NDP's plan for transit (afaik) is to put the *existing* carbon tax revenues to transit funding instead of tax cuts (especially for corporations). As much as I hate the BC NDP, this simply simply makes the most sense instead of what the BC Liberals have done for that tax.

Presumably, they will cancel the tax refunds, especially for the corporations (no surprise) and I would think that since its the provincial carbon tax, the transit funding would not only encompass Metro Vancouver but elsewhere in the province (i.e. BC transit in Victoria).

The thing is this policy only came after the 2009 election (Metro Vcr mayors were the first to suggest this). Had the BC NDP decided not to play populist politics (i.e. having an axe the tax campaign) for supposedly easy votes and made this part of their platform, there was a possibility they could have won. But this was under Carole James, who frankly is stupid, so her party lost and rightfully so.

Note that this is the current plan under Adrian Dix, BUT this is the BC NDP we're talking about so if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. There is no guarantee they would do it if they are in power since it makes too much sense (to be fair, all parties are guilty of broken promises). I would expect the Translink board to return to the mayors, which sounds good in theory, but with Derek Corrigan around, is too much of a circus. Still, it was still better than the current system since the previous system did kick out that ugly little troll that is Doug McCallum out....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1255  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2012, 9:58 PM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East Yaletown!
Posts: 3,583
Quote:
Originally Posted by queetz@home View Post
The BC NDP's plan for transit (afaik) is to put the *existing* carbon tax revenues to transit funding instead of tax cuts (especially for corporations). As much as I hate the BC NDP, this simply simply makes the most sense instead of what the BC Liberals have done for that tax.

Presumably, they will cancel the tax refunds, especially for the corporations (no surprise) and I would think that since its the provincial carbon tax, the transit funding would not only encompass Metro Vancouver but elsewhere in the province (i.e. BC transit in Victoria).

The thing is this policy only came after the 2009 election (Metro Vcr mayors were the first to suggest this). Had the BC NDP decided not to play populist politics (i.e. having an axe the tax campaign) for supposedly easy votes and made this part of their platform, there was a possibility they could have won. But this was under Carole James, who frankly is stupid, so her party lost and rightfully so.

Note that this is the current plan under Adrian Dix, BUT this is the BC NDP we're talking about so if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. There is no guarantee they would do it if they are in power since it makes too much sense (to be fair, all parties are guilty of broken promises). I would expect the Translink board to return to the mayors, which sounds good in theory, but with Derek Corrigan around, is too much of a circus. Still, it was still better than the current system since the previous system did kick out that ugly little troll that is Doug McCallum out....
I'm pretty sure those numbers don't add up. Corporate taxes are already pretty low. I think they would be increasing them back to ~2005 levels or more to compensate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1256  
Old Posted Apr 19, 2012, 10:10 PM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,304
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
I'm pretty sure those numbers don't add up. Corporate taxes are already pretty low. I think they would be increasing them back to ~2005 levels or more to compensate.
They probably plan to do that anyway, in addition of cancelling any tax breaks that come from the carbon tax refund. So essentially, the carbon tax won't be "revenue neutral" as it is today. One thing with the BC NDP, there isn't a tax they don't like and I'm sure much of the extra revenue will line up the pockets of the likes of Jim Sinclair and his minions....
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1257  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2012, 3:46 AM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,603
The Carbon Tax is just a huge pile of BS anyway. It's the government's way of hoodwinking the population into thinking we are helping the environment.

"Oh we need to get more money out of your pockets..."
"NO NO MORE TAXES!!!"
"But it is a Carbon Tax... it will help the environment.. it is green and helps the planet."
"OH! Well if you put it that way... you aren't lying are you? It will really save the ozone and whales and stuff from polution right?"
"For sure!"
"Yay sure take more money from me!"

Pile of crap. I just with the government would go OK here is what we need to do in the next 30 years, and this is the cost structure over those 30 years for everything we need to do. Then we will add some overruns to account for things we can't see at this stage, and let's get going.

Not this putting a tax everywhere on everything in all places over and over to try and sneak "just a little bit more" like a drug addict. Just a little bit more. More money need a little more *tapping arm*...

Heck as it is right now tax on gas is tax on top of tax on top of tax. We get taxed on taxes!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1258  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2012, 5:26 AM
Cypherus's Avatar
Cypherus Cypherus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 858
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pinion View Post
I was driving all over the valley this weekend looking at potentially moving to a cheaper place (as far out as Langley and Pitt Meadows), but the prices are not nearly cheap enough to justify the transportation prices/hassle. City of North Van is bad for transit, relative to its distance to downtown, but I sure appreciate the convenience more now.

The saleswoman at the showroom at Elements in Langley tried to convince us it would be 10 minutes by bus to the WCE. Yeah, right. We drove it afterwards - maybe 30 by bus, and neither me nor my wife work 9 to 5.

I visited the Elements in Langley display rooms. Very nice decor and workmanship. Of course what you get in the end is somewhat different. As well, the 25 cent per square foot strata fee, plus the obvious increases in fees to maintain that "Infinity Club" in the years to come is a turnoff. The complete lack of transit opportunities in that area is of utmost the biggest turn off given the prices they are charging (about 25% too high for a wood-framed building expected to have poor sound proofing based on what I've seen in the construction process). There is also just too many lights you will have to wait at just to get out of the central town center. The 10 minutes by bus to the WCE is just a sales pitch.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1259  
Old Posted Apr 26, 2012, 6:35 PM
WaxItYourself WaxItYourself is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 245
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
The Carbon Tax is just a huge pile of BS anyway. It's the government's way of hoodwinking the population into thinking we are helping the environment.

"Oh we need to get more money out of your pockets..."
"NO NO MORE TAXES!!!"
"But it is a Carbon Tax... it will help the environment.. it is green and helps the planet."
"OH! Well if you put it that way... you aren't lying are you? It will really save the ozone and whales and stuff from polution right?"
"For sure!"
"Yay sure take more money from me!"

Pile of crap. I just with the government would go OK here is what we need to do in the next 30 years, and this is the cost structure over those 30 years for everything we need to do. Then we will add some overruns to account for things we can't see at this stage, and let's get going.

Not this putting a tax everywhere on everything in all places over and over to try and sneak "just a little bit more" like a drug addict. Just a little bit more. More money need a little more *tapping arm*...

Heck as it is right now tax on gas is tax on top of tax on top of tax. We get taxed on taxes!
Hoodwinking us into thinking we're helping the environment? While the carbon tax isn't enough to curb consumer spending by itself it is just one part of the whole to decrease anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. And has been looked favourably by many other jurisdictions as the 'correct' way to institute a carbon tax.
__________________
This post care of MyVancouverToday.ca (Work in progress)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1260  
Old Posted Jun 22, 2012, 3:40 AM
Whalleyboy's Avatar
Whalleyboy Whalleyboy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,844
I found something on the planning for SoF rapid transit. Looks like translink was actually listening and have added a new options for possible RRT routes.
They have taken the original plan with skytrain to Langley but have added a BRT route along king george and 104 ave.

I gotta say this Seems like it might come out being the best option since the time saving is the best now for everyone. Although I am still at a toss up with RRT 2


Last edited by Whalleyboy; Jun 22, 2012 at 4:03 AM. Reason: added photo
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
   
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > SSP: Local Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:41 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.