HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's 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
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2010, 11:15 PM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeCee View Post
Right now, the cost of transit is by and large subsidized by drivers. IMO the province should use income taxes to pay for transit. Everyone should be paying for transit infrastructure.. but then you get into the whole regional whining thing about northerners having to pay for skytrain lines and etc..
Even if we assume that car drivers subsidize transit the most.

The bigger question is. "Are car drivers actually paying the true amount of what it costs to drive their cars?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Nov 23, 2010, 11:50 PM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
zoom zoom
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 1,897
I thought about writing him back about the whole Skytrain versus LRT thing but I kinda ran out of care..
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2010, 12:01 AM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,104
GeeCee, I don't understand why you even bothered writing to Corrigan since he is a lost cause for reasons I already stated before. What's more relevant really is the response from other mayors, since it is they that will ultimately save or kill the project. Any word from them?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2010, 12:03 AM
GeeCee's Avatar
GeeCee GeeCee is offline
zoom zoom
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Port Coquitlam, BC
Posts: 1,897
I've written to my local council (Anmore), and Burnaby. I've also received a response from Anmore and they are undecided as of yet. I was asked to attend tonight's meeting to discuss the issue, but I'm not sure if I'll be able to make it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2010, 12:43 AM
Canadian Mind's Avatar
Canadian Mind Canadian Mind is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 3,846
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeCee View Post
Somewhat ridiculous reply to my email to Derek Corrigan..
Their way of fixing the system is by shooting themselves in the foot and getting nothing?

Fucking idiots.
__________________
"you're eating chicken periods" - Vid
"I love eggs, especially the ones with runny yolks" - Me
"EWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, you're disgusting!" - Vid
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2010, 3:32 AM
CLC CLC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 877
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeeCee View Post
Somewhat ridiculous reply to my email to Derek Corrigan..
I think it is his standard reply on this matter. He might just change a sentence or two when sending out each response.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2010, 11:13 PM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by CLC View Post
I think it is his standard reply on this matter. He might just change a sentence or two when sending out each response.
Aren't all response letters from every party basically just a standard letter.

I highly doubt you will ever get a personal letter that was thought out as a reply. Every party just a standard response to every question. This goes for all levels of government everywhere in the world.

It is why I never email or send a letter to a political person because I already know the answer I'm going to get before I do.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Nov 24, 2010, 11:49 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
Even if we assume that car drivers subsidize transit the most.

The bigger question is. "Are car drivers actually paying the true amount of what it costs to drive their cars?"
Transit isn't going to pay for itself based on fares.
Drivers (truckers, etc.) aren't going to be paying for the complete cost of building and maintaining roadways. I doubt cyclists do either.
Patients don't pay for the full cost of healthcare.
Parents don't pay for the full cost of schooling.
Welfare recipients don't pay the full cost of their benefits.
Library and community centre users don't pay for the full cost of those services.

I don't really think that you should expect users to foot the entire bill of some types of costs like infrastructure or social services costs.
Even if you don't drive, roads benefit the community at large by allowing goods movement, fire, ambulance and police response, as well as transit services.

The fact of the matter is - as a taxpayer, you pay for "stuff" that you don't use (and in some case (like welfare) hopefully never use).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 2:07 AM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
Transit isn't going to pay for itself based on fares.
Drivers (truckers, etc.) aren't going to be paying for the complete cost of building and maintaining roadways. I doubt cyclists do either.
Patients don't pay for the full cost of healthcare.
Parents don't pay for the full cost of schooling.
Welfare recipients don't pay the full cost of their benefits.
Library and community centre users don't pay for the full cost of those services.

I don't really think that you should expect users to foot the entire bill of some types of costs like infrastructure or social services costs.
Even if you don't drive, roads benefit the community at large by allowing goods movement, fire, ambulance and police response, as well as transit services.

The fact of the matter is - as a taxpayer, you pay for "stuff" that you don't use (and in some case (like welfare) hopefully never use).
Your missing the the word directly.

In that "patients do not directly pay for the full cost of health care"
or "parents do not directly pay for the full cost in sending their kids to school" We all pay for the full cost. Just part of that cost is directly the other part indirectly.

I'm not saying that car drivers need to foot the full bill of what it costs for them to drive. I am sort of asking are they paying a fair share of that cost. To say they pay enough already does not mean that they may pay a fair share.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 3:41 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 16,524
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
Your missing the the word directly.

In that "patients do not directly pay for the full cost of health care"
or "parents do not directly pay for the full cost in sending their kids to school" We all pay for the full cost. Just part of that cost is directly the other part indirectly.

I'm not saying that car drivers need to foot the full bill of what it costs for them to drive. I am sort of asking are they paying a fair share of that cost. To say they pay enough already does not mean that they may pay a fair share.
What I meant is that not all people are patients (i.e. some people don't or don't hardly ever use hospital or medical services) and people without kids still pay taxes that support the schools for those with kids.

i.e. Are parents paying the true amount of the cost to run and operate schools?
No, because there are many taxpayers without kids who pay taxes that support schools.
I've never used the Vancouver school system and don't have kids. What is a "fair share" for me to contribute to the cost of building and operating Vancouver schools? Based on the present tax system - it will never be "fair" based on "use".

Likewise, drivers may not pay the full cost of building and maintaining roads, since many taxpayers who don't drive pay taxes to support the road infrastructure.

So you can't always look for a relationship between paying (whether direct or indirect) and "use".
In essence, I read the criticism as "some people (i.e. drivers) are leaching off the system" - that applies across the board to many other areas.


**********

I think that the property tax issue is the mayors not wanting to eat up any headroom on current property tax levels - so that they can raise taxes (municipalities are notorious for being poor fiscal managers since they set taxes to fund their budgets, as opposed to setting taxes and basing budgets on estimated tax revenue.

I don't think there' s problem with a vehicle levy if the money were directed to TransLink's road improvements (which, depending on amounts, may just be an internal bookkeeping exercise versus what is proposed).

That said, the impacts on the households affected will be greater with the vehicle levy. The property tax increase averaged $30 or $60 per property, whereas the vehicle levy would be up to $90 per vehicle (and of course it'll be the suburban communities that will have more 2-car households).

Last edited by officedweller; Nov 25, 2010 at 3:56 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 3:55 AM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,104
Quote:
Originally Posted by cabotp View Post
Aren't all response letters from every party basically just a standard letter.

I highly doubt you will ever get a personal letter that was thought out as a reply. Every party just a standard response to every question. This goes for all levels of government everywhere in the world.

It is why I never email or send a letter to a political person because I already know the answer I'm going to get before I do.
This is why this whole exercise is a bit of a sham. I myself have spoken to the Translink Board as a delegate in three separate meetings, had my fair share of Letters to the Editor articles published, and written so many letters and nothing happens (well, I did help ensure the guided bus Irisbus Civis is off the table for Evergreen back in 2004). But at the end of the day, we are powerless as taxpaying citizens to the whims of these people who are really more to look out for themselves than to serve the public.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 9:40 PM
cabotp cabotp is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 1,984
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
What I meant is that not all people are patients (i.e. some people don't or don't hardly ever use hospital or medical services) and people without kids still pay taxes that support the schools for those with kids.

i.e. Are parents paying the true amount of the cost to run and operate schools?
No, because there are many taxpayers without kids who pay taxes that support schools.
I've never used the Vancouver school system and don't have kids. What is a "fair share" for me to contribute to the cost of building and operating Vancouver schools? Based on the present tax system - it will never be "fair" based on "use".

Likewise, drivers may not pay the full cost of building and maintaining roads, since many taxpayers who don't drive pay taxes to support the road infrastructure.

So you can't always look for a relationship between paying (whether direct or indirect) and "use".
In essence, I read the criticism as "some people (i.e. drivers) are leaching off the system" - that applies across the board to many other areas.


**********

I think that the property tax issue is the mayors not wanting to eat up any headroom on current property tax levels - so that they can raise taxes (municipalities are notorious for being poor fiscal managers since they set taxes to fund their budgets, as opposed to setting taxes and basing budgets on estimated tax revenue.

I don't think there' s problem with a vehicle levy if the money were directed to TransLink's road improvements (which, depending on amounts, may just be an internal bookkeeping exercise versus what is proposed).

That said, the impacts on the households affected will be greater with the vehicle levy. The property tax increase averaged $30 or $60 per property, whereas the vehicle levy would be up to $90 per vehicle (and of course it'll be the suburban communities that will have more 2-car households).
Fare point in that a lot of people pay for a service that they never use.

The thing I've noticed is those who drive complain that they pay too much. Those who take transit complain that the price of fares is too high. Those who cycle complain that they pay more than they should. Everyone complains they they already pay enough and that someone else should pay.

Basically everyone wants to pay the least and get the most. Well sadly it doesn't work that way. And it puts us into a never ending circle of the blame game and pointing fingers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 10:10 PM
mezzanine's Avatar
mezzanine mezzanine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,456
This is reassuring, if puzzelling news. if the vote has been postponed, what is happening with the e-line?

Quote:
Transportation Minister Shirley Bond has relented and agreed to wait until the new year to find a range of new financing mechanisms to fund TransLink and ensure the Evergreen Line gets built.

The move means Metro Vancouver mayors won't vote after all Dec. 9 on the TransLink board's proposal that they authorize raising property taxes at least $36 per average household to fund the $1.4-billion SkyTrain line to Coquitlam.

Local cities had been told they had to approve some method by the end of this year to deliver their $400 million share of the Evergreen Line costs as well as phase one of the North Fraser Perimeter Road or else federal contributions expire.

Coquitlam Mayor Richard Stewart said word came Thursday morning that Bond – who had previously hinted Victoria would force a solution if the mayors voted down the funding – has agreed to wait and consider other options.
Are we going ahead with TL's savings for the first year, then deciding?

Quote:
The province intends to issue a request for proposals on the Evergreen Line in early 2011
I thought this was done already, but I could be wrong...

http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_ar...110681944.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 10:12 PM
Metro-One's Avatar
Metro-One Metro-One is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Japan
Posts: 8,025
So what is happening with the federal funding? Is this a step backwards?
__________________
Bridging the Gap
Check out my video production website at: http://www.hailstorm-media.com
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 10:18 PM
mezzanine's Avatar
mezzanine mezzanine is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,456
FWIW, this is what I got back from Gregor:

Quote:
Thank you very much for your email. Your message has been received by my office.

All of my email is regularly reviewed and I appreciate hearing your comments and feedback. However, due to the large volume of correspondence I receive, I am not able to personally respond to each one.

If this is a citizen enquiry that requires assistance from my staff, please contact Dana Bertrand at dana.bertrand@vancouver.ca, and ensure that you include your address and phone number.

It is vital that I hear from Vancouver citizens to better understand the needs of our city. Thank you for taking the time to share your ideas, thoughts and concerns with me.

Sincerely,

Gregor Robertson
MAYOR
To Council:

Quote:
Thank you for your email which has been circulated to the Mayor, Councillors, the City Manager and the Meeting Coordinator for Transportation & Traffic.
Thanks to everyone who wrote in. I would still encourage to send a quick email to your local council to let them know your opinion on transit initiatives.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 10:40 PM
twoNeurons twoNeurons is offline
formerly tin²ium
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Lotusland
Posts: 5,146
Quote:
Originally Posted by mezzanine View Post
This is reassuring, if puzzelling news. if the vote has been postponed, what is happening with the e-line?



Are we going ahead with TL's savings for the first year, then deciding?



I thought this was done already, but I could be wrong...

http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_ar...110681944.html
So... no more September 12th vote.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Nov 25, 2010, 11:39 PM
BCPhil BCPhil is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by squeezied View Post
Corrigan sounds just like Zwei in his reply.
Not enough quotation marks to highlight stuff he "thinks" is clever or enough allusions to Nazis... there was a satisfactory amount of rhetorical questions though.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2010, 12:54 AM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,366
Quote:
Originally Posted by mezzanine View Post
Transportation Minister Shirley Bond has relented and agreed to wait until the new year to find a range of new financing mechanisms to fund TransLink and ensure the Evergreen Line gets built.
YES - that's exactly what I'd hoped for, and it's exactly what we would NOT have gotten if the Province thought the mayors were going to cave and approve the property tax increase.

Now we'll finally get to see whether this "memorandum of understanding" the Province and the cities signed is worth the paper it was written on.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2010, 7:07 PM
DKaz DKaz is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Fleetwood, Surrey BC
Posts: 2,935
Just build to Port Moody for now, would be a good start. I think the plan east of Port Moody needs work anyway, they should plan a future PoCo/Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge extension. Skytrain should be closer to Newport Village, go down Guildford Way, meet up with Coquitlam Central, and eventually go parallel to the CP tracks through to PoCo and beyond.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Nov 26, 2010, 8:22 PM
touraccuracy's Avatar
touraccuracy touraccuracy is offline
Registered Loser
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,756
UGH just build the damn thing!
__________________
"The modern metropolis is a teeming hive of strung-out dope heads, rapists, home invaders and fine regional cuisine." -Cracked.com
Don't quote me on that.
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 3:01 PM.

     

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