4 ms·

> Secondly, transit should support itself from the fares it collects: how about that! I am not personally of the opinion that every service should be budget ne

> Secondly, transit should support itself from the fares it collects: how about that! I am not personally of the opinion that every service should be budget neutral or budget positive, especially if they are making investments in large-scale improvements. For most transit options, charging a self-sustaining rate would severely limit service at worst, or make it impossible to expand at best. Further, with transit specifically, everyone benefits taking cars off the roads, so to me a use-tax as the only funding mechanism is not appropriate. Beyond that, your position reads to me like "I'm fine, so it's all fine."

kazinator 12y ago
> I'm fine, so it's all fine I absolutely do not hold such an illogical position. Rather, I'm fine and don't care about the rest. > Further, with transit specifically, everyone benefits taking cars off the roads, I'm an example of taking a car off the road, without transit. Since you believe that people should pay some levy for the sake cars being taken off roads, it follows that a tax should be collected and some of it transferred to my personal bank account.
- HelloMcFly 12y ago
  Fine, you care only about yourself. Understood. You're able to bike on the roads, it seems. What bike tax are you paying for those roads? And you're right, you as a biker don't benefit at all from reduced auto traffic. Not one bit. No, you're an entirely independent entity in an otherwise highly interconnected traffic and transit network, it seems. The environmental pollution, sound pollution, increased pedestrian/biker/driver safety, and reduced infrastructure damage are benefits for everyone else. But in fairness, in isolation I would support a tax credit for individuals who drive less than X miles per year.
  - kazinator 12y ago
    > Fine, you care only about yourself. Understood. Yes, and my vote represents myself. The fact that other people have other needs is represented by the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of other votes. The idea that Peter should vote for what is good for Paul rather than Peter is absurd. > What bike tax are you paying for those roads? None, currently! Bring it on. Calculate the wear caused by cyclists and send me my share of the maintenance bill. > And you're right, you as a biker don't benefit at all from reduced auto traffic. Not one bit. No, I don't. Less traffic means cars going faster. The safest is no cars at all, or cars in bumper-to-bumper traffic slugging along in 15 km/h bursts. This proposal promises reduced commute times to drivers. There is supposed to be a new bridge and more roads and so on. Of course that will get more people into cars. The commute times will then eventually drop to the original values, just with more cars. More noise, more pollution. Vancouver has never been about this. That is why we do not have a nasty network of raised highways routed through the city, like other cities in the world. You can't get from one side of Vancouver to the other without crossing a crapload of intersections. That's the character of this town. Douglas Copeland writes about this at length in the introduction to the book _Vancouver Stories_. I do not care about myself only, but also about preserving the character of this town. I do not support the "Los Angelization" of Vancouver.

kazinator 12y ago

> I'm fine, so it's all fine I absolutely do not hold such an illogical position. Rather, I'm fine and don't care about the rest. > Further, with transit specifically, everyone benefits taking cars off the roads, I'm an example of taking a car off the road, without transit. Since you believe that people should pay some levy for the sake cars being taken off roads, it follows that a tax should be collected and some of it transferred to my personal bank account.

HelloMcFly 12y ago
Fine, you care only about yourself. Understood. You're able to bike on the roads, it seems. What bike tax are you paying for those roads? And you're right, you as a biker don't benefit at all from reduced auto traffic. Not one bit. No, you're an entirely independent entity in an otherwise highly interconnected traffic and transit network, it seems. The environmental pollution, sound pollution, increased pedestrian/biker/driver safety, and reduced infrastructure damage are benefits for everyone else. But in fairness, in isolation I would support a tax credit for individuals who drive less than X miles per year.
- kazinator 12y ago
  > Fine, you care only about yourself. Understood. Yes, and my vote represents myself. The fact that other people have other needs is represented by the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of other votes. The idea that Peter should vote for what is good for Paul rather than Peter is absurd. > What bike tax are you paying for those roads? None, currently! Bring it on. Calculate the wear caused by cyclists and send me my share of the maintenance bill. > And you're right, you as a biker don't benefit at all from reduced auto traffic. Not one bit. No, I don't. Less traffic means cars going faster. The safest is no cars at all, or cars in bumper-to-bumper traffic slugging along in 15 km/h bursts. This proposal promises reduced commute times to drivers. There is supposed to be a new bridge and more roads and so on. Of course that will get more people into cars. The commute times will then eventually drop to the original values, just with more cars. More noise, more pollution. Vancouver has never been about this. That is why we do not have a nasty network of raised highways routed through the city, like other cities in the world. You can't get from one side of Vancouver to the other without crossing a crapload of intersections. That's the character of this town. Douglas Copeland writes about this at length in the introduction to the book _Vancouver Stories_. I do not care about myself only, but also about preserving the character of this town. I do not support the "Los Angelization" of Vancouver.