Comments on: Report from the Bus Rider’s Union meeting http://www.piepalace.ca/blog/2006/03/report-from-the-bus-riders-union-meeting.html Mon, 16 Aug 2010 16:01:03 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: gerald rogers http://www.piepalace.ca/blog/2006/03/report-from-the-bus-riders-union-meeting.html/comment-page-1#comment-62688 gerald rogers Tue, 15 Jan 2008 16:54:15 +0000 http://www.piepalace.ca/blog/?p=80#comment-62688 I know this is a very late response but I have problems with the following statement from one of the responders above: "Keep in mind that roads are essentially free to road users. Their construction and maintenance is paid for out of the goverment’s general coffers. When dealing with a train, the transit authority has to build its own “roads” and maintain them." Roads in the Vancouver metro area are either paid by property taxes from the residents living in one of the many cities that make up the Metro region or are paid by the provincial government if the road happens to be a freeway. The province gets its money from gas taxes, which motorists pay when they fuel up at the pumps. The citie's roads use property taxes which come from the over 750,000 households in the metro area. Only 10% of the metro area residents use transit to go to work or school and of course 90% use their vehicles. It would seem to me that motorists and the 90% of homeowners who use their cars in the metro area pay a significant part the roads in the metro area. But, they also pay a significant part for transit too since only 55% of transit services comes out of the fare box. Over 11 cents from each litre of gas purchased by motorists in the Vancouver metro area goes to finance transit and taxes on both residential and business property make up another significant part of transit revenue. There is no free ride. Despite paying taxes for roads through property taxes and fuel taxes, both fuel taxes and more property taxes from those same motorists pay for a significant part of transit without receiving even one free trip on a bus or train. The above argument is not an argument for more cars and building more roads for cars in the metro area, it is hoped that the idea that motorists are receiving something for nothing has been put to rest so that more fruitful dialogue and solutions, other than transit, can be made to make our lives and our communities more livable. I know this is a very late response but I have problems with the following statement from one of the responders above:

“Keep in mind that roads are essentially free to road users. Their construction and maintenance is paid for out of the goverment’s general coffers. When dealing with a train, the transit authority has to build its own “roads” and maintain them.”

Roads in the Vancouver metro area are either paid by property taxes from the residents living in one of the many cities that make up the Metro region or are paid by the provincial government if the road happens to be a freeway. The province gets its money from gas taxes, which motorists pay when they fuel up at the pumps. The citie’s roads use property taxes which come from the over 750,000 households in the metro area. Only 10% of the metro area residents use transit to go to work or school and of course 90% use their vehicles.

It would seem to me that motorists and the 90% of homeowners who use their cars in the metro area pay a significant part the roads in the metro area. But, they also pay a significant part for transit too since only 55% of transit services comes out of the fare box.

Over 11 cents from each litre of gas purchased by motorists in the Vancouver metro area goes to finance transit and taxes on both residential and business property make up another significant part of transit revenue.

There is no free ride. Despite paying taxes for roads through property taxes and fuel taxes, both fuel taxes and more property taxes from those same motorists pay for a significant part of transit without receiving even one free trip on a bus or train.

The above argument is not an argument for more cars and building more roads for cars in the metro area, it is hoped that the idea that motorists are receiving something for nothing has been put to rest so that more fruitful dialogue and solutions, other than transit, can be made to make our lives and our communities more livable.

]]> By: darrell http://www.piepalace.ca/blog/2006/03/report-from-the-bus-riders-union-meeting.html/comment-page-1#comment-25 darrell Mon, 20 Mar 2006 13:33:18 +0000 http://www.piepalace.ca/blog/?p=80#comment-25 Yeah, I'm still wondering if in the long run it would be cheaper for an east to west train system instead of trying to pile on more and more 95s. But that's too much to investigate for someone as lazy as me. I just want it because I think it would be quicker and more convenient for me. :) Yeah, I’m still wondering if in the long run it would be cheaper for an east to west train system instead of trying to pile on more and more 95s. But that’s too much to investigate for someone as lazy as me. I just want it because I think it would be quicker and more convenient for me. :)

]]> By: e http://www.piepalace.ca/blog/2006/03/report-from-the-bus-riders-union-meeting.html/comment-page-1#comment-22 e Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:15:01 +0000 http://www.piepalace.ca/blog/?p=80#comment-22 Keep in mind that roads are essentially free to road users. Their construction and maintenance is paid for out of the goverment's general coffers. When dealing with a train, the transit authority has to build its own "roads" and maintain them. Those numbers are for the construction of the train system. The documentary wasn't very specific about what that meant, but I suspect it was something along the lines of buying the land, track-bed construction, acquisition of trains, construction of stations, and all of the other infrastructure that has to be added. Once the train is built, I'm guessing that it's no more expensive than buses (until it comes time for the track to be replaced, etc). Keep in mind that roads are essentially free to road users. Their construction and maintenance is paid for out of the goverment’s general coffers. When dealing with a train, the transit authority has to build its own “roads” and maintain them.

Those numbers are for the construction of the train system. The documentary wasn’t very specific about what that meant, but I suspect it was something along the lines of buying the land, track-bed construction, acquisition of trains, construction of stations, and all of the other infrastructure that has to be added.

Once the train is built, I’m guessing that it’s no more expensive than buses (until it comes time for the track to be replaced, etc).

]]> By: darrell http://www.piepalace.ca/blog/2006/03/report-from-the-bus-riders-union-meeting.html/comment-page-1#comment-21 darrell Sun, 19 Mar 2006 21:05:35 +0000 http://www.piepalace.ca/blog/?p=80#comment-21 Wow! I'm a little surprised by those train numbers. I had thought that the cost of tracks would be made up for in the long run. I guess I have to re-think wanting that east to west train (Orleans to Kanata). Are other cities with trains as extreme as LA? Wow! I’m a little surprised by those train numbers. I had thought that the cost of tracks would be made up for in the long run. I guess I have to re-think wanting that east to west train (Orleans to Kanata). Are other cities with trains as extreme as LA?

]]>