Transit Levy on BC-Hydro Bills
Leon ter Beek
There is a monthly levy of about $1.90 on everyones Hydro bill to
subsidize the BC Transit System.
Although, I don't mind contributing to public transit, I feel this levy
is not equally sharred by all BC residents (one levy per household).
Does anyone know why this levy is on the Hydro bill and not incorporated
in some tax?
Leon
Steve Leffler
This has always perplexed me, too. Even more annoying is the fact that,
as of a month or two ago, this levy is considered to be subject to the GST.
When they decided this was to be the case, they billed me (and everyone else,
I presume) for the back-GST for the last year and a half. What is odd about
this is that if the levy is effectively a tax, it shouldn't be subject to
the GST: I don't think the Federal Gov't has the authority to tax other
governments' taxes.
---Steven Leffler
lef...@physics.ubc.ca
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
I thinks the courts ruled the Hydro Levy not to be tax,
and therefore GSTable. Greedy bastards.
--
============================================================================
"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin sch...@sfu.ca
============================================================================
John Paul Morrison
Because it's an underhanded way to slip in an indirect charge, and 99% of
people don't complain?
things should be fee-for-service, pay for what you get, and get what you pay
for.
>Leon
--
__________________________________________________________________________
John Paul Morrison |
University of British Columbia, Canada |
Electrical Engineering | .sig file without a cause
jmor...@ee.ubc.ca VE7JPM |
________________________________________|_________________________________
Michael Francis Coyle
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
>In article <1d947t...@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> le...@unixg.ubc.ca (Leon ter Beek) writes:
>>
>>There is a monthly levy of about $1.90 on everyones Hydro bill to
>>subsidize the BC Transit System.
>>Although, I don't mind contributing to public transit, I feel this levy
>>is not equally sharred by all BC residents (one levy per household).
>>Does anyone know why this levy is on the Hydro bill and not incorporated
>>in some tax?
>>
>Because it's an underhanded way to slip in an indirect charge, and 99% of
>people don't complain?
>things should be fee-for-service, pay for what you get, and get what you pay
>for.
I agree 100% and I hope they introduce Toll roads for all the people
driving cars and polluting the air.
I also hope they up the tuition to the full cost of an education at
places like UBC. That means a 500% increase.
Yossarian Yggy King
>14" Paluski canoe, used five times
Gee, now if I can just get one for my other foot, I can go waterskiing!!
>$500 OBO
>
>reply via email to
> mco...@sfu.ca
--
Yggy King | Thinking the world should entertain you leads to boredom
UBC Comp Sci | and sloth. Thinking you should entertain the world leads
B.C., Vancouver | to bright clothes, odd graffiti and amazing grace in
Canada | running for the bus. -- Ann Herbert
e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca
It's NOT on everyone's Hydro bill, only everyone in the lower mainland.
It's done to raise money from residents of the lower mainland, who after
all, are the prime 'beneficiaries' of the transit system, not residents
elsewhere in the province who don't even have a transit system.
Presumably it raises more money, and spreads the cost wider than a
straight property tax.
Robert Smits Ladysmith B.C. e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they
want, and deserve to get it good and hard. - H.L. Mencken|
John Paul Morrison
>jmor...@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>
>>Because it's an underhanded way to slip in an indirect charge, and 99% of
>>people don't complain?
>
>>things should be fee-for-service, pay for what you get, and get what you pay
>>for.
>
>I agree 100% and I hope they introduce Toll roads for all the people
>driving cars and polluting the air.
>
but only on roads that our gasoline and other taxes haven't already paid
for.
>I also hope they up the tuition to the full cost of an education at
>places like UBC. That means a 500% increase.
>
Yes, it would be nice to know how much an education really costs.
Currently we pay a low, subsidized tuition but after graduation
the taxes I'll pay will outstrip the value of our education and health system.
So yes, I'll take higher up-front tuition fees if that means my
tax rate goes down to about 15 to 25% when I am working.
>--
>============================================================================
>"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin sch...@sfu.ca
>============================================================================
John Paul Morrison
>le...@unixg.ubc.ca (Leon ter Beek) writes:
>
>>
>> There is a monthly levy of about $1.90 on everyones Hydro bill to
>> subsidize the BC Transit System.
>> Although, I don't mind contributing to public transit, I feel this levy
>> is not equally sharred by all BC residents (one levy per household).
>> Does anyone know why this levy is on the Hydro bill and not incorporated
>> in some tax?
>>
>> Leon
>
>It's NOT on everyone's Hydro bill, only everyone in the lower mainland.
>It's done to raise money from residents of the lower mainland, who after
>all, are the prime 'beneficiaries' of the transit system, not residents
>elsewhere in the province who don't even have a transit system.
>Presumably it raises more money, and spreads the cost wider than a
>straight property tax.
>
I don't use the transit system, how am I a prime beneficiary?
Let's make a deal: I'll agree to pay the full share of road costs for
my driving, if transit users pay for the full cost of their transit
use. I won't face having to pay any more money though, because gasoline
taxes make up for at least 50% of the price of gas, and gas taxes already
raise exorbitant amounts of revenue for the government.
>
>Robert Smits Ladysmith B.C. e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca
>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they
>want, and deserve to get it good and hard. - H.L. Mencken|
John Henders
Morrison) writes:
>Yes, it would be nice to know how much an education really costs.
>Currently we pay a low, subsidized tuition but after graduation
>the taxes I'll pay will outstrip the value of our education and health system.
If the education you're getting is so valueless, how are you going
to get a job that is taxed so high?
>So yes, I'll take higher up-front tuition fees if that means my
>tax rate goes down to about 15 to 25% when I am working.
I guess this means you're only in favour of education for the
rich?
--
John Henders " Only _my_ words are relevant to the issue "
T.K.O.O.C. <1992May11.0...@rotag.mi.org>
ke...@rotag.mi.org(Kevin "I'm not a net cop" Darcy)
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
>In article <schuck.7...@sfu.ca> Bruce_...@sfu.ca writes:
>>jmor...@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>
>>>Because it's an underhanded way to slip in an indirect charge, and 99% of
>>>people don't complain?
>>
>>>things should be fee-for-service, pay for what you get, and get what you pay
>>>for.
>>
>>I agree 100% and I hope they introduce Toll roads for all the people
>>driving cars and polluting the air.
>>
>but only on roads that our gasoline and other taxes haven't already paid
>for.
Other taxes? Certainly you don't mean to count taxes paid by people
who use public transit?
>>I also hope they up the tuition to the full cost of an education at
>>places like UBC. That means a 500% increase.
>>
>Yes, it would be nice to know how much an education really costs.
>Currently we pay a low, subsidized tuition but after graduation
>the taxes I'll pay will outstrip the value of our education
>and health system.
Maybe.
>So yes, I'll take higher up-front tuition fees if that means my
>tax rate goes down to about 15 to 25% when I am working.
Your taxes will be high because the Tories offloaded corporate income
taxes onto individual income taxes and it is unlikely to go down.
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
>I don't use the transit system, how am I a prime beneficiary?
Because if there wasn't a transit system there would be 10,000 or more
cars on the road during rush hour and it would take you twice as long
to get anywhere. In addition the money saved on transit [plus a lot
more] would have to be spent on roads and new bridges to handle this
massive influx of traffic.
>Let's make a deal: I'll agree to pay the full share of road costs for
>my driving,
I sincerely doubt you can afford it.
>if transit users pay for the full cost of their transit
>use.
Don't forget the pollution differential. The formula above only works
if you pay a pollution tax.
>I won't face having to pay any more money though, because gasoline
>taxes make up for at least 50% of the price of gas, and gas taxes already
>raise exorbitant amounts of revenue for the government.
Only the provincial taxes could go into the highway budget. At least
half of the gas taxes are federal and never get back to BC.
John Paul Morrison
>
>>I don't use the transit system, how am I a prime beneficiary?
>
>Because if there wasn't a transit system there would be 10,000 or more
>cars on the road during rush hour and it would take you twice as long
>to get anywhere. In addition the money saved on transit [plus a lot
>more] would have to be spent on roads and new bridges to handle this
>massive influx of traffic.
>
Then market forces would automatically create an incentive for a transit
system that: would pay for itself and relieve the commuting time. And it
wouldn't would need subsidizing from people who don't want to use it.
>>Let's make a deal: I'll agree to pay the full share of road costs for
>>my driving,
>
>I sincerely doubt you can afford it.
buy a clue!!!! do you know how much money is already raised by gasoline taxes?
>
>>if transit users pay for the full cost of their transit
>>use.
>
>Don't forget the pollution differential. The formula above only works
>if you pay a pollution tax.
>
Most economists advocate this. This could conceivably be rolled into the
gasoline tax, since the more gas you use, the more you pollute (more or
less).
>>I won't face having to pay any more money though, because gasoline
>>taxes make up for at least 50% of the price of gas, and gas taxes already
>>raise exorbitant amounts of revenue for the government.
>
>Only the provincial taxes could go into the highway budget. At least
>half of the gas taxes are federal and never get back to BC.
>
is the fact that the federal government isn't doing it's fair share,
supposed to change my mind or something?
>--
>============================================================================
>"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin sch...@sfu.ca
>============================================================================
John Paul Morrison
>In <1992Nov8.0...@ee.ubc.ca> jmor...@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul
> Morrison) writes:
>
>>Yes, it would be nice to know how much an education really costs.
>>Currently we pay a low, subsidized tuition but after graduation
>>the taxes I'll pay will outstrip the value of our education and health system.
>
> If the education you're getting is so valueless, how are you going
>to get a job that is taxed so high?
>
where do I say it is valueless? It is subsidized, and the government tries
to make people feel that getting a university degree is "a privilege, you
should be happy with even getting into a university", when in fact
the taxes you pay exceed the subsidies.
>>So yes, I'll take higher up-front tuition fees if that means my
>>tax rate goes down to about 15 to 25% when I am working.
>
> I guess this means you're only in favour of education for the
>rich?
I can see you like making up things.
I'm in favor of people who use a service, should pay for that service.
So it follows that the rich should pay higher taxes for police services,
since they are bigger target. I am not in favor of denying services to the
poor, because doing that would create social tension and violence.
If that is what you are trying to imply, sorry, you are out of luck.
I am in favor of finding the overall minimum cost solution to problems,
calculated with a long term view, and that people who use those services
and resources, should pay for them. It's very simple. The problem is that
governments use short term economic calculations, and ignore opportunity
costs of their spending, and they ignore market economy mechanisms
(and even centrist, left wing economists are beginning to recognize that
the free market minimizes cost and waist the fastest. The economist
Hayek proved this decades ago, when interventionist Keynesian economics
was the fashion).
Givein these free market, non short term concepts, cutting education
would cost more because it would lead to lower productivity, and social
violence (even more costly) as people with no future rioted, or became
dependent on society.
Likewise, eliminating all subsidies to transit and motorists alike is more
efficient because inefficiency would be quickly eliminated by the free
market acting as it should.
unfortunately, people and politicians are too stupid to pay attention
to the economic research that shows how effective the free market is.
It's the same knee-jerk, coasting no autopilot response most people
give to anything that's good for them.
>
>
>--
> John Henders " Only _my_ words are relevant to the issue "
> T.K.O.O.C. <1992May11.0...@rotag.mi.org>
> ke...@rotag.mi.org(Kevin "I'm not a net cop" Darcy)
>
John Paul Morrison
Well, it's been a year or so since the provincial election. I'm sure
most people voted, and voted on two questions included on the ballot.
I can't remember the exact details, but I know they were regarding
direct democracy ballot inititiatives. I think it was so we could
propose referendum questions.
Does anyone remember more clearly what the questions were? I know
that they both passed easily in the provincial election.
And why haven't we heard anything about this? I think the legislature
has to debate the law. Are the NDP trying to hope we forget, or are things
actually in the works?
Mark Anderson
One asked whether electors should have the right to submit questions
for referendum in provincial elections. The other asked whether electors
should be able to remove their MLA from office between elections.
>And why haven't we heard anything about this?
We have. I saw notices in the papers last week soliciting comments from
the public on the questions and referendum results. Presumably a
commission will make recommendations on how the questions should be
interpreted and the policies implemented.
--
mark
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
>Well, it's been a year or so since the provincial election. I'm sure
>most people voted, and voted on two questions included on the ballot.
>I can't remember the exact details, but I know they were regarding
>direct democracy ballot inititiatives. I think it was so we could
>propose referendum questions.
>Does anyone remember more clearly what the questions were? I know
>that they both passed easily in the provincial election.
1) Recall -- the right to recall an elected MLA
Gee, I wonder why the NDP have been slow on this one. :)
2) Referendum -- the right to hold referendums.
Gee, I wonder why the NDP have been slow on this one. :)
>And why haven't we heard anything about this? I think the legislature
>has to debate the law. Are the NDP trying to hope we forget, or are things
>actually in the works?
I saw an ad in the paper a week or two ago calling for submissions.
A very small ad. :)
Call your MLA for more info. I will be.
Brad Crockett
> In article <schuck.7...@sfu.ca> Bruce_...@sfu.ca writes:
> >jmor...@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
> >
> >>I don't use the transit system, how am I a prime beneficiary?
> >
> >Because if there wasn't a transit system there would be 10,000 or more
> >cars on the road during rush hour and it would take you twice as long
>
> system that: would pay for itself and relieve the commuting time. And it
> wouldn't would need subsidizing from people who don't want to use it.
What about the people who DON'T want to drive to work but still
have to kick into the kitty for all the road maintenance and
construction? If we have to subsidize a transportation system, why
^^^^^^^^^
not make it more efficient by promoting transit?
> >>Let's make a deal: I'll agree to pay the full share of road costs for
> >>my driving,
> >I sincerely doubt you can afford it.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Brad Crockett, Duncan, British Columbia, Canada
bcr...@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca :->
John Paul Morrison
>
>>Well, it's been a year or so since the provincial election. I'm sure
>>most people voted, and voted on two questions included on the ballot.
>
>>I can't remember the exact details, but I know they were regarding
>>direct democracy ballot inititiatives. I think it was so we could
>>propose referendum questions.
>
>>Does anyone remember more clearly what the questions were? I know
>>that they both passed easily in the provincial election.
>
>1) Recall -- the right to recall an elected MLA
> Gee, I wonder why the NDP have been slow on this one. :)
>
>2) Referendum -- the right to hold referendums.
> Gee, I wonder why the NDP have been slow on this one. :)
>
>>And why haven't we heard anything about this? I think the legislature
>>has to debate the law. Are the NDP trying to hope we forget, or are things
>>actually in the works?
>
>I saw an ad in the paper a week or two ago calling for submissions.
>A very small ad. :)
>
Well, I didn't see the ad in the Globe & Mail, so obviously they aren't
serious in reaching me :-)
>
>--
>============================================================================
>"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin sch...@sfu.ca
>============================================================================
John Paul Morrison
>jmor...@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>> In article <schuck.7...@sfu.ca> Bruce_...@sfu.ca writes:
>> >jmor...@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>> >
>> >>I don't use the transit system, how am I a prime beneficiary?
>> >
>> >Because if there wasn't a transit system there would be 10,000 or more
>> >cars on the road during rush hour and it would take you twice as long
>>
>> Then market forces would automatically create an incentive for a transit
>> system that: would pay for itself and relieve the commuting time. And it
>> wouldn't would need subsidizing from people who don't want to use it.
>
>What about the people who DON'T want to drive to work but still
>have to kick into the kitty for all the road maintenance and
>construction? If we have to subsidize a transportation system, why
> ^^^^^^^^^
>not make it more efficient by promoting transit?
Then stop making people who don't drive to work subsidize the system!
By using it they will pay for it.
>
>> >>Let's make a deal: I'll agree to pay the full share of road costs for
>> >>my driving,
>
>> >I sincerely doubt you can afford it.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The tax revenue disproves this , especially when the cost of roads, bridges,
repairs etc. is amorttized over 20 years of use.
$20 / week * 52 weeks = $1040
divide by two to get government's share: = $520
multiple by 100,000 cars (a very conservative amount) = 52 million per year.
$52 million is an extremely low estimate, but is still a fair bit of cash.
I suspect 100 million or more is a good estimate for BC.
So obviously "I sincerely doubt you can afford it." is false.
>
>
>Brad Crockett, Duncan, British Columbia, Canada
>bcr...@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca :->
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
>> Brad Crockett writes:
>Then stop making people who don't drive to work subsidize the system!
>By using it they will pay for it.
>>
>>> >>Let's make a deal: I'll agree to pay the full share of road costs for
>>> >>my driving,
>>
>>> >I sincerely doubt you can afford it.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>The tax revenue disproves this , especially when the cost of roads, bridges,
>repairs etc. is amorttized over 20 years of use.
>$20 / week * 52 weeks = $1040
>divide by two to get government's share: = $520
>multiple by 100,000 cars (a very conservative amount) = 52 million per year.
>$52 million is an extremely low estimate, but is still a fair bit of cash.
>I suspect 100 million or more is a good estimate for BC.
>So obviously "I sincerely doubt you can afford it." is false.
The Coquihalla itself cost 1 billion.
The interest [without paying back capital costs] is between 50 and 100
million a year at current or recent interest rates -- let alone the
one prevalent at the time.
Thats just one highway -- no maintenance costs added in.
Your gas taxes don't pay the cost at all.
Derek K. Miller
>Let's make a deal: I'll agree to pay the full share of road costs for
>my driving, if transit users pay for the full cost of their transit
>use. I won't face having to pay any more money though, because gasoline
>taxes make up for at least 50% of the price of gas, and gas taxes already
>raise exorbitant amounts of revenue for the government.
>
Sure. Provided that we can somehow factor into the cost accouning the
indirect environmental costs of the fossil fuels you burn, pollutants
you produce, and those of the mining a manufacturing for your car
(and those of the buses too, of course).
Ah yes, just let people pay for only those things they use. That wayu,
no one will ever change.
:=:=> Derek K. Miller dkmi...@unixg.ubc.ca
Researcher, Alma Mater Society theg...@tz.ucs.sfu.ca
John Paul Morrison
>
>>> Brad Crockett writes:
>
>>Then stop making people who don't drive to work subsidize the system!
>>By using it they will pay for it.
>>>
>
>>>> >>Let's make a deal: I'll agree to pay the full share of road costs for
>>>> >>my driving,
>>>
>>>> >I sincerely doubt you can afford it.
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>The tax revenue disproves this , especially when the cost of roads, bridges,
>>repairs etc. is amorttized over 20 years of use.
>
>>$20 / week * 52 weeks = $1040
>
>>divide by two to get government's share: = $520
>>multiple by 100,000 cars (a very conservative amount) = 52 million per year.
>
>>$52 million is an extremely low estimate, but is still a fair bit of cash.
>>I suspect 100 million or more is a good estimate for BC.
>
>>So obviously "I sincerely doubt you can afford it." is false.
>
>The Coquihalla itself cost 1 billion.
>
hey, guess what? The Coquihalla is a *TOLL* road!!!
The highway is actually ahead of schedule in paying itself back, because
it was so badly needed, that many people use it.
>The interest [without paying back capital costs] is between 50 and 100
>million a year at current or recent interest rates -- let alone the
>one prevalent at the time.
>
>Thats just one highway -- no maintenance costs added in.
>
But they don't build billion dollar projects every single, so whatever
the tax revenue, the cost of building the bridge is fixed, as is amortized
(ie paid back) over a 20 year or longer period.
I also suspect that the rough gas tax calculation I made was very low.
>Your gas taxes don't pay the cost at all.
I don;t know the exact figures, do you?
It is not implausible that gas taxes end up paying for a significant amount
of the cost of roads.
The real point is that motorists are not getting a free ride, and that
people who use the roads pay their fair share.
Now if you want to quibble more, I could argue that sales taxes help pay
for roads etc. and that people who use roads have nothing to feel guilty
about. The reasoning is that there would be almost nothing to sell if
it were not for roads etc.
Anyway, this is getting way off topic.
I thought it was whether or not it is fair for people who do not directly
or indirectly use a service (public transport) to subsidize it for people
who do use it.
People can sit here blowing smoke about how nice transit is, therefore it
should be subsidized, but that does not tackle the fact that it would be
fairer, more expedient, and more efficient to let the actions of the
competitive free market determine the optimum combination of buses, cars
taxis etc. Subsidies make waste and misallocation of resources a virtual
certainty.
>
>
>
>--
>============================================================================
>"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin sch...@sfu.ca
>============================================================================
Brad Crockett
> >What about the people who DON'T want to drive to work but still
> >have to kick into the kitty for all the road maintenance and
> >construction? If we have to subsidize a transportation system, why
> > ^^^^^^^^^
> >not make it more efficient by promoting transit?
>
> Then stop making people who don't drive to work subsidize the system!
> By using it they will pay for it.
I don't quite understand your statement. Do you mean that we
should make people who use the roads pay tolls? If so, I agree
with you.
> >> >>Let's make a deal: I'll agree to pay the full share of road costs for
> >> >>my driving,
> >
> >> >I sincerely doubt you can afford it.
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> The tax revenue disproves this , especially when the cost of roads, bridges,
> repairs etc. is amorttized over 20 years of use.
How can you amortize the cost of repairs? (Or snow removal, for
that matter.) Also, I was unaware that the lifespan of roads is
20 years - it seems that they resurface about every 10 years or
less. I agree with you regarding bridges - they don't seem to
require much upkeep. I see the year of constuction stamped on
most of them, and many were built in the '50s.
> $20 / week * 52 weeks = $1040
>
> divide by two to get government's share: = $520
> multiple by 100,000 cars (a very conservative amount) = 52 million per year.
>
> $52 million is an extremely low estimate, but is still a fair bit of cash.
> I suspect 100 million or more is a good estimate for BC.
Do you mean that 100 million is a good estimate for the revenue
that could be raised through tolls, or do you mean that 100
million is a good estimate for the highways budget for the
province?
> So obviously "I sincerely doubt you can afford it." is false.
It's not obvious to me, but it certainly is interesting, isn't it?
I wonder if anyone out there can tell us what the highways budget
is for BC, and/or what the road budget is for municipalities?
Regards,
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
>>
>>The Coquihalla itself cost 1 billion.
>>
>hey, guess what? The Coquihalla is a *TOLL* road!!!
>The highway is actually ahead of schedule in paying itself back, because
>it was so badly needed, that many people use it.
Yes, but where did the billion $ come from in the first place.
It certainly wasn't gas taxes.
>But they don't build billion dollar projects every single year
Not every year, but there has been in the last 5-6:
The Coquihalla - 1 billion plus
The Alex Fraser - 250 mil
Upgrades on the Squamish Highway - 125 mil
2 new super ferrries in construction - ??? part of the highway budget
Others I can't remeber off the top of my head.
>I thought it was whether or not it is fair for people who do not directly
>or indirectly use a service (public transport) to subsidize it for people
>who do use it.
Drivers directly benefit from public trnsportation,
because without it the roads would be clogged much worse and many more
bridges like the Alex Fraser would have to be built.
>People can sit here blowing smoke about how nice transit is, therefore it
>should be subsidized, but that does not tackle the fact that it would be
>fairer, more expedient, and more efficient to let the actions of the
>competitive free market determine the optimum combination of buses, cars
>taxis etc. Subsidies make waste and misallocation of resources a virtual
>certainty.
Optimum? Free market?
The building of bridges and roads and ferries have *nothing* to do
with the free market. If they did there would be a toll on every road
and on every bridge.
And as for "waste of resources", thats what you do every time you use
a car instead of public transit. You waste gasoline and pollute the
air and take up space in parking lots and on roads that could be
put to better use.
A better solution, and cheaper, would be to ban cars in the downtown
area of Vancouver and force people to use buses, skytrain and commuter
rail. That would be cheaper and cleaner and much less of a waste of
resources.
Tony Buckland
>area of Vancouver and force people to use buses, skytrain and commuter
>rail. That would be cheaper and cleaner and much less of a waste of
>resources.
But there will always be _some_ drivers that need access to downtown
and parking there. My favorite scheme is to systematically eliminate
downtown parking spaces, on- and off-street, until the desired
result is achieved. Those who had to pass through would be able to
do so, with less obstruction than now, and those who really had to
park (not those who would merely like to park) downtown would still
find space, although at a price. Our much maligned towing companies,
plus a bit more enforcing in no-stop zones, would clean away a lot of
the system-buckers.
e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca
> The building of bridges and roads and ferries have *nothing* to do
> with the free market. If they did there would be a toll on every road
> and on every bridge.
>
> And as for "waste of resources", thats what you do every time you use
> a car instead of public transit. You waste gasoline and pollute the
> air and take up space in parking lots and on roads that could be
> put to better use.
>
> A better solution, and cheaper, would be to ban cars in the downtown
> area of Vancouver and force people to use buses, skytrain and commuter
> rail. That would be cheaper and cleaner and much less of a waste of
> resources.
There are all kinds of valid reasons for people to drive various kinds of
vehicles, including cars instead of takiing public transit, and a ban on
cars in the downtown area would be completely impractical.
How, for example are salesmen with samples, techicians with tools or
parts, or people whose work shifts don't coincide with BC Transit's
schedule going to get around? Walk? Transit meets some of the needs for
people travelling into the city at morning, who work all day at one
location, and then travel home again. It doesn't do much for many of the
rest of us who find that it doesn't even run when we need it.
If you want to make transit attractive, it needs to go everywhere people
need to go, when they want to go, provide safe transportation (including
personal safety for the passengers), and do so at a price people are
willing to pay.
Even when it does this, there will be many people whose transportation
needs are better served by a private automobile - with the routing,
timing, carrying capacity (for things like books, tools, groceries, etc)
than the public transit system.
Making the most efficient use of our resources, especially transportation,
is a complex subject, and simplistic notions, like banning all cars
from a particular area, are not solutions.
What is needed instead is a lot of incremental improvements, each
of which will only do a little to improve the situation, but together
will make a real difference.
We might begin with having transit run all night so shift workers
can use it. And make the buses go everywhere instead of just the
most popular areas. And figure out how to make a bus from Surrey
take a passenger to Langley in 20 minutes instead of two hours and
three transfers later. And by setting up a system of HOV lanes that
encourage the more efficient use of vehicles.
John Paul Morrison
>In article <1992Nov8.0...@ee.ubc.ca> jmor...@ee.ubc.ca (John Paul Morrison) writes:
>>Let's make a deal: I'll agree to pay the full share of road costs for
>>my driving, if transit users pay for the full cost of their transit
>>use. I won't face having to pay any more money though, because gasoline
>>taxes make up for at least 50% of the price of gas, and gas taxes already
>>raise exorbitant amounts of revenue for the government.
>>
>
>Sure. Provided that we can somehow factor into the cost accouning the
>indirect environmental costs of the fossil fuels you burn, pollutants
>you produce, and those of the mining a manufacturing for your car
>(and those of the buses too, of course).
>
Any action has a COST and a BENEFIT.
Burning fossil fuels has a cost (in real $$) that can be measured
ie. health costs, the cost of the fuel itself, the risk of permanent
damage to the environment, where the probability can be estimated, and
the risk discounted.
Burning fossil fuels has benefits (in reall $$) in economic activity and
growth.
These costs and benefits can be estimated and with reasonable safety
margins, a pollution tax can levied to recover that cost of actual and
potential damage.
A pollution tax (as is advocated by many leading economists) gives a cost
that the market can understand, and react to. Fixed taxes and regulations
provide no incentive to eliminate pollution etc. A pollution tax creates
an incentive people can understand in real terms, so if people reduce
pollution, they are rewarded by lower taxes. It provides a carrot and stick.
There is a problem with creating too high or too low a pollution tax.
A too high pollution tax overestimates the risk associated with pollution.
We live with risk every day, and an exaggerated pollution tax would
result in a very small (marginal) gain in improving the environment,
and would sacrifice a lot of growth and economic benefit.
Too low a pollution tax would underestimate the cost of pollution
and would make the benefit from economic growth overvalued. If
economic growth gets overvalued, people will rush to develop things, and
then cause a very expensive problem in the future.
>Ah yes, just let people pay for only those things they use. That wayu,
>no one will ever change.
People don't have to change for the sake of change. If you give people
the right incentives, people will automatically act to take advantage
of those incentives, and run away form disinsentives. The market is
is an efficient means of doing this, it is like water rolling down hill.
>
> :=:=> Derek K. Miller dkmi...@unixg.ubc.ca
> Researcher, Alma Mater Society theg...@tz.ucs.sfu.ca
> University of British Columbia, Canada
>
--
__________________________________________________________________________
John Paul Morrison |
University of British Columbia, Canada |
R. Davison
This is just pathetic! Do you really think that people commute because
they like too? Its expensive and inconvenient. All I need is to have
parking reduced so that in addition to my 45min drive I can search for
parking for another 15.
There is a reason people don't take the bus. Its inconvenient and
time consuming. My current 45 minute drive (each way) is extended
to 2 hour bus ride (yes I have tried it) (yes each way). If
BC transit were to stop wasting taxpayers money with pathetic
service people WOULD get out of their cars and take transit. But
the solution is to make transit an attractive alternative, not to
make driving unbearable ... this is happening already without stupid
artifical barriers.
Rod Davison.
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
>sch...@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>> A better solution, and cheaper, would be to ban cars in the downtown
>> area of Vancouver and force people to use buses, skytrain and commuter
>> rail. That would be cheaper and cleaner and much less of a waste of
>> resources.
>There are all kinds of valid reasons for people to drive various kinds of
>vehicles, including cars instead of takiing public transit, and a ban on
>cars in the downtown area would be completely impractical.
>How, for example are salesmen with samples, techicians with tools or
>parts, or people whose work shifts don't coincide with BC Transit's
>schedule going to get around? Walk?
Walking sounds good, so does taking a bus, a CNG or Propane powered
taxi, people movers like the one at Expo are a solution as well.
Air quality in Vancouver is deteriorating rapidly.
Asthma attacks are increasing astronomically.
It's time to inconvenience *some* people to benefit all.
>If you want to make transit attractive, it needs to go everywhere people
>need to go, when they want to go, provide safe transportation (including
>personal safety for the passengers), and do so at a price people are
>willing to pay.
People will still take the car. People drive for a variety of reasons,
and cost and convenience is only one of them. Many people drive just
for the sense of personal freedom.
>What is needed instead is a lot of incremental improvements, each
>of which will only do a little to improve the situation, but together
>will make a real difference.
Well....we aren't making any improvements. The Alex Fraser was
supposed to fix traffic problems for decades. It's full already.
The time of the car has to come to an end. It must be legislated in
order to clean the air. We can't afford more freeways and bridges.
e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca
> e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>
> >sch...@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:
>
> >> A better solution, and cheaper, would be to ban cars in the downtown
> >> area of Vancouver and force people to use buses, skytrain and commuter
> >> rail. That would be cheaper and cleaner and much less of a waste of
> >> resources.
>
>
> >There are all kinds of valid reasons for people to drive various kinds of
> >vehicles, including cars instead of takiing public transit, and a ban on
> >cars in the downtown area would be completely impractical.
>
> >How, for example are salesmen with samples, techicians with tools or
> >parts, or people whose work shifts don't coincide with BC Transit's
> >schedule going to get around? Walk?
>
> Walking sounds good, so does taking a bus, a CNG or Propane powered
> taxi, people movers like the one at Expo are a solution as well.
>
> Air quality in Vancouver is deteriorating rapidly.
> Asthma attacks are increasing astronomically.
>
> It's time to inconvenience *some* people to benefit all.
>
It's not a matter of inconvenience. As a technical representative, I
drive a small Toyota wagon. The area behind the back seat is full of
tools, manuals, parts, etc. You can't drag all this stuff on a bus or
taxi. It's impractical, and would be probibitively expensive for my
company to have it's people use public transit.
There are many people with jobs that require them to carry equipment,
parts, manuals, samples, etc. around with them. There isn't any practical
alternative to the car for them.
> >If you want to make transit attractive, it needs to go everywhere people
> >need to go, when they want to go, provide safe transportation (including
> >personal safety for the passengers), and do so at a price people are
> >willing to pay.
>
> People will still take the car. People drive for a variety of reasons,
> and cost and convenience is only one of them. Many people drive just
> for the sense of personal freedom.
>
>
That doesn't mean you shouldn't try to make the transit system more
attractive to potential users.
> >What is needed instead is a lot of incremental improvements, each
> >of which will only do a little to improve the situation, but together
> >will make a real difference.
>
> Well....we aren't making any improvements. The Alex Fraser was
> supposed to fix traffic problems for decades. It's full already.
>
> The time of the car has to come to an end. It must be legislated in
> order to clean the air. We can't afford more freeways and bridges.
>
Yes we can. For all it's faults, the automobile (and its variants) is the
most perfect method of intraurban personal transportation yet devised. By
the standards of economy, speed, comfort, convenience and point-to-point
delivery, the automobile was, and is, superior to your alternatives.
It can't be replaced overnight by a fascist decree banning the automobile
without a better system to replace it. You're going to have to devise a
better system first, not simply wave a legislative wand and decree we
can't use the old one.
e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca
All that will do is limit the parking to those wealthy enough to afford
it, and create a real hardship for the rest of the population. There
simply isn't a practical alternative at present for many people that use
cars downtown.
John Paul Morrison
>Asthma attacks are increasing astronomically.
prove it.
>
Like many of your statements, they tend to be sweeping, and without
even the benefit of some back-of-the-envelope calculations or
reasonable estimates. No one on the net expects a full research paper
to back things up, but perhaps something from an article or newsshow?
Please quantify "detiorating rapidly" and "astronomically"
or "your gas taxes don't pay for it at ALL".
(To substantiate *MY* claim, I've included statements by you from this
and past responses. They make a claim, but have no substance beyond
rhetoric. Therefore, I don't think my claim about you, is a sweeping
generalization)
The plese explain to me why air quality indexes in Vancouver newspapers are
consistently in the good to fair quality region.
>It's time to inconvenience *some* people to benefit all.
>
fine. make people pay a market, cost-recovery rate for the cost of
the services they use. I should start posting some articles from
The Economist, or other magazines. There is baffling resistance and
inexplicable suspicion and distrust of something as conceptually simple
as market economics. The efficiency and effectiveness of market economics
is generally accepted in academic circles, there is mostly disagreement
of the extent and nature of using the market.
>
>--
>============================================================================
>"We've got to get bigger guns" -- Dick Durkin sch...@sfu.ca
>============================================================================
John Paul Morrison
>e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
>
>> > I agree with Bruce. The automobile is so deeply entrenched in the
>> > North American psyche as a form of personal expression that it
>
>> The issue is not of whether or not to inconvenience SOME people. The vast
>> majority of people use automobiles as their prime personal transportation
>> mode because there simply isn't a better, AVAILABLE and affordable
>> alternate method available.
>
>That depends on how you define better. Do you mean better for the
>individual or better for society.
>
>> While there are real problems with urban transportation methods, the
>> answer is not to dream that you can (or even should) plan to eliminate
>> the car because you have fallen for the currently popular myths about the
>> "danger" the car poses to society. Especially when you have no readily
>> available, affordable alternative. People use cars because they are the
>> most affordable, versatile, and timely method of getting from point a to
>> point b in a reliable, comfortable and safe method, while carrying a
>> variety of things with them - passengers, cargo, etc.
>
>They are affordable right now because they are so heavily
>subsidized. Imagine how much less out taxes would be if
>governments only had to build and maintain roads for buses! And
>consumer goods would be cheaper as well because businesses would
>not have to devote 1/2 or more of their land area to parking
>stalls to compete effectively.
I take issue with the word "subsidize". To subsidize something means
that the people who use a service are not paying the full costs of the
system, and that *someone else* is paying for that use.
I ask you to think about who that someone else is.
Perhaps taxes would be less, because the roads wouldn't be catering to
car users. But that does not imply a subsidy. You could equally say
"imagine how much less our taxes would be if governments only had
to provivide medical services for healthy people". Paying taxes to
support health care is fair, because everyone typically has an equal
chance of getting sick, and they do not know whether they will be sick
ahead of time. Likewise, paying for roads is justifiable because everyone
directly or indirectly uses roads (and they should pay for them directly
or indirectly).
In order to show that there is a subsidy, you would have to show that
people who drive cars, aren't paying for the costs of those roads.
Simply saying that taxes would be less if there were no cars, does NOT
imply a subsidy.
There is an area where arguably all pollution emitting things are subsidized.
However this is at the cost of the environment, not from people who don't
use cars (since their alternative means of transport would also contribute
to pollution). The logic of this is that air, water, the environment etc.
is a commodity. By polluting, you are using up that commodity, and that
use should be paid for. Now logic dictates that you should pay for using
up something, and that is where a pollution tax comes in to discourage the
using up of that commodity (since costs limit unbounded use of a resource.)
Some pollution is irreversible, or at best, extremely costly to reverse.
This kind of pollution should be discouraged with extremely high pollution
taxes, or an outright ban. Other types of pollution can NOT be categorized
as irrersible; you can analyse this kind of pollution as "borrowing" from
the environment, since the air, water, etc. consumed is eventually returned
back to the environment, a pollution tax in this case should be based on
how long the resources are used, and when they are returned to the environment.
SO to put things in perspective for cars and trucks and buses, to
eliminate the subsidy at the expense of the environment, you should
charge people a tax for operating their vehicle, depending on the volume
and type of exhaust their vehicles emit. Vehicles emit water, CO2, CO,
NOx and unburnt hydrocarbon vapors. Ranking this on absolute damage, and
how long it takes to reverse, you would tax highest for NOx, hydrocarbons,
CO, CO2 and least for water vapor. This is because the NOx contributes most
to the brown smog that irritates people's health.
If a pollution tax were uniformly and consitently applied, it would give
a market incentive to reduce pollution, and would make comparisons
between differing technologies simple. Example: if pollution is taxed
according to damage etc. at every level, it would be simpler to choose
the least polluting cup: since the cheaper cup would necessarily be the
cheapest, ie for plastic, styrofoam, paper or ceramic. Without this
market way of sorting out the best alternative, you would need to
be armed with studies and scientists every time you wanted to buy the
best of something (do you remember the massive studies needed to sort
out whether plastic or paper of ceramic coffe cups were better?)
Price signals are a very clear and efficient means of sorting out the
best from the worst. Apply pollution taxes uniformly, and the better
alternative will become obvious through market action alone.
>
>Regards,
>
>>
>>
>> Robert Smits Ladysmith B.C. e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they
>> want, and deserve to get it good and hard. - H.L. Mencken
>
>
>Brad Crockett, Duncan, British Columbia, Canada
>INTERNET: bcr...@happy.nuts.almanac.bc.ca
> CIS: 72570,2154
Bruce Jonathan Schuck
>In article <schuck.7...@sfu.ca> Bruce_...@sfu.ca writes:
>>
>>Air quality in Vancouver is deteriorating rapidly.
>prove it.
Are you blind? Can't you see the *brown* air.
>>Asthma attacks are increasing astronomically.
>prove it.
I don't have the reference on me, but asthma attacks *are* on the
rise, and the numbers of deaths is at a record level. I came very
close a few years ago, until I started taking an inhalable steroid. I
never had asthma until about 3 years ago. I can't prove it was caused
by air pollution but it is a leading contender.
>>
>Like many of your statements, they tend to be sweeping, and without
>even the benefit of some back-of-the-envelope calculations or
>reasonable estimates. No one on the net expects a full research paper
>to back things up, but perhaps something from an article or newsshow?
I'll keep my eye open. You should too. There have been several articles
in the paper and on the news about asthma.
>Please quantify "detiorating rapidly" and "astronomically"
>or "your gas taxes don't pay for it at ALL".
I have been going to SFU and working at SFU off and on for 15 years.
When you get near the top of the hill you get a good view of the city.
15 years ago the air was *not* brown. Now, more often than not on a
sunny day, the air is *brown*.
>The plese explain to me why air quality indexes in Vancouver newspapers are
>consistently in the good to fair quality region.
Good to fair? What standards! Fair is ok with you? I work at SFU and
several times this year the air was less than fair as it seems all the
pollution gets funnelled down Burrard Inlet and the SFU area is badly
affected. I'm sure UBC fairs much better as it is on the water.
>>It's time to inconvenience *some* people to benefit all.
>>
>fine. make people pay a market, cost-recovery rate for the cost of
>the services they use.
Sounds fair to me. Please start with the automoblie drivers first as
they consume much more gasoline and taxes than transit users.
--
......
Jim Robinson
Vaughn Palmer had a column in the Sun last week (I think it was last week),
in which he quoted various stalling tactics that the NDP seemed to be
intent on using on the initiatives and recall issues. This is to be
expected as the NDP were never fans of initiatives and recall and I suspect
Harcourt supported both during the provincial campaign simply for the sake
of expediency. I imagine that in the end it will be up to "ordinary BCers"
to pressure their MLAs if we really want to see these reforms.
--
Jim Robinson
robi...@mdd.comm.mot.com
{ubc-cs!van-bc,uunet}!mdivax1!robinson
Brad Crockett
> >Well, if you knew it was coming, you would (hopefully) prepare for
> >it. In fact, the entire market would anticipate it. It would be
> >a wonderful opportunity for private transportation companies to
> >develop and market new services just for people like yourself.
>
> Of course what you're hinting at would be illegal in BC.
>
> BC Hydro has legislated monopoly on running bus service.
> And since they have their hand in the public purse, with who
> knows what sort on stipulations, you can be sure there is
> little financial motivation for them to meet public demand.
>
> Taxi companies have fixed numbers of licences to issue.
I didn't know that - that's too bad. Hopefully this would not be
too difficult to change. I remember when most people wrote off
any future for the flying cats because of BC Ferry's mandate to
provide mainland/Island transportation. That's certainly turned
around - and it's an excellent example of what can be achieved
with a little market research.
Brad Crockett
> >They are affordable right now because they are so heavily
> >subsidized. Imagine how much less out taxes would be if
> >governments only had to build and maintain roads for buses! And
>
> I take issue with the word "subsidize". To subsidize something means
> that the people who use a service are not paying the full costs of the
> system, and that *someone else* is paying for that use.
Yes, you are quite right. The existing system is not really
subsidized, as you have pointed out. However, it is preserved by
the lack of effective taxation techniques (such as the excellent
one that you have outlined) and by the way that the costs of roads
are hidden from consumers.
James Strickland
[ all sorts of rational, sensible stuff]
> and have you priced parking - what there is of it - in downtown
> Toronto lately?
The last time I walked down King street I noticed that parking under
the TD centre was $4 per half hour, daily maximum $17. (That, however,
was a couple of years ago - it's probably even more expensive now).
> Someone brought up an argument I've heard many times before, that
> transit from far out takes too long. Then why not take the partial
> step of driving to a park-and-ride, such as that at the Surrey
> Skytrain station, and then riding the rest of the way?
Right on. The first time I ever visited Vancouver, I was impressed
to discover that the parking at the park&ride is free. If I were faced
with having to get downtown from Surrey every day, I would certainly
take advantage of the Scott station park&ride, since doing so would
result in
a) taking LESS time to get downtown
b) having a great view of the mountains, etc from the SkyTrain
c) spending about the same amount of money to get there
(when you consider the cost of gasoline plus maintenance
plus the added cost of insurance given that you drive
farther to work every day)
d) spending a whole lot less on parking (ie $0)
Strider Coyle
anyone is selling.
/> Give Me A Sense Of Humor Lord, And Something To Laugh About.
/< Michael Coyle mco...@sfu.ca mic...@sfu.ca
[\\\\\\(O):::<=================================-
\< Distributed Computing Support Group,
\> Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, B.C., Canada
e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca
> In article <1e459o...@iskut.ucs.ubc.ca> buck...@ucs.ubc.ca (Tony Buckland
Of course, though, you might find a problem when you got back to your
car. When I lived in Surrey, there were regular reports of auto thefts
and auto break-ins at the Scott Road parking lot. A whole bunch of cars
with hardly anyone around, and the Skytrain for a get-away vehicle.
John Henders
>jstr...@cs.sfu.ca (James Strickland) writes:
>> Right on. The first time I ever visited Vancouver, I was impressed
>> to discover that the parking at the park&ride is free. If I were faced
>> with having to get downtown from Surrey every day, I would certainly
>> take advantage of the Scott station park&ride......
>Of course, though, you might find a problem when you got back to your
>car. When I lived in Surrey, there were regular reports of auto thefts
^^^^^^^^^
>and auto break-ins at the Scott Road parking lot. A whole bunch of cars
>with hardly anyone around, and the Skytrain for a get-away vehicle.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I don't think they let you on the Skytrain carrying a car. ;-)
( sorry, couldn't resist )
--
John Henders " Read the guideline, Luke"
Just another elitist Usenet user Obi Wan Spaf
Jim Robinson
>dav...@selkirk.sfu.ca (R. Davison) writes:
>> This is just pathetic! Do you really think that people commute because
>> they like too? Its expensive and inconvenient. All I need is to have
>> parking reduced so that in addition to my 45min drive I can search for
>> parking for another 15.
>
>> There is a reason people don't take the bus. Its inconvenient and
>> time consuming. My current 45 minute drive (each way) is extended
>> to 2 hour bus ride (yes I have tried it) (yes each way). If
>> BC transit were to stop wasting taxpayers money with pathetic
>> service people WOULD get out of their cars and take transit. But
>> the solution is to make transit an attractive alternative, not to
>> make driving unbearable ... this is happening already without stupid
>> artifical barriers.
>
>closer to their workplace. Something should change because it's
>just going to get worse.
What about families where both partners work in different areas? At least
one of them is going to be inconvenienced.
Charles Lort
If you had seen the view of the city blocked by the air pollution this summer, as those of us at Simon Fraser had the dubious honour of witnessing you would not be whining about inconvenience, you would see the absolute necessity of getting cars off the road and the people into public transit. It would seem that your biggest problem is that you are all worrying about which came first the chicken or the egg. If people start demanding and using the public transit system it will get better. The politicians
will have no choice. STOP WHINING AND START BUSING!!!!!
lo...@sfu.ca LIVING HIGH ABOVE YOUR EXHAUST
e...@ham.almanac.bc.ca
> >one of them is going to be inconvenienced.
>
> If you had seen the view of the city blocked by the air pollution this summer
>
>
> will have no choice. STOP WHINING AND START BUSING!!!!!
> lo...@sfu.ca LIVING HIGH ABOVE YOUR EXHAUST
>
Granted that there is an air pollution problem in the Lower Mainland, and
that it needs to be addressed, it does NOT necessarily follow that the
only way to do it is to get people out of cars and into transit. There
are a lot of ways in which the air pollution problem can be addressed,
including:
1. Encouraging the switching of motor vehicles to alternate fuels, which
will lessen air pollution, such as natural gas and propane.
2. Continue research into improving the performance of electric vehicles
(which is not yet good enough to supplant gasoline power in most cases
because of short range, poor drivability and cost), keeping in mind
the air pollution (if any) caused by the electric power generation
process.
3. Improve the flow of traffic on the roads and highways we do have, so
that the amount of time spent commuting (and polluting) is minimized.
It does no one any good for commuter vehicles, including transit buses
to be delayed unnecessarily in traffic.
4. Encourage the movement of industry to the suburbs, so that people will
live closer to their jobs, and not have to travel downtown.
5. Drastically improve the performance, availability and safety of
passengers on public transit, so that they will choose to use it.
6. Begin extending the Air-Care program to buses and commercial vehicles.
7. Begin SERIOUSLY regulating the non-traffic sources of pollution in the
Lower Mainland, including municipal garbage incineration, and
requiring polluters to clean up their acts in a reasonable amount of
time or shut down.
I don't think we can concentrate on any one of these areas to the
exclusion of all others, but characterizing legitimate objections as
"whining" does not encourage discussion about how to fix the problem. We
all need to contribute our share to the solution, and cheap pot shots
don't help.
Brad Crockett
> >This seems a good case for moving the homes that people live in
> >closer to their workplace. Something should change because it's
> >just going to get worse.
>
> What about families where both partners work in different areas? At least
> one of them is going to be inconvenienced.
If people lived closer to where they worked, then both partners
would be close to work. Telecommuting would help with this -
Hydro's pilot project is a good example.
Tony Buckland
>5. Drastically improve the performance, availability and safety of
> passengers on public transit, so that they will choose to use it.
I can't resist this; it appears to promote orgies on the buses,
with performance-enhancing techniques and prophylatic devices
provided. We might well have more riders, with some insisting on
passing their stops because they didn't want to get off before they
got off.