1261 replies to this topic

[Caramia]

Hehe, the debate kind of gets into your blood eh?

[jklymak]

I am promoting the rejection of the idea that using the very same methods which led to the unintended consequences of suburbs and car centrism (centralized planning authorities) is going to produce something superior.

Its pretty hard to imagine how planning and building roads can be anything but a centralized public enterprise. So I'll bite. How will you privatize transportation planning?

[van-island]

Very simplified, but here is a scenario:

Let's pretend that a certain road costs $100/year in construction and maintenance. 10 people use it, and pay $10 in expenses for their cars. 8 of these people make $20/year, and 2 of them make $60/year. In order to pay the $100 for the annual road costs, the government taxes the 2 wealthy people $30 on their income. The other 8 are taxed $5 and the $100 cost for the road is covered, and everyone is able to use it. Let's assume these taxes are the limit of what these people can pay to drive based on their incomes.

Now remove government, and let's say a private company owns and operates the road. Just to break even, they must charge to make up the $100/year of the cost of the road. However, unlike government they are unable to tax according to the level of income of their clients, so they now assume a minimum number of trips for commuting and charge a flat fee to use the road of $0.02 to break even with $4 profit. (10 people, 260 work days, 520 trips @ $0.02/trip = $104)

The poorest 8 people can use the road 250 times before they can no longer afford to drive on the road. This is not even enough to provide transportation to work for 6 months.

The richest 2 people can afford to drive 1,500 times before they reach their budgeted limit, enough to get to work and back with plenty of leisure driving left over.

If 250 times on the road is not enough to get the 8 people to work in a year, they will probably switch to a cheaper form of transportation. They are now effectively unable to afford to drive, as they must be able to get to work all year round, or spend that money on transportation that provides that service, i.e., transit.

(And through a P3 agreement, the government probably has to make up the difference in lost income to the private company anyways)

Again, very simplified, but it demonstrates the point.

[van-island]

No, sir. As I said, "any money that isn't taken from people to subsidize roads is available to people to spend on roads." That argument is sound even if the money is available for other things.

So if half the people decide to spend their money on rail transportation, will the remaining half now be able to pay twice as much for the same roads? To what point could they afford it? Roads depend on a concentrated source of capital that only comes with mass use and obligatory fees (tax).

If you will check what you wrote, you will see that you are laying out your assumption. It is my suspicion that corporations and the wealthy are actually being subsidized by everyone else, and that the elimination of subsidies will improve mobility for the poor.

Now you are laying out your assumption. How will it improve mobility for the poor?

You are concocting elaborate scenarios and asking for solutions to a problem you haven't shown to exist. So before you go any further, please provide your evidence for your claim that "If we had to pay the full costs of our roads without government subsidization, most people couldn't drive."

See my example above.

Beyond providing a link from a respectable scholar who argues that peak oil (should it occur) will not be a problem, I have not mentioned my position on it.

Please. By posting the link you were implying your position.

When whale oil was the dominant energy source, no one knew crude oil was anything other than a substance that ruined well water. Who could have predicted it would rise to today's status? Just so, my inability to predict the next dominant source of energy (hydrogen? nuclear? solar?) is no kind of argument that there will be none. Even now, rising oil prices are spurring investment in many promising sources, as well as conservation technology.

Ah yes, but people knew of crude oil and also of its properties as an energy source. We currently have no similar known option in the immediate future (which is really what we are speaking about, isn't it?) Hydrogen is an energy storage medium, not a source. Nuclear obviously has its own multitude of problems, not to mention uranium extraction is also expected to peak, and solar doesn't possess the energy density needed to run cars in the present fashion, especially in cloudy places like Victoria.

Anyways, who wants to base public policy on the "expectation" that a substitute for oil will arrive in time? Some people call that wishful thinking.

Name one energy source that provides the same energy density and portability that oil does. Just name one.

[davek]

Very simplified, but here is a scenario:

...Let's pretend...
...Let's assume...
...let's say...

Let's just... hold on a minute. I am an open mind man, but I cannot accept this as evidence of your assertion that "most people couldn't drive without government subsidization." If you cannot provide something with a little more rigor, you may wish to reconsider your assumption, since it forms the basis for the remainder of your arguments.

[davek]

Hehe, the debate kind of gets into your blood eh?

It sure does. I must say, the discussions are much more pleasant than they used to be. A lot of respondents seemed to have had a de facto sarcasm/hostility setting that they have recently shut off. It's almost a pleasure now.

[Mike K.]

What's wrong with the subsidization of automobiles if the auto industry, directly and indirectly, is the single largest economic driver in both Canada and the US and in effect pays significantly more in taxes/wages, as a whole, than the subsidies it receives back?

The argument that automobiles require a lot of (unfair) subsidies is no different than saying airlines paying landing and takeoff fees at airports are a burden on airports because aircraft require landing lights in order to land.

[van-island]

Let's just... hold on a minute. I am an open mind man, but I cannot accept this as evidence of your assertion that "most people couldn't drive without government subsidization." If you cannot provide something with a little more rigor, you may wish to reconsider your assumption, since it forms the basis for the remainder of your arguments.

The scenario is plausible, even if the numbers are arbitrary. Besides, if you're only going to attack the language I used rather than the scenario, then I'll assume that it stands.

[davek]

So if half the people decide to spend their money on rail transportation, will the remaining half now be able to pay twice as much for the same roads?

No. Perhaps this will spur them to switch to rail. You are trying to defend your position by constructing another "what if" scenario.

Roads depend on a concentrated source of capital that only comes with mass use and obligatory fees (tax).

Tolls pay for obligatory fees as well as taxes do. Furthermore, paying for roads through taxes conceals their true value. If people who use them bear the full cost of using them, they may find that they don't need them as much as they thought. Perhaps they will start to live closer to where they work. Perhaps they will choose mass transit. Perhaps they will find local products more competitive than imported. You are investing a lot of energy in defending a system that discourages many of the goals you have previously praised.

Now you are laying out your assumption. How will it improve mobility for the poor?

I wrote 'suspicion', which is not an assumption. I will not discuss this with you until you provide evidence that "most people couldn't drive without government subsidization.", or withdraw the claim.

Please. By posting the link you were implying your position.

That is not a logical conclusion, but I'll indulge you. If the author doesn't argue that peak oil will or will not occur, what does that imply my position is?

... Just name one.

This is another discussion we can undertake when we finish the first, which is: Will most people be unable to drive without subsidies?

[davek]

The scenario is plausible, even if the numbers are arbitrary. Besides, if you're only going to attack the language I used rather than the scenario, then I'll assume that it stands.

The language you used was fine, and the scenario is plausible. If the numbers weren't arbitrary and still worked in your favor, you might have a case. Until then, I cannot concede the point. I have seen no evidence that, in the absence of government subsidies, most people couldn't drive.

[UrbanRail]

Wow we have gone way off topic, but this discussion is sure interesting.

[UrbanRail]

Just thought I should let this forum know that the number of supporters that have signed on to the Our Corridor Coalition in support of our island railway is 638. You can find this list on the Friends of the Corridor link. It includes two employees of the Swiss Federal Railways.

See below.

Thomas Müller, Specialist & Safety Expert For Demands For Operation In Railway Infrastructure Projects, Working For Swiss Federal Railways, Headquater Of Infrastructure And Operation, CH-3000 Berne (Switzerland) , Private Interest As Well For Supporting Puplic Transportation By Train, Tramways And Busses: Private & Home Adress: Hotzesteig 6, CH-8006 Zürich (Switzerland)

Alain Reuge, Employee Of Swiss Railroads

[gumgum]

Rail corridor foundation gets $300,000 from casino owner
$103 million sought from governments for upgrades
Bill Cleverley, Times Colonist
Published: Thursday, May 15, 2008

[gumgum]

Island rail vision gets bumped for buses
Les Leyne, Times Colonist
Published: Thursday, May 15, 2008

[UrbanRail]

I thought I would revive this thread with an update on my work to promote a new transport terminal for E&N/Transit in downtown Victoria.

Here is a basic aerial plan I have been toying with.



The C4CR (Communities For Commuter Rail) a Langford based group also supports moving the station closer to Downtown.

[Nparker]

If your station plan either utilizes or replaces that ridiculous covered arcade on the southern side of Centennial Square, you've got my vote UrbanRail.

[UrbanRail]

If your station plan either utilizes or replaces that ridiculous covered arcade on the southern side of Centennial Square, you've got my vote UrbanRail.

If you are refering to the useless space under the "new section of City Hall" I actually hadnt thought of that. I believe there are plans to put in some kind of cafe there. Depending on the time I have, I think the new station could utilize it as a retail destination. I was thinking of building a separate structure. But hey you never know.

Oh by the way, my plan would eliminate the current plans to "update that section of the square"

[Nparker]

If you are refering to the useless space under the "new section of City Hall" I actually hadnt thought of that. I believe there are plans to put in some kind of cafe there. Depending on the time I have, I think the new station could utilize it as a retail destination. I was thinking of building a separate structure. But hey you never know. Oh by the way, my plan would eliminate the current plans to "update that section of the square"

Well now that the City has given that "1960s add-on to city hall abomination" heritage status (apparently they feel it is a good example of post-war modernism, when of course it's simply just atrocious), there is little chance that we'll ever see it removed. I have heard rumours of that "useless space" becoming a restaurant as long as I have lived in Victoria -- and I moved here in 1978. Somehow I am not going to make a reservation at one of its "fountain-side" tables just yet. If your plan can make over this space please do! And as your vision includes eliminating the waste of money that is the current "make-over" of the SW corner of the square, I am liking it more by the minute.

[Mike K.]

Last night on A-Channel Dean Fortin, our mayor-to-be, laid out his vision for a potential train station on Pandora.

UrbanRail, who else shares or helped create this vision? Fortin never quoted a source for the idea and spoke as though the concept originated internally at City Hall.

[UrbanRail]

Last night on A-Channel Dean Fortin, our mayor-to-be, laid out his vision for a potential train station on Pandora.

UrbanRail, who else shares or helped create this vision? Fortin never quoted a source for the idea and spoke as though the concept originated internally at City Hall.

Several have come up with the idea, I think I am only one who has actually come up with the drawings.

Geoff Young, members of Island Transformations (a pro-rail group), C4CR (Communities For Commuter Rail) and myself have all suggested moving the station closer to Douglas St.

I am emailing him right now.

Aaron