Carbon Tax

Must be 18 to enter! Talk about anything but Football

Moderator: Team Captains

MacNews
Team Captain
Posts: 3942
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:48 pm

Sir Purrcival wrote: Instead, what I have seen is a pell mell rush to double, triple, quadruple lane highways all over the province
I don't see the problem with that Purrcival, because roads, highways and bridges benefit the largest amount of the population. Ligh-rail is enormously expensive and serves a small-segment of the population when compared with buses and roads.

If you expand a road you allow faster travel times for truckers, lowering transportation costs. The increased capacity also benefits commuters who can get to work earlier, and hence be more productive. Finally, these roads also benefit buses by allowing them to reach their destination faster, resulting in more stable schedules.

IMO, the best way would be allowing the construction of toll roads. Then the anti-car/anti-gasoline/anti-everything crowd wouldn't be able to complain about how the government is spending public dollars on roads, and those dollars could be directed to transit.
iso_55

I'm surprised David Suzuki & his fellow environmentalist wackos haven't stoned a Tim Horton's yet.
User avatar
CatsEyes
Hall of Famer
Posts: 3035
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2004 6:18 pm
Location: Looking forward

Sir Purrcival wrote:Instead, what I have seen is a pell mell rush to double, triple, quadruple lane highways all over the province.
That's funny, SP-when I read that quote out of context, my initial thought was "WHERE in BC has he seen that kind of development?", then I realized that you were talking about Alberta, and it made much more sense. :yes: If anything, here in Victoria, they like to cut lanes out and put in shrubbery filled medians, ostensibly for 'traffic calming'. When you're trying to move traffic to and from a large west coast naval base, having two 30km lanes of traffic (one each way, mind you! :wink: ) does anything but calm the traffic. Another case of government (in this case, municipal) ignoring the wishes of the constituents, and doing what they think we need. :wag:
Real women wear orange!!
User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4622
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Comox Valley

MacNews wrote:
Sir Purrcival wrote: Instead, what I have seen is a pell mell rush to double, triple, quadruple lane highways all over the province
I don't see the problem with that Purrcival, because roads, highways and bridges benefit the largest amount of the population. Ligh-rail is enormously expensive and serves a small-segment of the population when compared with buses and roads.

If you expand a road you allow faster travel times for truckers, lowering transportation costs. The increased capacity also benefits commuters who can get to work earlier, and hence be more productive. Finally, these roads also benefit buses by allowing them to reach their destination faster, resulting in more stable schedules.

IMO, the best way would be allowing the construction of toll roads. Then the anti-car/anti-gasoline/anti-everything crowd wouldn't be able to complain about how the government is spending public dollars on roads, and those dollars could be directed to transit.
I think it is the scale that gets me. It isn't just urban places where they are doing this. Secondary highways way out in the middle of the country don't seem to make a lot of sense right now. Maybe in 30 years some of the construction maybe useful but they have some issues here and now. Calgary is absolutely sprawling at an unbelievable clip. They just keep widening roads, adding more cars and in the end it will be unsustainable. You don't have to look any farther than Vancouver to know how expensive it is to try and introduce transit after the people have already moved in. Vancouver had a wide light rail network that went all the way to Chilliwack. It was noisy and squeaked and all the rest. Then along came the automobile and they ripped up all the rails, sold off the right of ways and here we are a scant 70 years later and we are raging about transit costs, fighting over routes and technologies and paying many times more for something that we already had the basics in place for. The designer for the Port Mann argued that it should be a six lane bridge and it would cost a paltry couple of million at the time to make it so. Now how many millions is it going to cost to retrofit and for what gain? I think they estimate a 15 year window until we have the same congestion levels we have now? The point is that you can't simply rely on one modality to get people from point A to B especially if it is cars. The problem is only going to get worse. The key is to try and move people into other more sustainable alternatives at least in part and it should be part of intelligent community design. If you are are going to allow development, you have to plan for the schools, the shops, the sewers, the rec facilities and the means for people to get about. Too many times do we see a community allowing for 10,000 new residences and adding absolutely nothing to the infrastructure to support those new bodies. Now the above really doesn't have much to do with the Carbon tax I guess. It might if you believed that it was meant to be used to develop some of these alternatives but like many here, I have my doubts. If however, they had exempted public transit and commercial trucking from it, I think it would have been a meaningful step to helping to keep cost for goods and fares for transit in check. As it is, everybody is gonna get punished under this scheme in multiple ways.
Tell me how long must a fan be strong? Ans. Always.
User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4622
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Comox Valley

CatsEyes wrote:
Sir Purrcival wrote:Instead, what I have seen is a pell mell rush to double, triple, quadruple lane highways all over the province.
That's funny, SP-when I read that quote out of context, my initial thought was "WHERE in BC has he seen that kind of development?", then I realized that you were talking about Alberta, and it made much more sense. :yes: If anything, here in Victoria, they like to cut lanes out and put in shrubbery filled medians, ostensibly for 'traffic calming'. When you're trying to move traffic to and from a large west coast naval base, having two 30km lanes of traffic (one each way, mind you! :wink: ) does anything but calm the traffic. Another case of government (in this case, municipal) ignoring the wishes of the constituents, and doing what they think we need. :wag:
I'm right there with you on this. Unfortunately, city planners seem to think that the best way to manage the masses is to put up another 4 way stop, put in some speed bumps and maybe throw in a roundabout. Rather than help things, all they manage to do is to slow down the flow of traffic. That stop and go stuff doesn't help at the exhaust pipe end. It costs us more fuel, puts more pollutants into the atmosphere and all the rest. By the same token and maybe this isn't their fault, we have meandering bus routes that end up adding 45 mins to our travel time, aren't reliable or efficient. I live about 5 mins by car from a Mall, if I were to take transit, it takes an hour. It isn't that cheap either. Probably costs me less to drive than take transit. That isn't very conducive to me taking transit. Make it cheap. prompt and logical and maybe you will get some people out of their cars and will ease the problems a little.
Tell me how long must a fan be strong? Ans. Always.
iso_55

SP, as you know I live in Calgary. In the mid 1990's, King Ralph & His Court decided that they wouldn't fund anymore infrastructure for cities like Calgary because thjey wanted to pay down the provincial debt. Even though 25,000 or more people were moving here every year, nothing got built for almost a decade.
At the time Calgary had a meek & mild mayor named Al Duerr who hated confrontations so he sat back & allowed it to happen. Ralph pushed him around & bullied him. He never once stood up for the best interests of Calgarians.
When Duerr retired in 2001, long time city councillor Dave Bronconnier came along & said "Enough"!! He went after Ralph & the Tories for neglecting Calgary & they loosened the purse strings & began to fund long overdue projects. I mean, the Tories had no choice but to fund infrastructure all around the province as they wasted so many years. And it was getting to the point where voters were saying, "What the hell is going on? Why can't you give Calgary money with the huge surpluses you keep having???"
Calgary was busting at the seams. Traffic was crawling along. Roads that were built 20 or 30 years ago to handle a city of 300,000 were now serving a city of 900,000. Something had to give. Finally in about 2002, provincial dollars began to fund improving roads, overpasses & bridges in Calgary & it was long overdue. This was needed just to CATCH UP & MAINTAIN roads that were neglected from the decade befor thanks to Ralph. Not to make traffic flow better. Now, we seem to be out of catch up mode & into that phase of improving traffic flow. But it was neglect by our Tory government that got us into this mess & now it is all about servicing & improving the roads in a city of over a million people now.
Mass transit in Calgary & Edmonton would cost tens of BILLIONS of dollars. And even with the huge annual surpluses this province has, it doesn't have the money to fund mass transit on a scale that is needed to make it appealing to most users at all hours of the day in both Calgary & Edmonton. People will not take the C Train at 11 PM on a Saturday night when they could take their cars because of a lack of service, wait times at bus stops & C Train stations, the length of time it takes to get to & from a destination & safety issues. So, the other alternative is to improve the road system in cities like Calgary & Edmonton.
You might say SP, that it is irresponsible by our provincial government to put as much money as is going into a new & improved road system in Calgary without funding mass transit, but you would be wrong. However, I will also say this to you, it would be irresponsible not to do it.
The municipal government in Calgary is funding new C Train as well as bus service & expanding it outward. They are going to builld a new C Train leg that will travel west out of the downtown. That leg will run approximately 10 to 12 klms & will cost a minimum of half a billion dollars to build. It will be ready in 2012. And the city has just expanded the C Train system both north & south from the extreme norht end of the city to the deep, deep south.
The city has bought new C Trains as well as new full sized buses & mini buses. And the city has hired a bunch of new drivers. So, a ton of money, upwards of three quarters of a billion dollars or more has gone into improved mass transit the past few years in Calgary alone. Still IT IS NOT ENOUGH.
With overcrowded roads comes increased emmissions from vehicles stuck in traffic jams. Getting vehicles moving to their destination & not sitting on streets idling as they have become parking lots is responsible. And the best bang for the buck that the environment is going to get in my opinion.
You say the provincial government here in Alberta is twinning or tripling roads & highways? Where, outside of the cities is this happening? I certainly don't see it. Our provincial road system is in need of billions of dollars of repair & the Tories are not doing anything about it.
It's all well & good to talk about the things that should be done... But let's be practical here. To have the kind of transportation system the environmetalists in Alberta & elsewhere want is totally unaffordable. For 80 years people have come to rely on the automobile to get them places. Now, in a matter of a few years governments & environmentalists want to either stifle our use of or take the car away completely??? You don't take something away that has been a part of our life & culture for almost a century. And you don't punish society for something that they have no control over.
You know, I say why doesn't BC punish the car companies for not having something other than the internal combustion engine in their vehicles? Same with the feds.. Make the car companies responsible for once. Ban the big SUV's, the huge pickup trucks & the huge sedans. Give the automakers world wide a reasonable amount of time to come up with an alternative engine type that is good to the environment & not prohibitively expensive. If they can't or refuse, then make them pay financial penalties.
Why aren't governments doing that, not only here in Canada but around the world?? Why are governments like BC allowed more & more to throw the environment on the backs of everyday innocent British Columbians instead of the companies causing the problems like the multi national big oil & gas companies as well as the car companies here in North America, Japan, Korea & Europe???
In the end, a tough talking Carole Taylor ain't so tough after all. She finds it much easier to simply tax British Columbians than to take on Big Oil or the automakers.
MacNews
Team Captain
Posts: 3942
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:48 pm

iso_55 wrote:why doesn't BC punish the car companies for not having something other than the internal combustion engine in their vehicles? Same with the feds.. Make the car companies responsible for once. Ban the big SUV's, the huge pickup trucks & the huge sedans.
I don't feel banning large vehicles is the solution, because if those large automobiles had electric power, hybrid, fuel-cell or any other of the promising new technologies then their emissions would be slashed and we would not be having this debate.

In January's Popular Mechanics, Jay Leno talks about driving a Hydrogen BMW. The sole thing coming out of the tailpipe was water, which was drinkable.

Also it is not the car manufacturers fault that they are making large cars, because IMO they are simply responding to consumer demand. It's like vilifying microwave popcorn makers who are simply trying to make money and supply a wanted product.

But I don't think anyone is going to win this debate, so I think we should agree to disagree. I don't want to be responsible for over-loading D's server. 8)
iso_55

You gotta admit this is a stimulating subject for debate. Been pretty good so far. I got a chance to explain things from an Alberta conservative perspective. Thanks for letting me do that, folks!! :thup:
MacNews
Team Captain
Posts: 3942
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:48 pm

iso_55 wrote:You gotta admit this is a stimulating subject for debate. Been pretty good so far. I got a chance to explain things from an Alberta conservative perspective. Thanks for letting me do that, folks!! :thup:
An Alberta perspective is always welcome here! :rockin:

Now, to silence those Riders. :wink:
User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4622
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Comox Valley

Iso, I don't think we are that far apart on most things here.

I am not against road improvements.

I am for improved transit

And I don't mean to focus solely on Alberta. As you point out, there are lots of places in the world which could be doing more and aren't.

As to the question about where else. I was in Alberta a couple of times last year and had to drive from Calgary to Edmonton, tool around in Red Deer for awhile and then head east to Stettler. Since I am not always a big fan of the main highway between Edmonton and Calgary, I often take secondary routes. I was struck by how often, I ran into massive road construction. Red Deer, Drumheller and various parts in between. It seemed pretty much every 30 mins, it was something. Some was just repairs, but a fair amount was ripping up large tracks of land to double lane some highways. It just seemed a bit strange in some places. That maybe they were really planning way ahead of the game which seemed a bit contradictory to some other things.
I don't doubt any of what you say about the needed improvements, the neglect. After all you are there. In some ways it echoes my *beeotch* about Sky Train here. They do nothing with it for years and years and then bang, massive construction project where they have to sink billions into it. It just seems more intelligent to do a little at time, every year and just keep increasing and improving the system. If they had built a new station every year since the first line was completed, they would be so much farther ahead now and overall it would be done with much less inconvenience to the public and cost I suspect when you factor in inflation. It is why I get so frustrated sometimes with how things get done. Basically, people in charge seem to sit on their arses for years and then all of a sudden, there is this flurry to improvement. Create a reasonable, forward looking plan, then stick to a schedule of implementation. If need exceeds the plan, they you accelerate your timetable. You would probably agree with me that the neglect you mentioned should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. I suspect you wouldn't be against the "Carbon Tax" either if it truly went to funding improvements that helped out the environment. And like you, I am pretty jaundiced about that being the case.

If it seems like I am being critical of Alberta, I'm not really, at least no more than anyplace else including my neck of the woods. I am glad to hear that they are making improvements to more than just the roads.

And you are always welcome here Iso. You and I have danced a few times and although it isn't always pretty, it is enjoyable and awareness raising. :beer:
Tell me how long must a fan be strong? Ans. Always.
iso_55

Hey, we all have our political viewpoints. I just think we allow our politicians & governments to interfere too much in our lives & affairs. I don't trust politicians or their motives. If there is a way to gouge us out of our hard earned money they find a way & unfortunately we let them do it.
For every one politician who goes into public service to try to do good, there are 500 or a thousand bad ones. Politicians that are in it for themselves. Be it for the money, greed, power or all three.
Gerry
Legend
Posts: 1040
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Surrey, BC

iso_55 wrote:Hey, we all have our political viewpoints. I just think we allow our politicians & governments to interfere too much in our lives & affairs. I don't trust politicians or their motives. If there is a way to gouge us out of our hard earned money they find a way & unfortunately we let them do it.
For every one politician who goes into public service to try to do good, there are 500 or a thousand bad ones. Politicians that are in it for themselves. Be it for the money, greed, power or all three.
You need to be more consistent in your thought process, Iso. On one hand you want the government to legislate the size of vehicles and engines, and on the other hand you want them to stop interfering in our lives. Well, car companies sell what we will buy. No one holds a gun to our head and tells us to buy a Navigator.

You guys are also all wrong on this carbon tax. The Liberals are not grabbing more of our hard earned money. This tax is revenue neutral. Where they raise gas taxes by X amount, they are lowering other taxes by the same amount. It is a tax shift. You may disagree with this tax for ideological reasons, but be honest about the net effect on our collective pocket book.

There is a large segment of our population that is greatly concerned about global warming and pollution in general. I know that there is still some controversy about global warming, but the majority of people have accepted it as fact, and the government here is responding to those concerns.

We have lived for a great period of time in which we relied mainly on the horse and wagon and then the truck and car to get about. Fuel and raw materials were cheap. land was cheap. We got used to living on parcels of land at least 60 feet by 120 feet in size with a house in proportion to that. Well, things are changing, and it will be painful for a while to alter our lifestyle. In some places, everything is still being built based on roads and cars and single family homes. Rapid transit will never be cost effective in such a system. There will never be enough people in a given area to justify the huge expenditures required to give so few people in such a large area public transit that is acceptable to them.

You only have to look at Europe. Smaller homes. Smaller or no lots. Very dense neighbourhoods. Excellent public transit. Smaller cars, and fewer of them. Much higher road taxes and fuel prices than we have here, even with our new "carbon tax".

If you want to look at the future a bit closer to home, you only need to come to Vancouver. Everywhere there is a Skytrain station the towers are going up. People want to live close to fast, efficient transit. They are giving up their cars and their backyards in order to have some time outside of their daily commute. Densification does not cost much more for the additional public transit. The rails are there. The stations are there. All they need is more train cars. If the government puts too much money into highways, those people will be tempted to buy that bungalow 20 miles miles farther out from town instead and that might appeal to some, but it only works for so long. 20 miles of Skytrain costs a whack of money, as you have noted for C-Train in Calgary. So, you don't get C-Train or Skytrain 20 miles out. You get clogged highways and lousy bus service.

Calgary has exploded since I last lived there. The growth amazed me the last time I visited. There has been infill development in town, but for the most part people still are driving farther and farther to live in a single family home on a fenced lot. Well you can never do that and have public transit to satisfy them. It didn't work here and it won't work there.

In Vancouver we have had to come to grips with this a bit sooner than Calgary will. We cannot expand anymore. We have a border to the south of us, ocean to the west, mountains to the north and going east gobbles up some of the most valuable and productive farmland in the country. Smog is trapped in our Fraser valley and air pollution is becoming a problem. Global warming or not, something has to give.

Now, if something "has to be done" and we agree that government has to lead to some degree, then how do they go about it? You can't effectively legislate where people live or what they buy. But you can tax behaviours that are detrimental and reward those that are advantageous. Our society and culture responds to one thing only....money. So they have done the only thing that they can do, and the only thing that works and has ever worked. And that is to make something bad expensive and to try to make something good as cheap as possible. The market place is doing that in Vancouver already and government is moving with the times and with what people want.

I drive, and I need to drive, so this tax will cost me, to some degree. But the cost of fuel and any additional carbon taxes will cause me to reconsider some things in the future. I may feel like I need to do what I do now, but that's not really true. I do what I do because I can afford to, and because the company I work for can afford to subsidize it as well. But that can easily change and I will have to change to suit. Who's to say that the change isn't for the better?
Enough is enough.
MacNews
Team Captain
Posts: 3942
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 12:48 pm

Gerry wrote:Where they raise gas taxes by X amount, they are lowering other taxes by the same amount. It is a tax shift.

Excellent public transit. Smaller cars, and fewer of them. Much higher road taxes and fuel prices than we have here, even with our new "carbon tax".
IMO, with the administrative costs involved it is not a 'revenue neutral' tax. No tax is, because of the costs it imposes on the user, the collector (Petro-Can) and the government via civil servants. Sure we'll get tax reductions out of it, but they'll be less than if the money had stayed in our pocket.

Image

Despite the myth that Europe uses transit way more than North America, that is not the case. Over 75% of their trips were by car in 2000. In the US in 1996 it was 85%. I don't believe a 10% difference deserves all the hype.
Dan Russell
Legend
Posts: 1552
Joined: Fri Nov 05, 2004 9:14 pm

This won't have a huge effect on how often we drive our cars except raise our anger level up a couple more notches.
Gerry
Legend
Posts: 1040
Joined: Fri Aug 01, 2003 8:26 pm
Location: Surrey, BC

MacNews wrote:
Gerry wrote:Where they raise gas taxes by X amount, they are lowering other taxes by the same amount. It is a tax shift.

Excellent public transit. Smaller cars, and fewer of them. Much higher road taxes and fuel prices than we have here, even with our new "carbon tax".
IMO, with the administrative costs involved it is not a 'revenue neutral' tax. No tax is, because of the costs it imposes on the user, the collector (Petro-Can) and the government via civil servants. Sure we'll get tax reductions out of it, but they'll be less than if the money had stayed in our pocket.

Image

Despite the myth that Europe uses transit way more than North America, that is not the case. Over 75% of their trips were by car in 2000. In the US in 1996 it was 85%. I don't believe a 10% difference deserves all the hype.
I'm glad you used IMO to start off your post, instead of declaring it as fact.

The government already collects tax on gasoline. Raising the tax by the amount of the new carbon tax costs nothing. There is no new bureaucracy to put in place.

When I say that the tax is revenue neutral it is because the government says that it is. They will not take in any additional taxes because of this carbon tax. I know that governments sometimes do not do what they say they will do, but for now that is the stated goal and is all we can comment on. Thus, the tax is revenue neutral and not an imposition on the tax payer as a group. Some will pay more and some will pay less. To some degree we have the ability to decide which group we will be in.

As far as European auto usage goes, I don't know where you got your facts or how complete they are. I don't want to get into a stat war with anyone. I have been there and seen the size of the cars they drive, the price for fuel, the number of people I know there and what percentage of them have and use cars versus the people I know here and what percentage of them have and use cars and how much and how far and how big the vehicles are. There is no comparison. They use much smaller cars much less frequently for shorter trips. They own more bicycles and they take a train or a tram more often than we do here. I notice that your graph includes only trips by motorized vehicles. There's no mention of walking or using a bicycle. People in Europe walk a lot and bike a lot. Where you drive to the video store or grocery store, they'll go a much shorter distance on foot or bicycle.

Get a stat on gas or diesel consumption per person per year from Europe and then from Canada or the US and there will be a big difference, I'm sure. If I have the urge to stick a fork in my eye I'll look it up.
Enough is enough.
Post Reply