Newsgroups: bc.general
Subject: Re: Transit Levy on BC-Hydro Bills
From: emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 92 22:15:50 PST
Distribution: bc
Organization: Robert Smits

schuck@fraser.sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:

> emd@ham.almanac.bc.ca writes:
> 
> >schuck@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.

Robert Smits Ladysmith B.C. emd@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