Ongoing Calgarians complaining about pedestrian bridges thread

[Rhettzky]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I also get the privilege of paying for the recycling, even if I don't use it. Last week, we had a grand total of 20 pieces of paper to recycle. Hardly worth it, so we didn't even put the tub out by the street.

You know the bin is for all recycling right? Cardboard, plastics, tin cans, and lots more. Not just pieces of paper. Maybe you do but our bin has been full almost every time the truck comes. And our garbage has been reduced by over half. It's really making a difference in our house.

Also, at least with this bridge we'll be able to look at it fifty years in the future and have something to show for it. There is a whole lot more squandered at city hall and the provincial building that will give us absolutely nothing to look back on.

[habernac]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Do you think you'll still want to do that when gas prices here reach what they are in Europe now?

or you can just be nuts like me and ride in from wayyyyy out in the suburbs anyway.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by habernac

or you can just be nuts like me and ride in from wayyyyy out in the suburbs anyway.

Yeah, you're crazy.

I suppose I just don't understand wanting to drive everywhere. If you have fast, reliable, ON TIME, transit systems, cars are unnecessary.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by SebC

If you still don't think suburban living gets subsidized in Calgary, I'd like to see your reasoning. If not, let's have the rest of this discussion on the basis that it is.

Arrogant much? How about we have the rest of this discussion on the basis that it is not?

[Barnes]

I live way out in the suburbs and I love my 45 minute bus ride. I sleep both ways.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by octothorp

isn't the vast majority of that difference going to be taken up by the more complicated construction and material costs, money that will go right back into the local economy? Is the steel going to be fabricated locally? Ditto the glass work? It's not like all of this extra spending is just going into Calatrava's pocket.

Yup, likely extra money going into various local contractors, providing jobs, etc. Even if the contractors are based out of town, they still would provide money into the local economy, by coming here to work, and spending money here.

A very good point to make. Fancy bridges are usually more money because they are more labour intensive then a standard bridge.

Fancy bridges don't use more raw materials then standard bridges, in fact, they often may use less. The extra cost of the bridge is almost all labour costs, costs that provide jobs for residents, and provide taxes to the government.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Yeah, you're crazy.

I suppose I just don't understand wanting to drive everywhere. If you have fast, reliable, ON TIME, transit systems, cars are unnecessary.

If we don't have the population base to support the C-Train or buses running 24 hours then that goal is probably a century or two off.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by calculoso

It could be fully paid for by the developer for all I know.

But you don't know.

Originally Posted by calculoso

New buses with absolutely no service? I'd say we're getting what we pay for. Those in the inner city should pay higher fees because they get more service!!

Ignoring the rest of the list doesn't void it. I'm talking (mainly) capital costs here, although if the operational costs are about the same this is an issue as taxation isn't.

Originally Posted by calculoso

Nope. They're paying for the service that they get, regardless of how crappy it is. They're paying taxes for services long before the services get built.

You're making my point here. The inner city gets services. Suburbia gets services plus capital projects, and the inner city has higher taxation.

Originally Posted by calculoso

As with most things, it all evens out.

All right, if you think it evens out, let's change our tax structure that so that communities are responsible for paying for the infrastructure that services them. Shouldn't matter to you, you think they already do.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by kermitology

Yeah, you're crazy.

I suppose I just don't understand wanting to drive everywhere. If you have fast, reliable, ON TIME, transit systems, cars are unnecessary.

Its so much faster to drive, plus its fun. Right now transit costs $7 a ride to taxpayers. With a plot the size of Calgary you're going to have to increase the population exponentially or pump a lot of money into it to make it any of those things. .

[Muta]

Originally Posted by calculoso

New buses with absolutely no service? I'd say we're getting what we pay for. Those in the inner city should pay higher fees because they get more service!!

No they shouldn't. Half the time I can't even get on the bus because it's already full of suburbanites who are riding it at the same cost that I pay, no less. If that isn't obvious subsidizing, I don't what is. And, at the cost of a physical seat.

A progressive bus fare system is long overdue, but I believe it's already being implemented in some routes?

Nevertheless, a REALLY easy way for the City to generate additional income is to charge people higher bus fare the further out they live. It makes sense on every level.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Muta

No they shouldn't. Have the time I can't get on the bus because it's already full of suburbanites who are riding it at the same cost that I pay, no less. If that isn't obvious subsidizing, I don't what is. And, at the cost of a physical seat.

A progressive bus fare system is long overdue, but I believe it's already being implemented in some routes?

Nevertheless, a REALLY easy way for the City to generate additional income is to charge people more the further out they live. It makes sense on every level.

Fact still remains its the car driving majority that pays most of your fare regardless of where in town you live.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Fact still remains its the silent car driving majority that pays most of your fare regardless of where in town you live.

Maybe, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a progressive bus fare system based on concentric circles, or something like that.

In Japanese cities if you take the bus, you pay when you get off; and, you pay the amount that is indicated on a digital, easy-to-read chart from where you started to where you finish. It's a pretty logical system. That way, someone that travels 2km is paying alot less than someone traveling 20km on the same bus.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Fact still remains its the car driving majority that pays most of your fare regardless of where in town you live.

True. My wife and I never ride the bus or c-train. But our tax dollars still goes towards subsidizing those that do.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Muta

Maybe, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a progressive bus fare system based on concentric circles, or something like that.

In Japanese cities if you take the bus, you pay when you get off; and, you pay the amount that is indicated on a digital, easy-to-read chart from where you started to where you finish. It's a pretty logical system. That way, someone that travels 2km is paying alot less than someone traveling 20km on the same bus.

On the same note, perhaps someone who never uses the public transportation system should pay a lot less in taxes than those that regularly do?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Rhettzky

You know the bin is for all recycling right? Cardboard, plastics, tin cans, and lots more. Not just pieces of paper. Maybe you do but our bin has been full almost every time the truck comes. And our garbage has been reduced by over half. It's really making a difference in our house.

Yup I do. Some of it is that my family is still in the middle of being trained about recycling (man.. what a battle), but even still there wasn't a lot that could have been recycled. Used kleenex, used pizza boxes, plastic covered paper, etc... stuff that can't go in there anyway.

[Bigtime]

Originally Posted by Rerun

True. My wife and I never ride the bus or c-train. But our tax dollars still goes towards subsidizing those that do.

The same could be said of motorists that will never utilize overpasses and freeways in parts of our city.

Where do we draw the line in these arguments? Or do we just grow old and die and let the next generation argue all over again?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

The same could be said of motorists that will never utilize overpasses and freeways in parts of our city.

Where do we draw the line in these arguments? Or do we just grow old and die and let the next generation argue all over again?

Exactly. Even if someone doesn't use a service, doesn't mean that the option to use it is not provided.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by SebC

But you don't know.

Neither do you, and yet you're assuming that you're right. I'm not making that step.

Originally Posted by SebC

You're making my point here. The inner city gets services. Suburbia gets services plus capital projects, and the inner city has higher taxation.

Suburbia doesn't get the service.

The inner city has higher property values, based on many things including these better services, so have to pay higher property taxes based on it.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Rerun

True. My wife and I never ride the bus or c-train. But our tax dollars still goes towards subsidizing those that do.

Yeah, but subsidizing public transit gets cars off the roads that you use, so there's a benefit to you. What benefit does someone living in Kensington get from a new police station in Copperwood?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Bigtime

The same could be said of motorists that will never utilize overpasses and freeways in parts of our city.

Where do we draw the line in these arguments? Or do we just grow old and die and let the next generation argue all over again?

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Exactly. Even if someone doesn't use a service, doesn't mean that the option to use it is not provided.

And as a result, it all evens out in the end.