Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your
contribution is not tax-deductible.)
PayPal Acct:
Feedback:
Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):
[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ] |
Subject: Holden/Vauxhall cars in Canada | |
Author: Andrew(Canada) | [ Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
] Date Posted: 09:05:10 12/08/04 Wed personally, i would really like to see GM bring either its Vauxhall or Holden brand to Canada. Canadians have a greater sense of style and are more frugal and prudent then the US, which is why i think the Chevrolet brand isn't right for Canada. Canadians enjoy sportier, smaller cars more than the US, who are forever in love with their giant trucks and SUVs that guzzle petrol. Canada has seen the introduction of the Yaris hatchback(sold as the Echo hatchback) and the Smart Fortwo, while the US does not have either of these vehicles. i think its time GM started treating the Canadian market differently than the US market, because they are distinct. As well, I would like to see the return of Rover & MG, and I would like to see our politicans(PM and Premiers at least) being driven around in cars manufactured in the Commonwealth by Commonwealth companies, like Rover, MG, or Jaguar(even though its now a Ford subsidiary). [ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ] |
[> Subject: MG Rover is being sold to the Chinese... | |
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 10:04:26 12/08/04 Wed Soon, Ariel, Caterham, Morgan or Noble (all very small sports car manuafacturers) will the only British car companies left. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> Subject: To be fair they're setting up a joint venture with the Chinese.... | |
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:53:38 12/14/04 Tue Which if it works will quickly become much bigger than the UK operation, and will be 70% owned by the Chinese. But then, the only reason it will work is because it will sell cheap Chinese made tat to China, rather than trying to sell expensive British tat to Britain. At the end of the day car making is terminally unprofitable for virtually every first world manufacturer - which is why the only car firms left in British ownership are niche operators - or rejects it was too expensive for the Germans to liquidate. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> Subject: Cars | |
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 11:28:03 12/08/04 Wed There are four car manufacturers operating in Australia - Ford, General Motors, Toyota and Mitsubishi (all foreign). Australia is a net-importer of cars overall. There are quite a few Jaguars and MGs/Rovers around where I live. Australian politicians are driven around in some Australian made car I do not know the name of. I think GM used to sell their cars in Australia under the Vauxhall badge but it has been Holden for some time now. Personally, I much prefer public transport to cars. They are destroying our cities, we should just get rid of them and install light rail! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> Subject: light-rail | |
Author: Andrew(Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:29:47 12/08/04 Wed well you would be happy to know that public transport seems to be much more popular in Canada in the US as well...i do not own a car and i dont think i will ever unless i live in a very rural area or if i have more than two children, and if i did get one it would be along the lines of a Yaris or something...but i agree public transport should be the most used mode of transport in Canada, and only our Heads of State and people in rural areas should even think about using cars. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> Subject: I totally disagree, I think everyone should have a choice, but I work for the CAA | |
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 15:50:52 12/08/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> Subject: A British perspective... | |
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:11:02 12/08/04 Wed We all know the arguments about choice versus collective responsility etc., but in a country which is small enough for public transport to be a really viable alternative, we have seen another side of this question which doesn't seem to arise in big places where public transport is rather pointless. Specifically, public transport is a flawed concept. It doesn't get you from A to B, it gets you from somewhere near A to somewhere near B. Given that the main users of public transport are both poor and elderly, this is a problem, our only solution to which so far has been to pay for taxis to take elderly people to the bus stop or train station. What, frankly, is the point, when they could just take the taxi the rest of the way, especially as they're usually only going into town to get cat food? And, if one can afford it, who would not rather sit in one's own private vehicle than sit on some filthy old seat getting chewing gum on one's new trousers while the senile old biddie next to you tries to show you the pieces of paper which she keeps in her purse and telling where she found them all, and why they remind her of her late budgie? Now, I live in two towns where the use of cars is rather limited in usefulness, but for two different reasons. In Venice they'd sink (much like the rest of the city ho ho). In London, however, there's nowhere to park, it costs 5 pounds every time you want to bring the car in, CCTV cameras will fine you 100 quid for going one mph over the speed limit, petrol in Britain costs almost £4 per gallon (70% tax), and if by chance you do find a parking space, it costs 20p for six minutes (2 pounds per hour, on top of the £5 entrace fee), and if the meter runs out a minute before you get back, your car is clamped and it costs you £80 to get it unclamped. This, in my opinion, is revealing: the only way that the authorities can get us to choose public transport over the motorcar is to make using cars articficially inconvenient and expensive... and still people use cars. This tells us quite clearly, I think, how much more convenient it is to give public transport a miss and take the car. Is this, do you think, the result of the fact that British public transport is both expensive and crap, or is it universal? [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Exactly | |
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:31:30 12/08/04 Wed When I lived in London, I could get the tube from South Kensington to the city in less than half an hour, and is probably the best transport option. A small town on the Ayrshire coast is not London however, although the public transport is surprisingly good. I live a ten minute walk away from the train station. The train station is a 20 minute walk from my office. A daily train journey is marginally cheaper than taking the car, but the total commute time is about an hour and a half longer, assuming the trains run on time (quite an assumption). I am quite prepared to pay a small premium to listen to my CDs in my car, than to listen to other people’s mobile phone conversations whilst catching their cold. This is in addition to adding an extra 1.5 hours to my day. Thankfully I work from home a lot, so I can escape the choice. This Government fails to understand that you cannot force people to use public transport by pricing people off the roads. The people themselves have to choose to use it, and this requires a substantial improvement. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Addendum... | |
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:34:33 12/08/04 Wed ...just read that over, and realised it didn't make any sense. I meant to say "The destination train station is a 20 minute walk from my office"... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Substantial improvement? Hah! | |
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 16:48:58 12/08/04 Wed I read that next year, because the service is getting worse and worse, the train companies are reacting by putting up prices. Smashing. I'll sell my car, then. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Addendum #2 | |
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:06:59 12/08/04 Wed I have just booked my flight ticket back to London for next week when term finishes. Including tax, the return fare in fact comes to much less than the train ticket from London Euston to Shrewsbury. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: and... | |
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 21:28:23 12/08/04 Wed When I fly down to London, I often pay less for the flight than the rail connection from Stansted to Liverpool Street! Work that one out... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: This is the age of the train.... | |
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:15:27 12/17/04 Fri Maintaining thousands of miles of ageing track and rural stations is more expensive than maintaining a few subsidised runways and departure lounges and using untaxed aviation fuel, and the more commercial and competitive operations of the low-cost fliers use exremely low advance teaser rates and last-minute deals to keep passenger numbers up, since an empty seat is almost as expensive to get in the air as an occupied one. However in real terms, railways are probably more cost efficient than flight for getting people from A to B, and certainly have a lot more capacity. I don't know what the answer is. I think we should invest in a modern highspeed backbone, but the truth is that other European countries that have this tend to either price most of the population out of the new services (Spain), or run quite low quality or non-existent local services. Britain has the second largest railway network in Europe, and one of the largest in the world, despite our small size geographically. We have only marginally fewer miles of track then Germany, despite that country's extra 20m souls and significantly larger land area. This is expensive, but it's also a valuable asset that shouldn't be squandered. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Pricing... | |
Author: Roberdin [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 19:40:32 12/08/04 Wed It won't in a few years when someone realises that they just burnt the last drop of oil, oh wait, I forgot GNER's promise... "If you find a method of transport more expensive than us, we WILL BEAT IT. Yes! That's right! If you can find a more expensive option than us, we will personally raise the price just for you! Be it a ferrari, private jet, or space craft, we Can do better!" [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: I always use the trains when I am in London, but I have to drive in Canada | |
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:31:43 12/08/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> Subject: public transport | |
Author: Andrew(Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:27:54 12/08/04 Wed public transport of course isn't the solution on its own, and i think that's what a lot of governments dont realise. Cities and neighbourhoods need to be designed to be pedestrian oriented(no cars allowed on streets, compact street design, high density housing), so that everything you need is within walking distance (supermarket, school, office, shops, etc.) If you had cities designed like this, people would only use public transport to get between neighbourhoods and cities because everything is already so close to themselves, and maybe for the elderly or the lazy, there can be light rail going along the major arteries of the neighbourhood, for those times when a 10 min walk might be too much for them. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> Subject: Problem is that a lot of people want to live in low-density car-oriented suburbs | |
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:33:04 12/08/04 Wed I should know, I am an urban planner and intensification in the Toronto area has never worked. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: well, hopefully things will change... | |
Author: Andrew(Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:38:48 12/08/04 Wed well, i have a feeling those who were born in the 1940s-1970s were conditioned to believe that suburbs were the next big thing, but i think a lot of younger people like myself, at least from what i can tell, dont want to make the same mistakes (in terms of the environment) that our parents did...thats why i like Victoria, at least the part i live in, because everything is within a 10 minute walk besides my school and work, so i only take transit on those occasions where im going to either work or school, except in the summer, i tend to ride my bike then. but ive noticed, in Vancouver especially, a few developments within the city that our pedestrian oriented, and it seems the waiting list to get into those is quite high... [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Victoria is a beautiful city - I was there when I was in the Navy | |
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:32:48 12/08/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I see your point | |
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:38:44 12/08/04 Wed Too many people use cars for short-distance local trips, when they could walk or cycle. I believe that cars are good for long-distance and by-pass trips. I was appalled that a woman who lives near me drives her kids to school when it rains or it is cold and their school is only two blocks away - a ten minute walk! They could easily put on sweaters and jackets, or raincoats and rubber boots and enjoy splashing through puddles on their way to school. The are denied this pleasure by this over-use of the car. If we cut out all these local trips by auto, we could cut down on congestion and pollution and makes our streets safer. However, I still believe that the automobile is best for long-distance trips. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> Subject: Designer cities | |
Author: Ed Harris (Venezia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 20:42:00 12/08/04 Wed The idea that one can design places to live based on such things as you suggest is a very good one, but in Britain we have a problem with that: all the towns are already there and have been for some time. In fact, they have been there for many centuries before there was any transport except by foot of by horse. Then trains and trams and omnibuses and eventually cars came along, and we had to spend a fortune on adapting our cities to cope with them - one of the reasons why London is so ugly is that we tried to do this in the 1930s by knocking most of it down. Come over to Regents Street and just look what the buggers have done to it. Now we are trying to superimpose a pedestrian-based system onto a car-based system which was superimposed onto a pedestrian-based system, and the whole thing is just a mess. I cite two examples which might prove my point. Firstly, Milton Keynes and Telford were designed after the War in the car-age, with cars specifically in mind. They are a nightmare: the ugliest places in Britain and the least convenient when you get out of your car, full of roundabouts, dual carriageways, wind-swept shopping precincts and something hideous which is apparently called "the grid system". It's worse than America. Hell, they're worse even than New Zealand. Secondly, there is Cheltenham, which the Lib Dem council recently decided to pedestrianise. Not only was it bad enough for cars in the first place, on account of it having been constructed in the 1750s, but now it is a nightmare. The traffic diversions, one-way streets, flyovers, tunnels and all the rest of it which were necessitated by banning cars from the town centre cost millions and have pretty much doubled the journey time into work for most people. There is also a mysterious creature called "Park and Ride"... I'm not entirely sure what this is, but I am informed that it required the bulldozing of several acres of ancient deciduous forest just outside the town. This leads me to think that having towns which are good for cars and towns which are good for people are mutually exclusive. One can't have both. Oh, and Jim, and American friend of mine once told me a story (I don't know if it's true, but I pray not!) about the time when he moved into his new suburban house and invited the next-door neighbours round for dinner. At the appointed time (I don't know when they eat over there but I guess about 8 o'clock) my friend went out onto the porch to welcome his neighbours. He saw them come out of their house and wave. They got into their car. They drove down the drive, onto the street, up his drive, and got out, and said, "Howdy, thanks for inviting us, pardner," or words to this effect. Sometimes, people scare me. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: Low Density | |
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:46:32 12/09/04 Thu Ed, the point you made at the end there is exactly why we should stay away from building low-density suburbs. All they do is encourage car dependency which in turn leads to increased air pollution, higher obesity rates (due to less walking) and a poorer quality environment. To me, Los Angeles serves as an example of how not to build a city. The dependency on cars and too much low-density leads to a very bad place in an environmental and social sense. In my opinion, we should be doing everything we can to encourage higher densities and more public transport. This means no major road building projects (especially motorways) and many large public transport projects. I support the idea of charging motorists to enter the CBD as is the case in London. I would like to see a return to the day of trams. In the good old days there were hundreds of trams travelling all over Sydney. They were all removed up to the 1960s with the increase in the use of cars. One modern light rail line has returned. I prefer light rail to buses due to less pollution and faster loading times, although buses are obviously a lot better than cars. The NSW Government seems intent on turning Sydney into another Los Angeles, having constructed a series of new motorways throughout the city and crippling the railways, although Melbourne retains a relatively good tram system. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: I believe in a balance of new expressways and new public transit | |
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:17:29 12/09/04 Thu [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Bringing back light rail would be great for poor old Sydney | |
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:24:05 12/16/04 Thu Sydney people used to laugh at Melbourne's trams for being so old-fashioned. I rather suspect no one does that anymore. Certainly not anyone who has actually used them. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: Sydney | |
Author: David (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 09:43:38 12/17/04 Fri There is actually one small light rail line that was constructed in Sydney in the late 1990s, I think. I doesn't really go anywhere though, only a few kilometres from Central Station to Lilyfield in the inner-west. In my opinion light rail should be brought back to reduce the number of buses (it would be useful as it doesn't create pollution and has faster loading times). Light rail would be useful in the CBD and perhaps also other business centres such as North Sydney, Chatswood and Parramatta. It would also be useful where there are no or poor rail services such as in the Eastern suburbs. The last tram line to close down was in the 1960s from Central to La Perouse, why they don't bring this line back is beyond me. Unless the government is willing to build a heavy rail line, the entire eastern suburbs except perhaps Edgecliff where there is already heavy rail could do with light rail. Having to share lanes in the road with cars is increadibly annoying. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> [> [> [> Subject: light and heavy rail in car-mad Sydney | |
Author: Ian (Australia) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:22:22 12/17/04 Fri The greater part of that light rail line from central through Pyrmont to Lilyfield was a disused freight line. Thankfully it was put to good use rather than ripped up. The huge mass of outer western suburbs could do with more heavy rail spurs with light rail feeder networks to get people to them. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> [> Subject: You're too harsh, Ed. | |
Author: Nick (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 13:00:13 12/16/04 Thu My experience of travelling overseas is that I usually come back to Britain and am shocked at how petite, neat, clean and orderly it all looks. Of course then someone will gob on the street in front of me while dropping a McDonalds carton full of fries and ketchup all over the place and I will wake up, but I don't share your assessment that Britain looks ugly and untidy in comparison with most foreign destinations - perhaps living in Italy is having a distorting affect on your view? And as for Regent Street being in a terrible state - come on! I'd rather it had been left in its original Regency form, but it still looks like it was built in that era, and although it could be better maintained, it's one of the most attractive shopping streets anywhere.... In the US they base whole residential districts on Regent Street and charge millions of dollars for the privilege of living there. Self-criticism is all very fine and British etc., but it has to be realistic and kept in context! [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> Subject: Cars | |
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 12:24:46 12/08/04 Wed Most Canadians now drive Japanese cars - I have a Honda Civic. By the way, I work for the Canadian Automobile Association, so I would be out of a job if you got rid of cars (something that will never happen in North America). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> Subject: Canadian Cars | |
Author: Dave (UK) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 14:50:09 12/08/04 Wed I noticed a lot of SUVs when I was there. I hired one - but I was advised that they were necessary, as a lot of the roads in some of the national parks are in a pretty poor state. Come to think of it, I think a tracked vehicle would have been more appropriate than a 4x4 for some roads! I thought that driving would be very cheap given that petrol is half the price of UK fuel. However, I found that my Jeep drank it twice as quickly, so the cost worked out about the same. [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> Subject: SUVs | |
Author: Andrew(Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 17:33:12 12/08/04 Wed its true that there are still quite a few people who for some daft reason think an SUV is a good choice of vehicle in Canada, how they afford the fuel costs is beyond me, or how they can have a clear conscience...however, i had the misfortune to live in texas for two years, and, i kid you not, EVERY OTHER car was either a truck or an SUV...it was appalling...so i may be a bit biased, but compared to texas, Canada does not have nearly as many...personally i hope the Canadian Gov't will put a hefty tax on unefficient vehicles to discourage those who don't need them from buying them(those who do, such as farmers, would be exempt from the tax). [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> Subject: It's referred to as 'keeping up with the Joneses' | |
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:33:50 12/08/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |
[> [> [> [> Subject: I think we are getting a bit off-topic here - we should get back to discussing the federation plan | |
Author: Jim (Canada) [ Edit | View ] |
Date Posted: 18:39:56 12/08/04 Wed [ Post a Reply to This Message ] |