Mobility Pricing - Page 8

aberdeen5698 · #**141** Posted **Jan 18, 2018, 5:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

that's ridiculous. that is NOT a choice. that is corocing by making 1 choice 4x worse.

It's an example. 4X the average is probably too much, but it has to be a fair bit higher than the average or else anyone who drives more than the average will just default to the "penalty" payment rather than paying their share.

My point is that many people will choose to be monitored if there's an incentive for them to do it. And having an alternative would address those who are afraid of privacy issues.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**142** Posted **Jan 18, 2018, 7:36 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It's an example. 4X the average is probably too much, but it has to be a fair bit higher than the average or else anyone who drives more than the average will just default to the "penalty" payment rather than paying their share.

My point is that many people will choose to be monitored if there's an incentive for them to do it. And having an alternative would address those who are afraid of privacy issues.

they arent choosing to be monitored because it is a choice they want to make. they are being forced to choose monitoring because the other option is designed to force them not to. if the choice to not be monitored is higher then what the average driver pays in the GVRD then the system is designed to coerce people into letting the government monitor them.

punishing people for being more private, and not wanting everything they do documented is unfair.

aberdeen5698 · #**143** Posted **Jan 18, 2018, 8:07 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

if the choice to not be monitored is higher then what the average driver pays in the GVRD then the system is designed to coerce people into letting the government monitor them.

And if the charge is merely the average then all the above-average drivers will refuse to be monitored and effectively cheat the government.

There has to be an incentive to be monitored. It's the same as insurance companies in some states giving you a discount for having a black box to record your driving habits. It's the government saying "yes, we recognize that this is an imposition, and so we're going to cut you a deal". It's not a stick against the refusers as much as it is a carrot for those who go along.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**144** Posted **Jan 18, 2018, 9:58 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

And if the charge is merely the average then all the above-average drivers will refuse to be monitored and effectively cheat the government.

There has to be an incentive to be monitored. It's the same as insurance companies in some states giving you a discount for having a black box to record your driving habits. It's the government saying "yes, we recognize that this is an imposition, and so we're going to cut you a deal". It's not a stick against the refusers as much as it is a carrot for those who go along.

if it was a carrot for those who go along, it would be less then the average. it is in-fact a stick since you are charging MORE. it is literally punishing people for not wanting to go along with what the government wants.

the difference with the insurance companies in The States that do it is that they charge the same amount as it would normally cost, and less if you do monitoring for being good.

what you are advocating for is changing more for those who wont go along. not less for those who do.

i doubt we will change each-others minds, though. i will never go along and go with government forcing something on the people by making the alternative worse as to coerce people into the preferred "choice."

i will never understand the people who want all the corporations/governments/people having access to everything in their lives. maybe I'm just an overly private person.

aberdeen5698 · #**145** Posted **Jan 18, 2018, 4:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i will never understand the people who want all the corporations/governments/people having access to everything in their lives. maybe I'm just an overly private person.

Ahh, the needs of the one vs. the needs of the many. How boring politics would be if everyone could agree on that...

WarrenC12 · #**146** Posted **Jan 18, 2018, 4:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

you cant charge someone 4x over the average and say it is still a choice. that is just punishing people for not wanting to be tracked wherever they go.

not everyone wants the government and corporations to know everything about them.

BC Hydro did it with smart meters. I'm not suggesting it's a good idea, but it happens. I'd call it political suicide.

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**147** Posted **Jan 19, 2018, 4:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

BC Hydro did it with smart meters. I'm not suggesting it's a good idea, but it happens. I'd call it political suicide.

i doubt mobility pricing would ever happen here.

remember that surcharge thing the NDP brought in back in the early 2000s. then there was that last election about "ending tolls!!!" and mobility pricing is just tolls on even more areas. haha.

it'll never happen. or if it does, the next election will be run on "ending mobility pricing!!!"

round and round we go.

Trainguy · #**148** Posted **Feb 2, 2018, 7:29 AM**

The truth about mobility pricing is finally here and we have nothing to worry about.

From news 1130:

The big issue Allan Seckel has is that none of these ideas has been finalized — and given that lack of certainty, he says we need keep this commission in perspective.

“The first [misconception] is that we’re going to finish our report, and people are immediately going to see mobility pricing implemented in this city,” says Seckel.

“It’s still a long way away. We don’t have the power to implement it as a commission. We’re just going to provide advice to TransLink and the Mayors Council, which essentially is saying — if you’re going to do mobility pricing, here’s how we think you should implement mobility pricing.

“It would then be up to a lot of work to happen to really fine tune what’s going to occur, select the right technology to be able to implement this kind of pricing, figure out exactly where you’d have your charging points in any system that you come up with, the specifics of privacy issues would have to be determined.

“There’s a lot of work that would have to happen, and ultimately the decision lies with our political leaders to determine how and when this will be implemented.” Translation: whatever provincial government in power has to ultimately approve or disapprove this political suicide bomb.

libtard · #**149** Posted **Feb 2, 2018, 7:48 AM**

Mobility pricing will never happen.

aberdeen5698 · #**150** Posted **Feb 2, 2018, 11:27 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by libtard

Mobility pricing will never happen.

It could well happen if it's pedaled as the cheapest option, or if it's promised to deliver benefits such as reducing congestion. It's all about how it's packaged and sold.

Bobert · #**151** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 10:00 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It could well happen if it's pedaled as the cheapest option, or if it's promised to deliver benefits such as reducing congestion. It's all about how it's packaged and sold.

That could be said for just about anything, but I think further taxation or usage fees are not going to be palatable by the public. Like at all. Especially with the affordability issues being top of mind for people in the region.

CanSpice · #**152** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 5:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bobert

That could be said for just about anything, but I think further taxation or usage fees are not going to be palatable by the public. Like at all. Especially with the affordability issues being top of mind for people in the region.

Which is why they're talking about having mobility pricing replace part of the gas tax. I was at the most recent round of stakeholder meetings, and the first question they asked was about how this would interact with the gas tax. Everybody was against mobility pricing coming in while the gas tax stayed as it is. Everybody said that the gas tax should be reduced so that the amount you'd pay for mobility pricing would offset the amount by which the gas tax would be reduced, so there'd be no net extra tax. It'd be a shifting of payments and not an increase.

WarrenC12 · #**153** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 5:33 PM**

It should absolutely be revenue neutral.

Gordon · #**154** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 6:13 PM**

Part of the revenue from mobility pricing would partially replace the gas tax, but new revenue streams are also required an that may well be mobility pricing.

Trainguy · #**155** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 10:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by CanSpice

Which is why they're talking about having mobility pricing replace part of the gas tax. I was at the most recent round of stakeholder meetings, and the first question they asked was about how this would interact with the gas tax. Everybody was against mobility pricing coming in while the gas tax stayed as it is. Everybody said that the gas tax should be reduced so that the amount you'd pay for mobility pricing would offset the amount by which the gas tax would be reduced, so there'd be no net extra tax. It'd be a shifting of payments and not an increase.

You think the oil companies are going to pass on the lower prices minus the extra taxes?? Yeah right. If we are filling up at today's prices, we will keep doing it and they would just keep the cash (former tax money).

WarrenC12 · #**156** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 10:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trainguy

You think the oil companies are going to pass on the lower prices minus the extra taxes?? Yeah right. If we are filling up at today's prices, we will keep doing it and they would just keep the cash (former tax money).

You have no idea how economics work, do you?

Particularly with respect to gasoline, taxes are everything.

whatnext · #**157** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 10:37 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It could well happen if it's pedaled as the cheapest option, or if it's promised to deliver benefits such as reducing congestion. It's all about how it's packaged and sold.

Nobody's going to believe it when a government claims a new tax will be revenue neutral. The NDP know they can basically kiss the South of Fraser seats they picked up goodbye if they ever introduce mobility pricing.

CanSpice · #**158** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 10:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trainguy

You think the oil companies are going to pass on the lower prices minus the extra taxes?? Yeah right. If we are filling up at today's prices, we will keep doing it and they would just keep the cash (former tax money).

So then that's a problem with the gas companies. I don't see why the government should be concerned about their greed, particularly when the public can see "hey the tax went down six cents, why didn't the gas prices?"

But then again gas stations right across the border to Abbotsford aren't 17 cents cheaper than those in Langley so the public can already see how greedy the gas stations are.

Trainguy · #**159** Posted **Feb 9, 2018, 10:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

You have no idea how economics work, do you?

Particularly with respect to gasoline, taxes are everything.

I know full well how economics works. I have seen it many times when the wholesale price of gasoline falls but the price doesn't. Then on the radio they say that the oil companies are taking some extra profit. Prices are always slow to come down, but quick to go up.

That's not rocket science... just the facts!!!

libtard · #**160** Posted **Feb 12, 2018, 11:27 PM**

Washington State (and probably many other states) has pay per mile insurance. How is this not on the table to be implemented in conjunction with mobility pricing?? Just absolutely ridiculous