HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #41  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 8:07 PM
cornholio cornholio is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 3,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by aberdeen5698 View Post
The problem with trying to change behaviour with a gas tax is that people don't associate the penalty with an individual trip. They fill up once every week or two and gripe about the cost of gas, but they don't think about it each day that they drive.

Associating a cost with a particular trip or with distance traveled makes a huge difference in the psychology of the penalty. When I was driving car share vehicles I was acutely aware of every minute spent waiting in congestion, and I made sure I got the maximum value out of every trip.

This is why the bridge tolls have had such a big impact on traffic volumes. People know exactly what they're paying each time they cross that bridge, and will often go to irrational lengths to avoid it.
The local municipality should not be in the business of social engineering or trying to change the behavior of their constituents. Actually not to sound like a broken record player but they don't imo have the mandate.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #42  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 10:25 PM
casper casper is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 2,211
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
The local municipality should not be in the business of social engineering or trying to change the behavior of their constituents. Actually not to sound like a broken record player but they don't imo have the mandate.
Every municipal government does this. The reason they chose to tax certain things and not other. The reason they use to fund certain projects and not others.

You either charge a flat fee for water or you meter water. One strategy has one social engineering outcome the other has a different. Vancouver is a good example of this.

You have a place like calgary that offers free LRT in the downtown core. It causes one outcome.

Saskatoon most new subdivisions are planned communicates done by the municipal government. Zoning dictates sidewalks, front decks, certain size buildings etc. It is all social engineering.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #43  
Old Posted Mar 3, 2017, 10:29 PM
Reecemartin's Avatar
Reecemartin Reecemartin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Toronto
Posts: 629
Yeah, I've always believed a big role for government to play is to push society in a way that is objectively better (as determined by various metrics). Most government policy is designed to act in such a way that it guides us in the right direction so we don't have to constantly be thinking out long term issues. And we hold the government accountable for this (ideally) every time there is an election.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #44  
Old Posted Mar 4, 2017, 1:28 AM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 2,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by cornholio View Post
The local municipality should not be in the business of social engineering or trying to change the behavior of their constituents. Actually not to sound like a broken record player but they don't imo have the mandate.
The local municipality cannot provide infinite road capacity. When capacity runs out they need to turn to measures to limit congestion. That means discouraging single occupancy vehicles and encouraging transit.

If you're not happy with that, then you might need to move to somewhere less populated.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #45  
Old Posted Mar 5, 2017, 6:32 PM
cairnstone cairnstone is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 373
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredinno View Post
If we need the extra cash, we can always dust off the HST, and privatize ICBC and BC Liquor. (and potentially BC Hydro and FortisBC?)

But of course, politics is politics. Hard decisions tend not to be made until the last minute.


PPP isn't government debt. If government doesn't have a share in the company, the risk is placed to the public sector. Thus the government gets no debt, and the company that faced that risk is the one who pays up the debt.



Unless America stops its obsession with everything big, that's not happening.

We try to distinguish ourselves from our neighbors to the south, but let's face it. The USA probably has more influence on us than we have on our ourselves.
in theory, 3P should not create government debt but in reality, governments are on the hook for cost overruns and underutilization costs. Plus also government is on the hook to complete if the 3P group falters. Example of this the PM1 was 3P but ended up being financed by province, and the province has to top up do to low user numbers. The only winner is the Private Companies that build.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #46  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2017, 1:56 AM
Trainguy Trainguy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 311
So much for region wide tolling. Come September 1st, no more tolls on the PMB and GEB.

For once a government has kept its promise to do something. I will save almost $1500 a year on tolls. The only thing I can see happening is that a lot more traffic is going to start using those 2 bridges and there will be more times of congestion. Will be interesting to see how this is going to play out. Somehow or another we are going to pay to make up the loss in revenue.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #47  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2017, 3:36 AM
memememe76 memememe76 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 551
As the guy on Global said, tolling is not gone forever. It could be back if more fairly or evenly implemented. I will miss my easy commute to Coquitlam. I will not miss paying a toll on a Tuesday at midnight.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #48  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2017, 3:37 AM
Pinion's Avatar
Pinion Pinion is offline
Lower Lonsdale YIMBY
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: City of North Vancouver
Posts: 4,623
When I go to the US from the north shore (once per month), Google always said the fastest route was over the Port Mann and through Surrey, but of course I'd go over Alex Fraser instead. I'll definitely be driving through Surrey now.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #49  
Old Posted Aug 26, 2017, 11:22 PM
go_leafs_go02 go_leafs_go02 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: London, ON
Posts: 2,367
Should have announced time-of-day toll rates on the two bridges, so you are paying something during peak hours, but little or nothing on weekends or overnight. I know trucks had some heavy discounts on the Port Mann, but nothing for typical cars and small trucks.

The fact the NDP is doing this is shocking. You'd like they'd want to push modal shift further and this will do the complete opposite.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #50  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2017, 12:27 AM
Sheba Sheba is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: BC
Posts: 1,658
Quote:
Originally Posted by go_leafs_go02 View Post
Should have announced time-of-day toll rates on the two bridges, so you are paying something during peak hours, but little or nothing on weekends or overnight. I know trucks had some heavy discounts on the Port Mann, but nothing for typical cars and small trucks.

The fact the NDP is doing this is shocking. You'd like they'd want to push modal shift further and this will do the complete opposite.
The NDP promised it to get suburban votes and they got them, so now they're nixing the tolls. It's a stupid plan but it's what they promised to do. Your idea of rush hour tolls makes a lot more sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #51  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2017, 6:42 AM
WarrenC12 WarrenC12 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: East OV!
Posts: 6,622
NDP fulfilling a promise. They've also nixed the GMT replacement in favour of pushing the Patullo. But I'm not sure where that leaves Translink, now they have a GEB that isn't generating any revenue. Time to take all roads away from their management, it just doesn't make sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #52  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2017, 4:26 PM
sburnaby33 sburnaby33 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 132
I am fine with this as it will help families quite a bit. Almost 1500 bucks a year for a toll is steep. Having to pay 6.30 a pop sounds excessive to me. A couple of bucks a day would have been more fair or a instituting a flexible pay system. During rush hour the rate would be $2 for example than it will go down to $0.75 cents for off peak hours. It will add more congestion to the two bridges because there will no longer be a toll.

If they do go with mobility pricing I hope that it is income tested. If you make x amount of dollars, you pay y. It will make things fairer. As well, I would like it to not affect shippers and business all that much. That is the last thing we need; high prices on groceries and essentials to offset the new tax.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #53  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2017, 10:16 PM
ClaytonA ClaytonA is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 336
Quote:
Originally Posted by WarrenC12 View Post
NDP fulfilling a promise. They've also nixed the GMT replacement in favour of pushing the Patullo. But I'm not sure where that leaves Translink, now they have a GEB that isn't generating any revenue. Time to take all roads away from their management, it just doesn't make sense.

No.

This is one of the strengths in that the transportation modes are treated more as a system of all modes. Look at the coordination issues and bureaucratic nightmare that is most other North American metropolitan areas made up of a number of cities. You think it would be better making a regional road body? Maybe giving it back to the province (because that's worked so well with the rural-urban provincial politics divide on transit...)? Breaking up Translink's mandate is thin edge of the wedge stuff to making this region work more poorly for everyone. Transportation is a multi-modal system, not just roads.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #54  
Old Posted Aug 27, 2017, 11:01 PM
MIPS's Avatar
MIPS MIPS is online now
SkyTrain Nut
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Kamloops
Posts: 870
I'm still willing to pay an annual tax rather than a per-use toll. Its one less time per week I have to pull my wallet out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #55  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2017, 3:59 AM
ssiguy ssiguy is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: White Rock BC
Posts: 5,143
I completely disagree with the idea of lower tolls and/or more time based ones with larger reductions in off-peak and weekends. The PM should be free. Period.

It's not that I am so much against tolls but rather how grossly unfairly they are applied. The HWY#1/PM project was a single project which came out of a single budget but somehow only the people SoF, who are much more likely to have to take the bridge end up paying for all of it. The people of the Ti-Cities, Burnaby/NV, and Vancouver itself certainly take advantage of the highway but god forbid they have to pay one plug nickel for their new found auto freedom.

$1400 a year for full time use is BIG money and most of the growth in Metro is in SoF in no small part due to the outrageous cost of housing in Vancouver much of it due to very conscious decisions made by those inner cities themselves.

A far fairer system , at least for HWY#1/PM, would have been to chrge everyone, for example, $1 everytime they get on the highway and thats it. No exit fee just getting on it so it's easier to administer. It would probably have raised more money but would have actually made the people NoF to contribute to the road.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #56  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2017, 5:06 AM
Cypherus's Avatar
Cypherus Cypherus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
A far fairer system , at least for HWY#1/PM, would have been to chrge everyone, for example, $1 everytime they get on the highway and thats it. No exit fee just getting on it so it's easier to administer. It would probably have raised more money but would have actually made the people NoF to contribute to the road.
Totally agree but instead of a pay per use system via electronic toll and the administration costs of collection, the fee can be collected at the gas pump like the carbon tax (GVRD gas stations only), since the measure of one's fuel consumption while in the GVRD is directly correlated to their use of its transportation network. You already have the administration in place.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #57  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2017, 5:12 AM
Cypherus's Avatar
Cypherus Cypherus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by sburnaby33 View Post
If you make x amount of dollars, you pay y. It will make things fairer. ....
Unfortunately many millionaires in Vancouver are paying very little into the income tax system because they earn very little income in Canada while the source of their wealth is generated over seas. This may not be fair in actual practice. Even if the CRA is targeting these people for failing to report their world income and pay into the Canadian income tax system, a consumption tax like a gas tax or increased PST rate that generally targets affluent individuals the most is the easiest to administer and collect.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #58  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2017, 8:12 AM
whatnext whatnext is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 6,994
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cypherus View Post
Unfortunately many millionaires in Vancouver are paying very little into the income tax system because they earn very little income in Canada while the source of their wealth is generated over seas. This may not be fair in actual practice. Even if the CRA is targeting these people for failing to report their world income and pay into the Canadian income tax system, a consumption tax like a gas tax or increased PST rate that generally targets affluent individuals the most is the easiest to administer and collect.
Even better would be a supertax on luxury cars over $100k, if they're going to evade tax, hit them in the wallet when they buy luxury goods.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #59  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2017, 1:46 PM
moosejaw moosejaw is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Miami
Posts: 354
Quote:
Originally Posted by whatnext View Post
Even better would be a supertax on luxury cars over $100k, if they're going to evade tax, hit them in the wallet when they buy luxury goods.
They'll just register them in montana like all supercar owners do. Montana has a lot of supercars registered

Look at the list

http://jalopnik.com/here-are-the-fan...n-m-1794538583
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #60  
Old Posted Aug 28, 2017, 7:11 PM
Geof Geof is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
A far fairer system , at least for HWY#1/PM, would have been to chrge everyone, for example, $1 everytime they get on the highway and thats it.
I agree that the tolls have unfairly fallen on those South of the Fraser. I am in favour of road pricing that applies to everyone equally. I support the idea that the public at large should contribute to public infrastructure, regardless of whether they personally use it.

But I do have a quibble with this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy View Post
The people of the Ti-Cities, Burnaby/NV, and Vancouver itself certainly take advantage of the highway
I live at Brentwood. It appears to me that highway expansion has dumped huge volumes of traffic onto local streets, where volumes have increased dramatically. I used to take Highway #1 fairly often. Now I avoid it like the plague. I have not been on it in months. In my opinion, this project has only had downsides for me and for my neighbourhood.

I was against the project. In my view, that money would have been better spent on a massive expansion of transit south of and across the Fraser. However, I realize that the project was probably politically irresistible, and my respect for democracy is such that I am willing to take my lumps. I agree with your main point that the cost of roads should be borne by all users. But the argument that I should pay because I benefit? Heck no. It's a disaster.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 5:16 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.