Originally Posted by GeeCee
What part of 'potential' don't you understand? Car drivers are constantly being hit with the stick (carbon tax, provincial and federal fuel taxes).. we should be improving non-SOV infrastructure rather than punishing those that don't ride bikes or take transit everywhere. But I wouldn't really expect anything else from someone with as many posts as you in the bicycle infrastructure thread.
I know that it is a common perception than car driver are paying thru the noise for the privilege to use roads like there is a common perception that all transit users are cheating, but those perceptions are obviously not supported by facts.
The car driver pay only a fraction of the cost of the facilities they use:
the mot budget
is supporting this assertion,
and when you consider all the external cost like accident, health, pollution (not even talking about GHG, but just local pollution like noise..), time lost in congestion...You will quickly find out that the reality is that car drivers are barely paying more than lip service for their transportation choice, and eventually transit user are paying a more complete share of the total cost of their transportation mode than motorist.
Obviously saying that we "punish" driver is a question of viewpoint: I find out they benefit of an extraordinary privilege to be HST exempt when they go to the gas pump...(but electric vehicle has to pay the HST on their energy!).
Originally Posted by GeeCee
Right now, the cost of transit is by and large subsidized by drivers...
Is that true?
Well Translink is also responsible for road and bridge benefitting primarly to driver, from Translink plan
, you will find that transit user pay roughly 50% of the operating cost, and driver in the tune of 25%...not sure that fit the definition of "large subsidy". That said, is it fair to have the driver to subsidy the transit?
Transit by removing car from the road, benefit to motorist:
So instead to build more road, we put more transit and have basically the same result in term of congestion, so there is some rational to have the motorist to contribute to Transit, since it makes is life easier.
Originally Posted by BCPhil
I don't get why SoF residents would want vehicle levies. It makes absolutely no sense. It shifts the burden of funding transit from those close to the city that enjoy the best service to those in the burbs that have poor access and typically lower incomes.
Well that is a problem of the vehicle levy.
But yo could also consider that putting the burden of tax on properties value,
you make people living close to transit overpay for it since real estate is usually more expensive.
Taking the example of Vancouver and Surrey:
It is no secret that Transit in Vancouver is near to break even, while in Surrey, fare recovery is dismissal: Why those people living in Vancouver, not all rich, far from it (and here also there is some wrong perception: you will see from stat Canada
that there are numerous postal code in Vancouver where average income is lower than most of the SoF area) should subsidize the Transit operation in Surrey where the city is happily opening new land to development, expecting someone else gonna foot the bill for providing a bus to those transit unfriendly new acreage?
Sure the transit levy has some drawback, but the property tax too, one "punish" a behavior we want to discourage (people over relying on car), and the other one punish a behavior we want to encourage (have people living close to Transit).
I believe, we should deliver full credit to Dianne Watts to not take a parochial stand on the issue, and instead speak in the interest of the region, which is also the interest of Surrey.
That says a vehicle levy is not a good enough move, since it punish the car ownership, but a car sitting in a garage/driveway doesn't impact the region traffic.
What is harming the region traffic and its economy (congestion toll), is all those driver hitting the road, a limited resource, at the same time.
And when the resource is limited, the best way to allocate it is to resort to a road pricing scheme.
So yes a vehicle levy could not be good enough, but it is a step toward a transport demand management (which ultimately is road pricing), so it is still better than a property tax.