Translink & 0.5% vote (merged)

Im always wary of this type of idea. People do weird sh*t to avoid paying for things. See this.

I get the fear of 'unintended consequences', however, we're not farming rats here. Put a 'toll ring' around Vancouver.
- Lions Gate Bridge
- Second Narrows
- Port Mann - already in place
- Patullo
- Alex Fraser
- Massey Tunnel, well, put it on the replacement bridge

Then, do you put them on the north arm of the Fraser as well ? That would 'double toll' those in Delta and White Rock, but, Richmond would avoid a toll. Maybe the technology could allow for a single toll if you come in from south of the fraser?

This would impact real estate and future development for sure, but, the tolls could not be avoided if you want to come into Vancouver.

1. that wasn't the statement i made
2. you made the point about increased road capacity - not skytrain
3. don't be obtuse.

You said it would cost more to go through more expensive/affluent areas. Perhaps those areas, which are wanting expensive solutions to better transit should cover the cost, or they should accept a better roadway infrastructure to reduce the congestion issue. If that means paying for elevated roadways or underground roadways (equivelant to adding lanes), or providing expensive land, then so be it.

Try driving in other cities in the world that have a properly designed road infrastructure. You'll realize how poorly designed Vancouver's is and why the level of congestion is what it is.

I get the fear of 'unintended consequences', however, we're not farming rats here. Put a 'toll ring' around Vancouver.
- Lions Gate Bridge
- Second Narrows
- Port Mann - already in place
- Patullo
- Alex Fraser
- Massey Tunnel, well, put it on the replacement bridge

Then, do you put them on the north arm of the Fraser as well ? That would 'double toll' those in Delta and White Rock, but, Richmond would avoid a toll. Maybe the technology could allow for a single toll if you come in from south of the fraser?

This would impact real estate and future development for sure, but, the tolls could not be avoided if you want to come into Vancouver.

They mayors plan includes road pricing, but this is 8-10 years out, it will likely be gps based making it fairer across the region, i.e. you pay whether you cross a bridge or not.

I get the fear of 'unintended consequences', however, we're not farming rats here. Put a 'toll ring' around Vancouver.
- Lions Gate Bridge
- Second Narrows
- Port Mann - already in place
- Patullo
- Alex Fraser
- Massey Tunnel, well, put it on the replacement bridge

Then, do you put them on the north arm of the Fraser as well ? That would 'double toll' those in Delta and White Rock, but, Richmond would avoid a toll. Maybe the technology could allow for a single toll if you come in from south of the fraser?

This would impact real estate and future development for sure, but, the tolls could not be avoided if you want to come into Vancouver.

I don't disagree - but I think you're missing the Cambie, Granville, Burrard bridges.
Those that are living close to the downtown core can be incentivized to transit in

http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/03/09/TransLink-Biggest-Hater/

I don't disagree - but I think you're missing the Cambie, Granville, Burrard bridges.
Those that are living close to the downtown core can be incentivized to transit in

What about entry routes to downtown that don't go over a bridge, such as Hastings?

If you live in Newton and work in New Westminster you have to pay a toll, but if you live in Maple Ridge and work downtown you pay no toll. Not a equitable solution.

I get the fear of 'unintended consequences', however, we're not farming rats here. Put a 'toll ring' around Vancouver.
- Lions Gate Bridge
- Second Narrows
- Port Mann - already in place
- Patullo
- Alex Fraser
- Massey Tunnel, well, put it on the replacement bridge

Then, do you put them on the north arm of the Fraser as well ? That would 'double toll' those in Delta and White Rock, but, Richmond would avoid a toll. Maybe the technology could allow for a single toll if you come in from south of the fraser?

This would impact real estate and future development for sure, but, the tolls could not be avoided if you want to come into Vancouver.

The other problem is that you're (again) applying a regressive 'tax'. Also, you may be penalizing a certain 'class' of worker (the commuter who can't afford to live in the city, but cant find work anywhere else).

You could certainly set up incentives for public transit to avoid the toll, but we have to remember that public transit doesnt work for everyone either. For some people it's really tricky, some need their cars for work, some need to cart kids around, etc.

What about entry routes to downtown that don't go over a bridge, such as Hastings?

IMO most(all?) highways and bridges that require massive capital projects to be replaced should be tolled. Roadway maintenance is an OpEx problem.

Oh, and I'm still of the opinion that they should bump up Corporate tax rates (and let's throw in the top marginal rate, and cap gains tax while we're at it) before PST/tolls.

IMO most(all?) highways and bridges that require massive capital projects to be replaced should be tolled. Roadway maintenance is an OpEx problem.

Oh, and I'm still of the opinion that they should bump up Corporate tax rates (and let's throw in the top marginal rate, and cap gains tax while we're at it) before PST/tolls.

If taxes for income or business are raised, I hope that they go towards healthcare and education first.

You said it would cost more to go through more expensive/affluent areas.

that was stating the obvious; property costs are higher in vancouver (especially the west side)

Perhaps those areas, which are wanting expensive solutions to better transit should cover the cost

which areas would those be? i don't have any stats but i make a strong guess that people coming in from the outlying areas (those outside of vancouver, esp the west side) are the ones wanting better transit - more buses and skytrain or some other form of light rail heading west to the broadway corridor and out to ubc.

or they should accept a better roadway infrastructure to reduce the congestion issue. If that means paying for elevated roadways or underground roadways (equivelant to adding lanes), or providing expensive land, then so be it.

again, who is they? and, you're having a laugh if you think an elevated highway or tunnel is going to get built across the city - the cost would be exorbitantly expensive and is something we can't afford.

Try driving in other cities in the world that have a properly designed road infrastructure. You'll realize how poorly designed Vancouver's is and why the level of congestion is what it is.

one of the things that sets vancouver apart and makes it a great place to live is that the city is not cut up by freeways. just because most other major cities made the poor choice of freeways and putting the car first it doesn't mean vancouver should go the same route. one thing that works in vancouver's favour is that popular destination are clustered mainly along an east/west alignment, so some form of rapid transit would serve our needs well.

i really don't get what you're after here as your arguments seem completely nonsensical and unrelated to the subject at hand. after the downtown core, the major destinations west of main are the hospital and ubc, which is why the skytrain extension is being suggested. i would be happy to see light rail as well but that creates other issues. at the end of the day, the increase to pst is probably the most equitable way to pay for expanding transit and this seems to be supported by the argument you're trying to make.

You don't have any stats, just an opinion. Thanks for the opinion.

You don't have any stats, just an opinion. Thanks for the opinion.

lol - and you do? you based your entire point on opinion and offered nothing of substance when i question you on it. instead you deflected the point away from the one you originally raised. and now instead of bringing something of substance you just run away and hide by picking on one point that doesn't really need stats to support it, just common sense. why even bother to post if you aren't willing to back up your opinion?

all that aside, i still don't see what your original premise is. it appears that you're saying that people on the west side of the city should bear the brunt of the cost for transit improvements. my question to you is why and how do you support this statement?

You said it would cost more to go through more expensive/affluent areas. Perhaps those areas, which are wanting expensive solutions to better transit.

do you have stats to back that up? otherwise it's just pure speculation. thanks for sharing your speculation.

You neocons are pennywise and pound foolish to be prideful about that bridge that costs us so much, and then point to translink salaries as wasteful.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk