Mobility Pricing and all bridges tolled - Coming Soon

[Hehe]

BC gov't doesn't get it. People are driving not because they wanted to, but because they have no other option. Our public transportation is a joke, and pouring more money into it does not make financial sense because we have an area too big to cover with too little population density.

They need to do a few things:
1 - Build some fucking roads and bridges instead of funding Translink. Stop selling/permitting residential developments and use the land/money for infrastructure.

2 - Give incentives (financial and/or environmental) for companies to develop outside of GVR like Abbotsford, Langley... etc. US follows this model more or less, that's why they would have 2 or more dominant cities in the same statistic metro area. (Seattle-Redmond-Bellevue, San Fran-Silicon Valley, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Minneapolis Twin City... etc). Why in the heck keep bringing everything into Vancouver/Burnaby/Richmond/New West when their infrastructures can no longer support further growth without major $$$?

Seriously, the day they introduce this shitty system would be the day people start looking into loopholes. I can already think of *renting* WA plate cars to BC residents as they don't have agreement; hence no way to force them to pay for tolls.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by Hehe

Seriously, the day they introduce this shitty system would be the day people start looking into loopholes. I can already think of *renting* WA plate cars to BC residents as they don't have agreement; hence no way to force them to pay for tolls.

I'll "rent" you my Kelowna address to use for your car insurance if they go with those stupid trackers.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by underscore

I'll "rent" you my Kelowna address to use for your car insurance if they go with those stupid trackers.

Marked and thanked.

[Liquid_o2]

Originally Posted by Hehe

BC gov't doesn't get it. People are not driving because they wanted to, but because they have no other option. Our public transportation is a joke, and pouring more money into it does not make financial sense because we have an area too big to cover with too little population density.

They need to do a few things:
1 - Build some fucking roads and bridges instead of funding Translink. Stop selling/permitting residential developments and use the land/money for infrastructure.

2 - Give incentives (financial and/or environmental) for companies to develop outside of GVR like Abbotsford, Langley... etc. US follows this model more or less, that's why they would have 2 or more dominant cities in the same statistic metro area. (Seattle-Redmond-Bellevue, San Fran-Silicon Valley, Dallas-Ft. Worth, Minneapolis Twin City... etc). Why in the heck keep bringing everything into Vancouver/Burnaby/Richmond/New West when their infrastructures can no longer support further growth without major $$$?

Seriously, the day they introduce this shitty system would be the day people start looking into loopholes. I can already think of *renting* WA plate cars to BC residents as they don't have agreement; hence no way to force them to pay for tolls.

You do realize that Translink operates many of the bridges in Metro Vancouver right? Patullo Bridge, Knight Street, Golden Ears... they just don't do public transit. And how do you stop permitting residential development? Where do we house the growing population in communities? If you stopped building residential development, the current price appreciation would be a drop in a bucket. This is the most stupid idea I've ever heard. It would get any politician voted out of office so quickly, or any planner fired immediately.

We actually have a very small area for public transportation to cover compared to many North American cities. We are bound on all four sides by geographical features that stops the progression of development. Unlike Calgary or Kansas City or Atlanta, we know where we stop in terms of developable area. We didn't have to create a fake boundary like the GTA did. All we can do now is densify and increase public transit around those high density corridors and nodes to keep moving people.

And incentive packages? Two issues.
#1, it is the municipalities responsibility to offer the incentive package... Metro Vancouver not the Province will not, and will never provide incentive packages for companies to locate in one city or another. The Province can offer incentives for companies to come to BC I suppose, but could not favor any municipality by providing tax breaks, funding, etc. So go talk to Langley's economic development office about offering tax incentives to bring in more business into the community. Maybe they already do it... maybe you can help them figure out a way to make Langley more attractive for business.

#2, companies will locate where they have access to employment, access to education, and co-location of similar like companies. Tech companies will locate in Vancouver more often than not because the educational institutions are there, the recent graduates are there, thats where the labour force is, and that is where most tech companies are already located. They also need the amenity packages of an urban area to satisfy their employees, and they likely want Class A office space. A company producing agricultural products... well it makes more sense for them to locate in Surrey or Langley where the land prices are cheaper for their 100,000 square foot facility, plus more of their labour force is probably there as well. They also need highways to get their goods to trains or the port or airport or wherever they are shipping to. Every large company has a set criteria for site location when going into a new area or region. Microsoft is not going into Abbotsford, Versa Cold is not going to locate in downtown Surrey.

It's amazing that whenever a thread like this gets started, everyone on this forum becomes an economic development or urban planning or transportation expert. Most of the stuff that's posted is good for a laugh at most.

[Tapioca]

Originally Posted by Liquid_o2

You do realize that Translink operates many of the bridges in Metro Vancouver right? Patullo Bridge, Knight Street, Golden Ears... they just don't do public transit. And how do you stop permitting residential development? Where do we house the growing population in communities? If you stopped building residential development, the current price appreciation would be a drop in a bucket. This is the most stupid idea I've ever heard. It would get any politician voted out of office so quickly, or any planner fired immediately.

We actually have a very small area for public transportation to cover compared to many North American cities. We are bound on all four sides by geographical features that stops the progression of development. Unlike Calgary or Kansas City or Atlanta, we know where we stop in terms of developable area. We didn't have to create a fake boundary like the GTA did. All we can do now is densify and increase public transit around those high density corridors and nodes to keep moving people.

We're bound by decisions urban planners made in the 1960s and 1970s. We can't really build more bridges and roads because there aren't any corridors left to secure, unless the province starts expropriating lands. Not cheap, particularly at today's prices.

I think there's plenty of Crown land in the Lower Mainland to convert to residential or commercial, but a lot of it is in the ALR. There's also the issue of Aboriginal title. It's probably politically difficult to remove those designations and given current land prices, it would be foolish for the province to give it away to developers for a song. The provincial government would have to cut a deal with First Nations too, which wouldn't be cheap. People are still complaining about the deal for the Expo '86 site today.

The key is better public transit. However, people are quick to blame Translink, when really, the governance model and the funding are the problems. What needs to happen is that if the NDP is serious about competing in next year's election, they need to come up with a plan to reform Translink and the governance model. No one government can do much about housing prices, but they can at least ease the burden of getting around by campaigning on public transit.

[Mr.C]

The car tracker is a thingy that plugs into the OBD2 port.

Time to get a car with OBD1, heh.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by Liquid_o2

You do realize that Translink operates many of the bridges in Metro Vancouver right? Patullo Bridge, Knight Street, Golden Ears... they just don't do public transit. And how do you stop permitting residential development? Where do we house the growing population in communities? If you stopped building residential development, the current price appreciation would be a drop in a bucket. This is the most stupid idea I've ever heard. It would get any politician voted out of office so quickly, or any planner fired immediately.

We actually have a very small area for public transportation to cover compared to many North American cities. We are bound on all four sides by geographical features that stops the progression of development. Unlike Calgary or Kansas City or Atlanta, we know where we stop in terms of developable area. We didn't have to create a fake boundary like the GTA did. All we can do now is densify and increase public transit around those high density corridors and nodes to keep moving people.

And incentive packages? Two issues.
#1, it is the municipalities responsibility to offer the incentive package... Metro Vancouver not the Province will not, and will never provide incentive packages for companies to locate in one city or another. The Province can offer incentives for companies to come to BC I suppose, but could not favor any municipality by providing tax breaks, funding, etc. So go talk to Langley's economic development office about offering tax incentives to bring in more business into the community. Maybe they already do it... maybe you can help them figure out a way to make Langley more attractive for business.

#2, companies will locate where they have access to employment, access to education, and co-location of similar like companies. Tech companies will locate in Vancouver more often than not because the educational institutions are there, the recent graduates are there, thats where the labour force is, and that is where most tech companies are already located. They also need the amenity packages of an urban area to satisfy their employees, and they likely want Class A office space. A company producing agricultural products... well it makes more sense for them to locate in Surrey or Langley where the land prices are cheaper for their 100,000 square foot facility, plus more of their labour force is probably there as well. They also need highways to get their goods to trains or the port or airport or wherever they are shipping to. Every large company has a set criteria for site location when going into a new area or region. Microsoft is not going into Abbotsford, Versa Cold is not going to locate in downtown Surrey.

It's amazing that whenever a thread like this gets started, everyone on this forum becomes an economic development or urban planning or transportation expert. Most of the stuff that's posted is good for a laugh at most.

I'm well aware what Translink does and hence my strong negative attitude against it.

And I'm not against of such a system if Translink can actually get their shits together.

If they are doing something for financial responsible project, I'm all in for it. I have TREO on all my cars and use them whenever they are part of my route. Nevertheless, they want all this money to go into not only financial responsible projects, but also the EXPANSION of Translink public transportation service when the problem is not about having the service, but rather their current service plan doesn't make any financial sense.

If I were the head of Translink, I'd build a few low cost parking lots near al few strategically selected hubs on the outlying areas. And I don't mean by city, but rather areas that are currently underserved, and let people get those hubs by car, carpool or even privately-ran community buses. Then, use all the money saved by not having to serve those outlying areas into MUCH MORE frequent services among hubs to the rest of system (Skytrain, WC Express... etc). So these trips between hubs to hubs can be economically viable along with a much better service level.

In the longer run, plan the heck out of hub points. All areas immediate to those hub would have crazy high density in residencial options and with commercial attached right next to them. People who can afford to drive, they'd live further out where they can have a house if they wanted to and still drive to park to the hub stations. And then all commercial plannings to job growth in the future can target those hubs... not all hubs would become the next major dominant place, but Vancouver proper would no longer be as crowded/important to get into.

It's not against raising funds for public projects, but rather against their business plans. There's a fundamental flaw in it, and I for one won't be supporting until they fix it.

[stylez2k4]

Originally Posted by Hehe

I'm well aware what Translink does and hence my strong negative attitude against it.

And I'm not against of such a system if Translink can actually get their shits together.

If they are doing something for financial responsible project, I'm all in for it. I have TREO on all my cars and use them whenever they are part of my route. Nevertheless, they want all this money to go into not only financial responsible projects, but also the EXPANSION of Translink public transportation service when the problem is not about having the service, but rather their current service plan doesn't make any financial sense.

If I were the head of Translink, I'd build a few low cost parking lots near al few strategically selected hubs on the outlying areas. And I don't mean by city, but rather areas that are currently underserved, and let people get those hubs by car, carpool or even privately-ran community buses. Then, use all the money saved by not having to serve those outlying areas into MUCH MORE frequent services among hubs to the rest of system (Skytrain, WC Express... etc). So these trips between hubs to hubs can be economically viable along with a much better service level.

Have you not seen the developments along the the major Skytrain stations?

Also how would it makes sense to build a massive parking lot at a transportation hub when the land is way more valuable as residential area.

[Tapioca]

^ Large and under-utilized industrial sites are getting more difficult to come by in the Lower Mainland. There are some organizations, like Port Metro Vancouver, that have a big say in keeping them that way.

I've seen the appraisals for such land and it makes no sense for a public, taxpayer-funded organization, like Translink, to purchase them and turn them into park-in-ride facilities. Not at current prices - we're talking tens of millions for a simple 5-acre site. If Translink becomes a land developer and builds park-and-ride facilities underneath residential/commercial towers (like the MTR Corporation in Hong Kong), then you could make the case for it. But, people complain about Translink endlessly about transportation planning. What makes people think they should become real estate developers? Moreover, people complain about their salaries. Vancouver is a real estate town - the best planners are already working for developers and getting handsomely compensated. How can a publicly-funded organization compete for the pool of planners?

[Nlkko]

Tolling every single bridge to Vancouver would be nice and is a reality. Sooner or later. 100% support this.

Mobility pricing on the other hand is taking it to a whole new fucking extreme level, which I doubt will ever pass anywhere.

[Manic!]

Mobility Pricing is already happening it's the translink tax on gas. The more you drive the more you pay on top of that you have the carbon tax.

[Y2K_o__o]

I have no problems taking transit, but I can't afford to live in Vancouver/Burnaby. Driving is my only option because bus for every 30-45 min is not realistic for me. If Translink wants more people to make use of their transportation system, they really need to lower their fare and work with the city to spare some free lot for park and ride.

Let's do the math
Park and ride alone is $3 x 20 working day in a month
Fare fare $91 monthly
that's ~ $150 / month MINIMUM unless you have a family member to drop you off at a station

Yes I save tiny bit of insurance (for <15km), but that won't save me much. All these "costs" add up together and still cannot offset the gas price and insurance, not mentioning having a car offers a huge flexibility for grocery, visiting friends, road trip and etc...

[GabAlmighty]

Not sure if i'll ever come back at this rate.

[Nlkko]

Lol park and ride. They're making ass ton of money rezoning and building condos instead.

[Hehe]

Originally Posted by Nlkko

Lol park and ride. They're making ass ton of money rezoning and building condos instead.

They are not mutually exclusive if planned accordingly.

You can build a tower condo with x floors of parking (say 4 underground and 3 above) and still build a crazy highrise on top of that parking lot. If that's a requirement for building permit to be approved (to allow higher density/height), I'm sure developers would simply follow the rules. It's the same idea how Olympic village has social housing built into them. They were part of the criteria to be granted the permit.

[Anjew]

one day i took the port mann route from Surrey back to Vancouver during morning rush hour and wow... i pity the people that have endure that everyday on top of paying for for tolls(~100-150 a month both ways).

[vitaminG]

people like to fault translink but i think theyre doing the best they can with the tools they have and the situation theyre in.

I think it was really stupid of the government to put the translink sales tax to a referendum, it was just an easy way out. but the real problem is citizens are too shortsighted and stuck in their ways, happy to sit on their expanding property values. the way gvrd is laid out will never be conductive to commuting by car, especially with the growing population. the future is densification and transit.

[meme405]

I really wish they would just find one way to tax us all. I hate this government approach of: tax this a little, and when they get pissed off at that we will hit them elsewhere.

I mean come on we pay taxes:

-For everything we buy
-extra taxes on our gas
-property taxes
-income taxes
-tolls
-carbon tax

and now they want me to pay based on my mileage as well. Each time they do this they add a new department to the government in order to manage said tax, so we just add an extra cost.

I support the mobility tax, but take away tolls on all the bridges and take away all the levies on gas, etc.

Also side note, but this is the outcome when a bus driver gets paid as much as an engineer. The engineer moves away because of all the taxes he has to pay to support the bus driver, and then the bus driver is out of a job because the engineer he was taking to work every morning no longer is working.

[Digitalis]

Pretty sure by 2020 there wont even be bus drivers it will all just be automated.

Originally Posted by meme405

I really wish they would just find one way to tax us all. I hate this government approach of: tax this a little, and when they get pissed off at that we will hit them elsewhere.

I mean come on we pay taxes:

-For everything we buy
-extra taxes on our gas
-property taxes
-income taxes
-tolls
-carbon tax

and now they want me to pay based on my mileage as well. Each time they do this they add a new department to the government in order to manage said tax, so we just add an extra cost.

I support the mobility tax, but take away tolls on all the bridges and take away all the levies on gas, etc.

Also side note, but this is the outcome when a bus driver gets paid as much as an engineer. The engineer moves away because of all the taxes he has to pay to support the bus driver, and then the bus driver is out of a job because the engineer he was taking to work every morning no longer is working.

[GabAlmighty]

Originally Posted by Digitalis

Pretty sure by 2020 there wont even be bus drivers it will all just be automated.

lol

[Anjew]

Originally Posted by meme405

I really wish they would just find one way to tax us all.

i agree, even cyclist need to chip in

[underscore]

Originally Posted by meme405

I really wish they would just find one way to tax us all. I hate this government approach of: tax this a little, and when they get pissed off at that we will hit them elsewhere.

I mean come on we pay taxes:

-For everything we buy
-extra taxes on our gas
-property taxes
-income taxes
-tolls
-carbon tax

Not to mention the taxes your employer pays. So they bring money in, and pay tax, then they pay you, and you pay tax, then you buy things, and pay tax, then the company you bought from pays tax, then they pay their employees, who pay tax...

[nah]

Taxes? Definitely need them or how else can WE support low income earners in West Vancouver and their $5 million homes?