[6o4__boi]

Aaaaand here's the result of the failed plebiscite.
They were gonna get their money somehow...

Video More Metro Vancouver tolls, fees coming to roads near you | Vancouver Sun (http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/more-metro-vancouver-tolls-fees-coming-to-roads-near-you)

Metro Vancouver drivers will likely face some form of mobility pricing, such as tolls on every bridge, within five years as regional mayors look to generate $50 million annually to expand the beleaguered transportation system.

Mobility pricing — a concept defined as charging a cost to use the road to reduce traffic congestion — is a key driver in funding the mayors’ 10-year, $7.5-billion transportation plan, following a failed plebiscite last year.

The specific type of pricing has yet to be determined, but options range from tolling every bridge and tunnel in Metro Vancouver — similar to what’s done in Sweden — to charging drivers a fee-per-kilometre driven, which is in place in Oregon.

Mayors say such a move is feasible but will take time to come up with the right approach and convince the public to buy into the plan. They have asked the B.C. government to appoint a third-party commissioner to help define the appropriate tolls, road pricing and distance-based options for this region while they investigate what’s happening in other cities.

Oregon, for instance, spent seven years consulting with the public before going ahead with its pilot project, which began with 5,000 drivers agreeing to pay 1.5 cents per mile in exchange for a fuel tax credit. The program, operational in 2015, uses a “mileage reporting device” that plugs into the vehicle and calculates the miles travelled without disclosing specific routes. Drivers can choose from three different agencies, including the Oregon Department of Transportation, which tracks and charges them for the miles driven.

“We want to see a very clear step to ensure we’re on track to implementing mobility pricing,” said Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson, chairman of the mayors’ council. “There’s a lot of ideas but we need a blue-ribbon panel to do the analysis. We’ll need that source of revenue in five years so we have to get cracking on it.”

Mayors have been considering mobility pricing for years as an alternative way to generate funding for transportation while seeing a decline in revenues from fuel taxes — one of the region’s main sources of transportation funding. The concept is already used in various ways around the world: San Diego, for instance, has a highway tolling scheme enabling drivers to avoid gridlock by paying a few extra bucks to travel in a fast lane, while cities such as London, U.K., Singapore and Stockholm charge drivers area-based tolls to enter cordoned-off downtown business areas.

Sienna, Italy, meanwhile, charges “zonal fees” that allow drivers to travel freely in their home communities but pay a fee to cross into neighbouring areas. A Surrey driver, for instance, wouldn’t pay anything to travel around that city but would be charged to go into New Westminster, just as drivers from North Vancouver would pay to go into downtown Vancouver.

Port Coquitlam Mayor Greg Moore said the mayors are still investigating the best option that would work here but they would like to see something in place by 2022 to capture traffic on the new George Massey and Pattullo bridges. If road pricing goes ahead, the mayors would consider reducing fees, such as gas taxes.

“There are so many options to mobility pricing, it’s going to take years,” said Moore. “If you’re going to bring on two new bridges, it would be an ideal time to switch up the tolling policy.”

A study by Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission, released last November, suggests Metro, which has 21 bridges and one tunnel, should consider tolling all those crossings based on a time-of-day basis — say, a higher fee for the morning and evening rush hours and lower fees during the rest of the day — noting the water crossings would intercept a large portion of traffic.

Robin Lindsey, an economics professor at UBC’s Sauder School of Business, said the move would be somewhat similar to what’s done in Stockholm, which has 18 access points into the city and charges the same toll — although a higher amount during peak hours — for all entrances.

He noted Metro would require cameras and decals to count traffic but the system could be rolled into existing infrastructure on the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges, while unlike Stockholm, Metro could have varying tolls depending on where the highest congestion occurs.

The Port Mann Bridge, for instance, has a lot of capacity so there could be higher tolls on other bridges that are more heavily congested.

“The bridges tend to be the pinch point so that’s where congestion is worse,” Lindsey said. “The danger is if you impose a higher toll on one link, you get traffic diversion.”

Lindsey maintains it doesn’t make sense, nor would it be fair, to cordon off and toll downtown Vancouver, but agreed with the Ecofiscal study that Metro could look at distance-based pricing, which is seen as the most equitable form of mobility pricing because each driver pays for the time and use on the roads no matter where they live. He estimates this would cost upwards of $1 billion to put into place and would take time to get the public to accept it.

“There’s going to be public opposition to that. We’ve seen it over the decades,” Lindsey said. “But where it’s been implemented, people’s attitudes change.”

The Ecofiscal report agreed such a move would require a “higher level of coercion” because each vehicle would need to be fitted with GPS technology that would track its time and distance.

TransLink CEO Kevin Desmond said last month that Metro would have to ensure there are strong privacy protections in place if they went ahead with distance-based pricing, although Moore noted within five years there could be autonomous vehicles on the road, which would negate the issue.

Still, Desmond said something has to be done, because right now all bridges south of the Fraser are tolled, putting undue hardship on those residents.

“Mobility pricing is critical to deal equitably with transit,” he said. “It has the power to shift behaviour. But for that to happen we need to ensure the pricing of our roadways is fair and equitable, not only for residents but also to businesses in the region.”

Surrey Mayor Linda Hepner suggested Metro has an advantage in mobility pricing by having single insurance agency, which could ask people to sign up for a pilot project to collect travel data.

Similar measures are already in place in the U.S. and Europe, where some cities offer pay-as-you-drive insurance. This means the more people drive, the more they pay, while those who don’t use their cars as much will get a break. Lindsey maintains this could work in Metro, noting the more people drive, the more congestion they create, but noted any kind of tolling policy could present hardship to some residents, particularly those on low incomes.

“The disadvantage is it does cost something to set up and operate,” he said. “Inevitably there will be somebody who loses out.”

TransLink Minister Peter Fassbender said the province is prepared to discuss a potential mobility pricing strategy for Metro, but would not say whether it would have to go to referendum.

“We are prepared to sit down with the mayors and look at what they mean by mobility pricing,” he said. “It’s not as simple as saying we’re going to put tolls on everything.”

[murd0c]

Hopefully that means they are going to be lowering the bridge tolls now

[Liquid_o2]

Good. Wish this could be implemented right away, but will take 5-10 years to actually come to fruition. Which means it will be a long time before we actually see the dollars roll in for funding transit and road projects.

[smoothie.]

so price out people from being close to work, then charge them for driving long distances to work.

:facepalm:

[320icar]

If road pricing goes ahead, the mayors would consider reducing fees, such as gas taxes.

I call bullshit right here. Not a chance they'd lower any existing revenue

[pastarocket]

If more people decide to pack up and move to other provinces like Ontario with more affordable housing, how are these government officials gonna get the funding that they need for transit and other infrastructure projects?

:facepalm:

I know at least two friends who accepted jobs in Ontario and are moving east soon.

[6o4__boi]

my wife and I were actually talking about a plan to roll out east if/when things start to get ridiculous here.

at some point, it just doesn't make sense to stay here when we can move somewhere and maximize our earnings (read buy an actual fucking house) instead of worrying when the high cost of living will catch up to us.

[originalhypa]

my wife and I were actually talking about a plan to roll out east if/when things start to get ridiculous here.

Starting to get ridiculous?

So Vancouver tear downs for $3 million, Langley subdivision homes on city lots for $1.1 million, and 550 sq/ft condos for $750k isn't ridiculous yet? Porsche GT3 for $400k, a used 10 year old STI for $30k and gas prices hovering around $1.25/L on the cheap side isn't ridiculous yet?

damn man, your definition of ridiculous is a lot different than mine.

EleGiggle

[Great68]

Mandating something like GPS trackers would be an extreme privacy issue. Not to mention it sounds like it would be easy to disable.

[GLOW]

So how will you tax bikes since they use the road and have their own personal bike lanes.

Oh ya ... vancouver ...

[MarkyMark]

So people who already make enough money to live close to their job get rewarded and the rest of us who had to move further away due to financial constraints get taxed more, sounds solid.

Inb4 someone says "work harder or get a job closer to where you live".

[CorneringArtist]

I call bullshit right here. Not a chance they'd lower any existing revenue

LOLOLOLOL, right? They'd only end up raising the gas tax above the premium we pay more in than GST/PST combined.

Straight bullshit this is. People say no, yet they still go ahead with some attempt to fund a company that can't even get its own affairs in order when it comes to spending. How about Translink figures out their shit before crying for more money?

[Tapioca]

So, I guess this is the last straw that breaks the camel's back? Is there going to be a mass exodu of RS users to Campbell River, Creston, Williams Lake, or Fort St. John?

[underscore]

All of these ideas are terrible, and just because some other place uses it doesn't mean it's a good idea. Charging "peak" pricing is even stupider, nobody is driving at those times because they want to, people are driving at those times because they have to.

To loosely quote James May: "The government seems to think we're all driving at the same time just to be really annoying"

[vitaminG]

^ the idea being that people who dont have to commute during those times might be less likely to because of the increased cost, thus reducing congestion. sometimes all it takes is a marginal increase in cost to change peoples behavior and have a noticeable difference

[Gucci Mane]

I've thought about moving out east as well, been looking into it a lot lately but there's only one thing stopping me from going,


<------ this handsome boy is banned there because of a province wide BSL. Fucking Ontario.

[bcrdukes]

So how will you tax bikes since they use the road and have their own personal bike lanes.

Oh ya ... vancouver ...

:accepted:

[underscore]

You guys do realize there's more to Canada than the GVRD and Toronto right? Just move to another part of BC or move to the Maritime provinces, there's no way I'd go back to Ontario willingly.

^ the idea being that people who dont have to commute during those times might be less likely to because of the increased cost, thus reducing congestion. sometimes all it takes is a marginal increase in cost to change peoples behavior and have a noticeable difference

Just how many people do you think are willingly in rush hour traffic and don't need to be?

[carisear]

Sheesh, as if Vancouver/Richmond weren't elitist/cliquish enough -- this will just make the gaps even wider.

as vitaminG said, even a modest charge will make people stay in their own cities now -- I know I won't cross the bridge anymore. i'll just idle in bumper to bumper traffic instead. Hooray for the environment!

[6o4__boi]

Just how many people do you think are willingly in rush hour traffic and don't need to be?

lol i was thinking the exact same thing...i'd have to be paid to drive during rush hour when i don't have to

[CharlesInCharge]

Vancouver 2035.

Adopt to the new world order or go out and live in the bushes to take your chances with their genetically weaponized borrelia bacteria infested in the ticks.
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/southpark/images/1/15/ITSP.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20090205190005

[GS8]

Sooo...

Translink fucked with us for years, we voted to prove a point and we still get fucked? Welcome to the 21 century everybody!

Fuck the GVRD. Pandering to the rich does not equal 'world class'. Without the heart and soul of its core citizens, you just have a gold turd.

Kamloops is tempting to take up residence. Too bad my line of work doesn't exist up here...

:QQ:

[highfive]

so price out people from being close to work, then charge them for driving long distances to work.

:facepalm:

Actually, not only they are doing that but I feel they are forcing people's jobs further away from the city. Look at Vancouver and how many commercial / industrial zone properties has been knocked down for condos. Where will those jobs go? In the long run, this is going to be an bigger issue for Greater Vancouver.

They keep talking about housing affordability but they don't bother talking about where to make the money to afford it in the first place.

Basically our municipal governments are puppets for developers. They are able to build on land and they don't pay any extra fees for putting additional strains on government services in the area they are building. Look at Cambie St and how many low rises are being built. Who's going to pay for the extra VPD/VFD/Ambulance services, schools, roads, etc. I know developers pay a development cost levy but fuck, it's only what? $4/sf? When you're selling the condo for $700-1000 / sf.

[originalhypa]

Kamloops is tempting to take up residence. Too bad my line of work doesn't exist up here...

:QQ:

The Loops is nice. I had a friend transfer up there for work three years ago, and he loves it. He met a girl up there and hit it off. He also bought a house with a pool for less than the price of a Vancouverr condo. The climate is dry, summers are hot, and there is a ton of mountain biking that you can do.

There are a lot of nice places in BC to move to. But really, should we have to?

:okay:

[Tapioca]

Actually, not only they are doing that but I feel they are forcing people's jobs further away from the city. Look at Vancouver and how many commercial / industrial zone properties has been knocked down for condos. Where will those jobs go? In the long run, this is going to be an bigger issue for Greater Vancouver.

They keep talking about housing affordability but they don't bother talking about where to make the money to afford it in the first place.

Basically our municipal governments are puppets for developers. They are able to build on land and they don't pay any extra fees for putting additional strains on government services in the area they are building. Look at Cambie St and how many low rises are being built. Who's going to pay for the extra VPD/VFD/Ambulance services, schools, roads, etc. I know developers pay a development cost levy but fuck, it's only what? $4/sf? When you're selling the condo for $700-1000 / sf.

Well, the town centre model for development in the GVRD has been a matter of public record since the 1970s. Now that Skytrain is finally mature, we're only seeing the results of that model now. Having commercial hubs in various parts of the region has always been a part of the long-term strategy. However, lots of office space in the suburbs continues to remain vacant because companies want to be in downtown Vancouver.

Companies will pay salaries based on what the market will bear. Until skilled workers leave the region in droves (like we're talking hundreds of thousands of people), salaries here will remain lower than the average. Is it the responsibility of governments to meddle in how companies and organizations run their businesses?

It's easy to say that municipal governments are puppets for developers, but since the government is no longer in the business of building social housing (when was the last time a new co-op was built?), houses are not going to be built on their own. Plus, people in detached homes want to keep property taxes low, so the only way to do that is to upzone/rezone land to increase the property tax base. People who own detached homes tend to vote in greater numbers than condo owners.

[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]

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]

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

Marked and thanked. :fullofwin:

[Liquid_o2]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
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]

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

lol

[Anjew]

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

i agree, even cyclist need to chip in

[underscore]

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?