The Official Transit Thread

[nitronuts]

Talk about one angry [and ignorant] mob at the Vancouver Sun comments section, 200+ comments in the last 6 hours:

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun.../31/460312.aspx

A lot are complaining why there's even a $450-million shortfall in the first place, ignorantly not knowing that it's for major transit improvements and maintaining existing service. Fact is, we're finally catching up with the lack of transit improvements we made in the 20th century.

And from all those comments there, you can clearly tell that we're addicted to the automobile. That addiction needs to stop.

[ronthecivil]

Again, do you refute any of the points I made other than noise pollution?

If you disagree with me and think none of those things I listed cost anything say it.

I don't deny that there are costs associated with many of things you had on your list.

I am simply saying that even with them included in, I suspect the huge volume of taxes levied by three levels of goverment would cover them. If they don't, then add them up.

I could quibble over numbers sure, but you don't have any. Heck, take the total costs levied by the province, translink, and the feds from gas and parking taxes (should be around) and compare that to the budgets of the provincial MOT and whatever has been added by the feds. If you want to add a multiplication factor to those outlays to cover your items (simple ratios would be fine, you just have to include the correct items) and you would have a point.

It should be noted though that some of the factors, such as noise, land use, pollution (buses and trains still pollute, just not as much, so they would have a lower but non zero premium) apply to transit systems as well. And really, it's not fair to include those costs for one and not the other, albeit with factors applied to reflect the lesser impact per traveller of a transit system.

[ronthecivil]

Not sure if this is really the space for this,

but yesterday I was listening to Pratt rant about the Bike lane on the Bridge and he reminded me of Rush Limbaugh. "Your roads have been taken away from you", "they have taken over the city", "Gregor Robertson is the stupidest politician ever", " we must rise up and throw him out on his @ss". I was waiting for him to say we should all grab our guns and secede.

Good ol Pratt, the guy doesn't leave the 10km radius around his house

Apart from the mouth he's inane's dream citizen transport wise.

[inane]

I don't deny that there are costs associated with many of things you had on your list.

I am simply saying that even with them included in, I suspect the huge volume of taxes levied by three levels of goverment would cover them. If they don't, then add them up.

I could quibble over numbers sure, but you don't have any. Heck, take the total costs levied by the province, translink, and the feds from gas and parking taxes (should be around) and compare that to the budgets of the provincial MOT and whatever has been added by the feds. If you want to add a multiplication factor to those outlays to cover your items (simple ratios would be fine, you just have to include the correct items) and you would have a point.

It should be noted though that some of the factors, such as noise, land use, pollution (buses and trains still pollute, just not as much, so they would have a lower but non zero premium) apply to transit systems as well. And really, it's not fair to include those costs for one and not the other, albeit with factors applied to reflect the lesser impact per traveller of a transit system.

I don't know the numbers collected through taxes and the amount of that that is put back into transportation infrastructure. Neither of us do so there's no point arguing about that. I do think you're underestimating those costs however and I didn't even list them all. 20 years ago no one was talking about the health impacts of driving other than direct pollution costs. Now there's obesity and a myriad of other health issues, who knows what else we're not even thinking about adding to that cost.

And I never said some of those things wouldn't apply to transit, but as you point out, it would be less.

[inane]

Apart from the mouth he's inane's dream citizen transport wise.

What?

[ronthecivil]

Talk about one angry [and ignorant] mob at the Vancouver Sun comments section, 200+ comments in the last 6 hours:

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun.../31/460312.aspx

A lot are complaining why there's even a $450-million shortfall in the first place, ignorantly not knowing that it's for major transit improvements and maintaining existing service. Fact is, we're finally catching up with the lack of transit improvements we made in the 20th century.

And from all those comments there, you can clearly tell that we're addicted to the automobile. That addiction needs to stop.

Wow, this idea is sinking like a lead balloon in public opinion? Go figure.

How do you propose to "cure" this addiction? Keep in mind that this is a democratic country not a dictatorship where you can abritrarily punish people's "bad" behaviour.

[nitronuts]

^ if this idea sinks, then expect to see massive transit service cuts.

Provide them with a competent alternative to driving, that's how you cure that car addiction. But you need the money first to provide that competent transit alternative. The municipalities also need to play their part by not allowing their suburbs to grow even more, rather building pedestrian and transit friendly neighbourhoods.

Edited July 31, 2009 by nitronuts

[ronthecivil]

I don't know the numbers collected through taxes and the amount of that that is put back into transportation infrastructure. Neither of us do so there's no point arguing about that. I do think you're underestimating those costs however and I didn't even list them all. 20 years ago no one was talking about the health impacts of driving other than direct pollution costs. Now there's obesity and a myriad of other health issues, who knows what else we're not even thinking about adding to that cost.

And I never said some of those things wouldn't apply to transit, but as you point out, it would be less.

Well, how about we both agree that until one of us comes up with some numbers that neither of us can state as fact that someone is either not getting their money's worth or paying their fair share, as it's certainly not fact until such time.

[ronthecivil]

What?

Pratt lives in the dense West End, close to work and probably does the majority of his trips on foot. Sounds like a model citizen.

[ronthecivil]

^ WHEN this idea sinks, then expect to see massive transit service cuts.

Provide them with a competent alternative to driving, that's how you cure that car addiction. But you need the money first to provide that competent transit alternative. The municipalities also need to play their part by not allowing their suburbs to grow even more, rather building pedestrian and transit friendly neighbourhoods.

Fixed it for you.

The first services to be cut would be the most subsidised ones, which of course would be the ones I never use. (When I do get on transit it's almost always packed, and would never dream of crossing the river on transit).

[inane]

Fixed it for you.

The first services to be cut would be the most subsidised ones, which of course would be the ones I never use. (When I do get on transit it's almost always packed, and would never dream of crossing the river on transit).

I don't get you...do you disagree that we need more transit?

Do you not think there's a problem with driving?

Are you content with the current system?

[nitronuts]

Not me, but WE.

[ronthecivil]

I don't get you...do you disagree that we need more transit?

Do you not think there's a problem with driving?

Are you content with the current system?

Yes.

Driving should be one of many choices available.

I am far from content with the current system.

My model would be for driving to be fast, convieneint, and expensive, while transit would be reasonbly competitive time and convenience wise but cheaper alternative.

This model is for driving to be slow, frustrating and expensive, with transit being stuck in the same gridlock and slowed to a similar degree, further raising it's price.

The public won't buy this plan because it's still going to be gridlock at a high price.

[nitronuts]

^ car use will decrease drastically with tolls, enough to make a significant difference in your commute times. It will no doubt reduce congestion substantially.

But I do agree that Translink needs to re-think their bus routes - most routes have far too many stops, increasing travel times which in turn hurts ridership.

Edited July 31, 2009 by nitronuts

[inane]

Yes.

Driving should be one of many choices available.

I am far from content with the current system.

My model would be for driving to be fast, convieneint, and expensive, while transit would be reasonbly competitive time and convenience wise but cheaper alternative.

This model is for driving to be slow, frustrating and expensive, with transit being stuck in the same gridlock and slowed to a similar degree, further raising it's price.

The public won't buy this plan because it's still going to be gridlock at a high price.

So you want more roads and more transit. How do you pay for that?

And do you really think providing more roads will make roads faster in the LONG TERM?

[Buggernut]

^ car use will decrease drastically with tolls, enough to make a significant difference in your commute times. It will no doubt reduce congestion substantially.

But I do agree that Translink needs to re-think their bus routes - most routes have far too many stops, increasing travel times which in turn hurts ridership.

I guess it's too much to ask of Joe Beergut and Edna Eightyyearold to walk five blocks to the nearest stop.

[lateralus]

Talk about one angry [and ignorant] mob at the Vancouver Sun comments section, 200+ comments in the last 6 hours:

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun.../31/460312.aspx

A lot are complaining why there's even a $450-million shortfall in the first place, ignorantly not knowing that it's for major transit improvements and maintaining existing service. Fact is, we're finally catching up with the lack of transit improvements we made in the 20th century.

And from all those comments there, you can clearly tell that we're addicted to the automobile. That addiction needs to stop.

That's just an effect from the real bigger problem - over population.

Too many people, too many cars, too many people need education, hospitals, infrastructure...the list goes on and on.

If the 450M shortfall is for major improvements shouldn't they have a plan in place to recover those costs prior to constructing those improvements?

Construction, improvements are great but now knowing how to pay for them before they are even started is just dumb and bad business.

[The Analyst]

Again, here we go with the "reduce our air pollution" and "our carbon footprint is too big" arguement. Fact of the matter is, Vancouver and it's inhabitants make up a SMALL portion of the world's population. We seemed to be brainwashed to be concerned of our own contribution to the environment, and yet we continue to export massive amounts of coal to countries for use in coal power energy plants. Let's be real, instead of trying to make themselves look good by charging taxes and fees to drivers, maybe the provincial and federal goverment should spend their money providing alternative energy resources to places that need it. NOT PUTTING THEM ON A MOUNTAIN IN A PLACE THAT USES HYDROELECTRICITY.

It's so hypocritical to make an arguement that this is for "a better environment" when we need to look in the mirror and see what's really going on in the big picture.

This is simply a way for translink to get cash, not save the environment. The cash maybe to cover a shortfall, but that's EVERYONE's issue, not just the driver's. If so, add a 1% sales tax to be applied to all and have that cover transportant and import/export costs.

[Mr. Everything]

people that take transit should be required to have a bus rider license (much like a drivers license)

they will have to take a test how to be a proper transit user, the licensing fee will cost 75$ every like 4 years

[ahzdeen]

Electronic tolling stations, where cars quickly pass by under sensors and cameras.

TransLink proposes tolls on all Metro bridges, new vehicle levy

By Kelly Sinoski, Vancouver Sun

July 31, 2009

METRO VANCOUVER — TransLink is proposing to put tolls on all Metro Vancouver bridges and charge drivers for using the roads as part of a scheme to raise $450 million in new revenue.

Along with these so-called "road-pricing options," TransLink is considering a vehicle levy averaging $122 per vehicle per year.

It's the latest round in a long battle between the regional transportation authority and the provincial government over where TransLink will find much-needed revenue increases.

Without new revenue, TransLink is projected to go into deficit by 2011, as it subsidizes the private operators of the Canada Line and the Golden Ears Bridge for four to five years until they reach projected ridership figures.

TransLink says it needs an extra $150 million a year just to keep its current operations going.

With $300 million a year, it says it could modestly expand the public transportation system, including building the long-promised Evergreen rapid transit line from Burnaby to Coquitlam.

With $450 million more a year, it could finance all the major items on its wish list, including rapid transit lines, rail corridors and a greatly expanded bus system. With no additional money, TransLink says it will have to make huge transit service cuts as its expenses rise.

PROPOSAL NEEDS APPROVAL FROM PROVINCE, MUNICIPALITIES

TransLink CEO Tom Prendergast said he was waiting to hear whether the province will provide legislative authority for the road-pricing options, which could see long-haul drivers and gas guzzlers paying more for using the road than drivers on short trips in fuel-efficient cars.

The proposed charges, which would increase the cost of driving in Metro Vancouver, were unanimously supported by the TransLink board but still need approval from the province and the regional mayors' council.

"At the end of the day we have to come up with the funding somewhere," Prendergast said. "It's more than about transit. It's about changing some behaviours. You drive down Hastings, Lougheed, Kingsway ... they're all crowded. The days of the free ride for automobiles worldwide is coming to an end."

The plan must be approved by the province and regional transportation commissioner in August before going to the regional mayors' council in October.

Several earlier attempts to impose a vehicle levy — politically a hot potato — have been dropped.

TransLink and Metro Vancouver have flirted with the notion of tolls, only to be flatly rejected by the provincial government.

Now TransLink is bringing back some of the most controversial options. "It's an issue of livability in the region at large," Prendergast said.

RECOMMENDATION 'UNSUPPORTABLE'

But at least two Metro Vancouver mayors say the recommendations — particularly the vehicle levy — will hurt those who have little means of viable transport: residents south of the Fraser.

Surrey Mayor Dianne Watts said road pricing could work as long as it's done with a policy in place and plans to build up the transit system. Right now, there aren't enough buses to support Surrey residents, she said, let alone another million people moving into the region by 2040.

"The vehicle levy, is for me, unsupportable," she said. "There's no way I can go out to our residents and say, 'You're not going to get anything, but pay an additional property tax and a vehicle levy. You might get a bus or two.'"

Prendergast acknowledges transit service is lacking south of the Fraser. TransLink is working with municipalities to add new routes and increase population density along transportation corridors, but needs money to do so.

TransLink has the ability to collect $275 million extra a year by way of property tax increases, the vehicle levy, boosting gas taxes by three cents a litre, imposing a higher parking tax, and raising fares by seven per cent in 2016.

The road-pricing options would bring the total revenue increase to $450 million, enough to fund the Evergreen Line, upgrade existing SkyTrain stations, buy more buses, build new rail corridors, provide optimum maintenance for regional roads.

But Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan said that is just another way for the province to dump costs on municipalities.

ksinoski@vancouversun.com

© Copyright © The Vancouver Sun

I question how they came up with this short fall. As in, how are the attributing their revenues to their expenses? Are they doing this only on a cash basis? The reason I ask is that this large $450 million shortfall could be a "one-off" because of the major construction projects and this could just be a cash grab. Is this a legitimate operational loss, or is it a cash shortfall? Because if it is mainly a cash shortfall, tolling roads would be a ridiculous way to try and recoup those costs. Now I'm not saying that we shouldn't or we should, I just question the motives and reasons.