ronthecivil Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 So you don't want a toll until you see something on the ground, but to see something on the ground there has to be $$ generated. Sure bud. I know it's painful for you to have to wait 15-20 (whatever it is) minutes in the morning. Perhaps you should take a gander at how many of the cars lined up are single occupancy? Then you'll have your answer as to why you're waiting so long. Put in HOV lanes while your at it. It wouldn't take long to build the improvements, a year max. Once construction is done toll your heart out. Just like the Port Mann. Tolling existing bridges without providing improvements to the bridge, or at least the connecting road network, is a complete non starter. Oh, and the reason I see all the SOVs is because there's no skytrain line to Whiterock. (Using your logic I say we fund it with a congestion tax for downtown Vancouver). If there was I would roll my vehicle off a cliff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Put in HOV lanes while your at it. It wouldn't take long to build the improvements, a year max. Once construction is done toll your heart out. Just like the Port Mann. Tolling existing bridges without providing improvements to the bridge, or at least the connecting road network, is a complete non starter. Oh, and the reason I see all the SOVs is because there's no skytrain line to Whiterock. (Using your logic I say we fund it with a congestion tax for downtown Vancouver). If there was I would roll my vehicle off a cliff. NO ONE IS SUGGESTING THIS. What is wrong with you? Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. Tolls on roads go to regional projects. If the tolls from say the Arthur Laing went to build skytrain in Surrey--super. Likewise a toll on the tunnel replacement could go to new sea busses to north vancouver. Or whatever. It's a regional system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 http://t4america.org/docs/dbd2011/Dangerous-by-Design-2011.pdf American, but certainly eye opening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 NO ONE IS SUGGESTING THIS. What is wrong with you? Yes, that is what I'm suggesting. Tolls on roads go to regional projects. If the tolls from say the Arthur Laing went to build skytrain in Surrey--super. Likewise a toll on the tunnel replacement could go to new sea busses to north vancouver. Or whatever. It's a regional system. That's not enough. Tolls on the Arthur Laing MUST include improvements that are a direct benefit to the users of the Arthur Laing. The bridge itself is fine. The interchanges to the south could use some work. Even completely tweaking them with HOV lanes and ramp meters and all kinds of fun stuff to actually move the traffic smoothly would only take a fraction of the toll revenue, so why is it such a big deal to insist that it be part of the deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 That's not enough. Tolls on the Arthur Laing MUST include improvements that are a direct benefit to the users of the Arthur Laing. The bridge itself is fine. The interchanges to the south could use some work. Even completely tweaking them with HOV lanes and ramp meters and all kinds of fun stuff to actually move the traffic smoothly would only take a fraction of the toll revenue, so why is it such a big deal to insist that it be part of the deal? Well Ron, that's where we differ. I see this as a region with regional priorities. Translink or the province administers the tolls--they don't think so municipality-centric. If they tolled the alex fraser (that I use daily) but put that money towards improving transit in Surrey or towards replacing the tunnel because those are the priorities of the region--so be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Well Ron, that's where we differ. I see this as a region with regional priorities. Translink or the province administers the tolls--they don't think so municipality-centric. If they tolled the alex fraser (that I use daily) but put that money towards improving transit in Surrey or towards replacing the tunnel because those are the priorities of the region--so be it. Your ideas would have a lot better chance of being reality if you saw it my way since that's the way most of the voters see it...... Speaking of the voters, if you haven't noticed, they aren't very fond of translink and their taxes. As such, if you want to do something as radical as toll an existing bridge, you best toss them a bone or they are going to be a special kind of irate. It might not be fair and you and translink might be great visionaries but if you don't see that reality it means nothing at all. Besides, why get bent out of shape over something that clearly needs to be done as well and would only take a tiny portion of the tolls? Is that not a pretty decent comprimise? You would still have an overwhelming majority of the revenue to spend on regional priorities above and beyond what is being received right now...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 http://t4america.org...Design-2011.pdf American, but certainly eye opening. I wonder where the city of Vancouver with it's complete absence of genuine arterial roads measures up. (Or in Surrey where they do have arterial roads.) Incidentily, where they do have arterial roads there should be boulevards between the curb and the sidewalk and next to no access points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Your ideas would have a lot better chance of being reality if you saw it my way since that's the way most of the voters see it...... Speaking of the voters, if you haven't noticed, they aren't very fond of translink and their taxes. As such, if you want to do something as radical as toll an existing bridge, you best toss them a bone or they are going to be a special kind of irate. It might not be fair and you and translink might be great visionaries but if you don't see that reality it means nothing at all. Besides, why get bent out of shape over something that clearly needs to be done as well and would only take a tiny portion of the tolls? Is that not a pretty decent comprimise? You would still have an overwhelming majority of the revenue to spend on regional priorities above and beyond what is being received right now...... Ron, how many times do I have to explain this? Tolls will be tied to a project. That's the 'bone'. This isn't like taxes where you pay into this mysterious pot and you don't know what it's for. Toll on this bridge goes to x. When that's done it goes to y. Etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 (edited) Ron, how many times do I have to explain this? Tolls will be tied to a project. That's the 'bone'. This isn't like taxes where you pay into this mysterious pot and you don't know what it's for. Toll on this bridge goes to x. When that's done it goes to y. Etc. Well there's hope for that but don't be shocked if improving the experience for the people paying the toll is demanded to be part of the deal. For example if X was killing the light, fixing the interchanges, and putting in HOV lanes, and Y was extending skytrain to Langely (or some other admirable transit improvement), then you could very well win the day. In fact you might win it by a landslide. But if X is simply improving transit south of fraser, even if Y is fixing the light etc., it's quite a risk one is taking with the approval to say the least. Especially given the legitamte worries that Y never comes and X has a history of being treated like an afterthought...... Edited August 17, 2011 by ronthecivil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverpig Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I am just saying that if you want it to be equitable raising gas taxes is better than tolls which only punish certain movements but not all. We already have gas taxes that go to fund roads. They charge users effectively for distance travelled, and charge users regardless of the type of road they are on. That's a good flat way to go. However, it completely ignores the specialized costs of building and maintaining the roads those people use. Why should a Vancouverite who lives in a condo along a bus route to work pay $x billion for a bridge which lets another person live in a 3/4 acre 3500 sqft place in Langley? Toll that stuff and the Vancouverite can pay an extra 3 cents on their grocery bill to cover the cost of transporting it over the expensive bridge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 We already have gas taxes that go to fund roads. They charge users effectively for distance travelled, and charge users regardless of the type of road they are on. That's a good flat way to go. However, it completely ignores the specialized costs of building and maintaining the roads those people use. Why should a Vancouverite who lives in a condo along a bus route to work pay $x billion for a bridge which lets another person live in a 3/4 acre 3500 sqft place in Langley? Toll that stuff and the Vancouverite can pay an extra 3 cents on their grocery bill to cover the cost of transporting it over the expensive bridge. More like we have gas taxes that go to fund healthcare. It goes into the general pot and there's no correlation between gas taxes and transportation infrastructure spending (well there's some but the provincial and fed portions aka the majority go into general revenue). While the long distance high capacity roads cost more I don't know if there's a compelling argument that they cost more per vehicle that uses the road over the lifecycle. But there's a compelling argument for gas taxes. People that use heavier vehicles will pay more. Heavier vehicles due more damage but as it turns out burn more gas. The guy in Vancouver does pay less. If he takes the bus he isn't paying anything in gas tax, and even if you charge it to translink then the portion payed is shared between all the other bus users. (Never mind he is getting a susidy to ride the bus in the first place.) The guy in Langley driving all over the place pays a ton in taxes. And oddly enough with tolls he would pay a lot to commute to nearby Maple Ridge but no toll if he drove the super busy route to Richmond. But the guy in Vancouver doesn't get off scott free. No need for a food tax, the cost of the food will simply include the cost of delivery which would include any gas taxes that came with it..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 It's views like these that absolutely do nothing for the nation. "Does this plan help me?". There's a famous JFK quote out there; "...ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." It was more to illustrate the point Ron's trying to make and that Inane was arguing. I'm actually quite for higher gas taxes and/or bridge tolls to actually improve transit even if I can't personally use it as it will still make my car-necessary commute faster. However, as Ron is attempting to point out, you either have to make the plan politically palatable to the masses or you have to figure out how to change a few million peoples minds and get them on board with the less palatable plan or you have no plan at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverpig Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 More like we have gas taxes that go to fund healthcare. It goes into the general pot and there's no correlation between gas taxes and transportation infrastructure spending (well there's some but the provincial and fed portions aka the majority go into general revenue). While the long distance high capacity roads cost more I don't know if there's a compelling argument that they cost more per vehicle that uses the road over the lifecycle. But there's a compelling argument for gas taxes. People that use heavier vehicles will pay more. Heavier vehicles due more damage but as it turns out burn more gas. The guy in Vancouver does pay less. If he takes the bus he isn't paying anything in gas tax, and even if you charge it to translink then the portion payed is shared between all the other bus users. (Never mind he is getting a susidy to ride the bus in the first place.) The guy in Langley driving all over the place pays a ton in taxes. And oddly enough with tolls he would pay a lot to commute to nearby Maple Ridge but no toll if he drove the super busy route to Richmond. But the guy in Vancouver doesn't get off scott free. No need for a food tax, the cost of the food will simply include the cost of delivery which would include any gas taxes that came with it..... The gas taxes seem to go to general revenue, but the roads are funded from general revenue. You can compare what goes in vs what comes out in those buckets. It's not impossible to do. The 3 km section of the 91 that includes the Alex Fraser cost much more than the 3 km section leading up to it, and they carry about the same number of cars... Yes there is a compelling argument for gas taxes. And guess what, we have them. They solve part of the problem, but not all of it. Sure, he's getting a subsidy to ride the bus, but it isn't 100% covered, unlike all transportation across the untolled bridges. Sometimes life isn't fair. It's not anyone's fault that Maple Ridge is across the water from Langley while Delta isn't. If the guy wants to work in Maple Ridge, he can live in Langley and pay a toll, or move to Maple Ridge. It wouldn't be a food tax. I was talking about increased prices being built in due to increased transportation costs. It already happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 The gas taxes seem to go to general revenue, but the roads are funded from general revenue. You can compare what goes in vs what comes out in those buckets. It's not impossible to do. The 3 km section of the 91 that includes the Alex Fraser cost much more than the 3 km section leading up to it, and they carry about the same number of cars... Yes there is a compelling argument for gas taxes. And guess what, we have them. They solve part of the problem, but not all of it. Sure, he's getting a subsidy to ride the bus, but it isn't 100% covered, unlike all transportation across the untolled bridges. Sometimes life isn't fair. It's not anyone's fault that Maple Ridge is across the water from Langley while Delta isn't. If the guy wants to work in Maple Ridge, he can live in Langley and pay a toll, or move to Maple Ridge. It wouldn't be a food tax. I was talking about increased prices being built in due to increased transportation costs. It already happens. I assure you that if you did look it up you would find that the existing gas taxes dwarf the actual spending on roads/transit. Look at how much revenue the carbon tax brings in and that's but a small portion overall in the entire tax amounts. There's a lot of people that would say that they should do all of my projects and inanes projects with the existing gas taxes in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I assure you that if you did look it up you would find that the existing gas taxes dwarf the actual spending on roads/transit. Look at how much revenue the carbon tax brings in and that's but a small portion overall in the entire tax amounts. There's a lot of people that would say that they should do all of my projects and inanes projects with the existing gas taxes in fact. Which brings us back to health care.... When are people going to realize THAT is the problem here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRR Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 It was more to illustrate the point Ron's trying to make and that Inane was arguing. I'm actually quite for higher gas taxes and/or bridge tolls to actually improve transit even if I can't personally use it as it will still make my car-necessary commute faster. However, as Ron is attempting to point out, you either have to make the plan politically palatable to the masses or you have to figure out how to change a few million peoples minds and get them on board with the less palatable plan or you have no plan at all. My apologies, it's a view that's held by many these days unfortunately, but I'm sorry I painted you with the wrong brush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Which brings us back to health care.... When are people going to realize THAT is the problem here? Well, let's just look at federal exise and provincial taxes and compare them with the translink tax. (This doesn't include any HST or carbon tax revenue which we can just write off to the health care monster.) In the GVRD where tranlink runs there's currently a 12 cent per litre tax. That brought in 320 million last year. There is also a 10 cent feder tax and a 8.5 cent provincial tax. At 26 million per cent of tax that gives a yearly income of 493 million from those fuel taxes alone (just for the GVRD). For fun lets give 43 million of that to translink so they don't need to raise taxes AND get their new plans. That would give us a ten year 4.5 billion dollar capital plan. A billion dollar project every year or two would make a heck of a difference targeted within the GVRD. Even if that would only fund a third of things like gateway it would still allow for the toll to be cut by a third as well making for a 2 dollar toll and this year we would have another billion dollars available. Heck in 2014 see if translink has enough saved up to see if there could be a billion dollar partnership on a new sktrain line above and beyond evergreen. I don't think many would be disturbed by that and if there was a toll above and beyond to pay for over the top projects like the gateway program I don't see it being a huge political problem either. But we gotta keep feeding the health care monster (which provincially is what 14 billion dollars this year alone, or as I like to measure the very large 3.5 gateway programs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverpig Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 I assure you that if you did look it up you would find that the existing gas taxes dwarf the actual spending on roads/transit. Look at how much revenue the carbon tax brings in and that's but a small portion overall in the entire tax amounts. There's a lot of people that would say that they should do all of my projects and inanes projects with the existing gas taxes in fact. Really? Cause I did look it up. BC Budget Fuel taxes are about $875 million while the ministry of transportation costs $730 million. And that doesn't include capital projects like new bridges and transit lines. The carbon tax adds another $550 million, but it was designed to be revenue neutral, and was offset by reductions in personal income taxes. Health care costs $14 billion. Gas taxes do nothing for that. By far, personal income taxes ($5.7 billion) and sales taxes ($4.8 billion) go towards paying for that. So yeah, fuel taxes pay for maintenance on the roads. Building a new bridge comes out of income and sales taxes, and there is no way that fuel taxes come close to making up the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthecivil Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Really? Cause I did look it up. BC Budget Fuel taxes are about $875 million while the ministry of transportation costs $730 million. And that doesn't include capital projects like new bridges and transit lines. The carbon tax adds another $550 million, but it was designed to be revenue neutral, and was offset by reductions in personal income taxes. Health care costs $14 billion. Gas taxes do nothing for that. By far, personal income taxes ($5.7 billion) and sales taxes ($4.8 billion) go towards paying for that. So yeah, fuel taxes pay for maintenance on the roads. Building a new bridge comes out of income and sales taxes, and there is no way that fuel taxes come close to making up the difference. Well right there there's a 145 million dollar yearly gap. Keep in mind the feds pull in ten cents a litre as well which provincially is about a billion dollars a year based off of the 8.5 cent provincial fuel tax. That the carbon tax subisidises income taxes just means it's just another general revenue item half of which goes to health care. But overall provincally that's 2.5 billion dollars a year in gas tax income with 730 million in spending. You would need a LOT of capital projects yearly to make up that 1.8 billion dollar difference enough to even dream that sales and income taxes are subsidising the road/transit network! It's pretty clear to me that while some might be returned in the form of capital programs 1.8 billion a year (- capital programs, lets all it a billion) from gas taxes is hitting general revenue. Sure that doesn't cover healthcare but that mobster is like a mobster that goes around and takes it's peice from everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverpig Posted August 17, 2011 Share Posted August 17, 2011 Well right there there's a 145 million dollar yearly gap. Keep in mind the feds pull in ten cents a litre as well which provincially is about a billion dollars a year based off of the 8.5 cent provincial fuel tax. That the carbon tax subisidises income taxes just means it's just another general revenue item half of which goes to health care. But overall provincally that's 2.5 billion dollars a year in gas tax income with 730 million in spending. You would need a LOT of capital projects yearly to make up that 1.8 billion dollar difference enough to even dream that sales and income taxes are subsidising the road/transit network! It's pretty clear to me that while some might be returned in the form of capital programs 1.8 billion a year (- capital programs, lets all it a billion) from gas taxes is hitting general revenue. Sure that doesn't cover healthcare but that mobster is like a mobster that goes around and takes it's peice from everything. The provincial take on fuel taxes is almost the same as the provincial spend on maintaining roads. That is what that document says. There is some surplus, but it's not like it pays for half of healthcare. As I said previously, the carbon tax was accompanied by offsetting reductions in income taxes, so those are general expense items right off the bat. It also supposedly goes towards reducing the environmental costs of burning fuels, a cost which isn't associated with maintaining roads in the budget, but appears to be a real cost associated with cars. So yeah, that $730 million is just on transportation maintenance, and doesn't necessarily represent the true cost (environmental included) of having cars. So far as I can understand, the port mann project is being funded by the province. Thus, all of the $3.3 billion or whatever it will cost is coming from income and sales taxes as well as tolls. Fuel taxes won't be helping much on that one. Besides, fuel taxes for someone who doesn't ever use the bridge (people not in the GVRD, people who live close to work etc) are going to pay for it in your argument. Why should their money be going to pay $3.3 billion for a bridge that they don't benefit from? I'm arguing for a mixed funding program similar to how translink operates. Part comes from a tax that hits pretty much everyone (because everyone benefits somewhat from it), and part comes from a usage fee (fares or tolls) which goes to make those who use it more pay more for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now