Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by mr.x

...or maybe the NDP was assuming the provincial government would continue to pay for nearly the entire/majority cost of Translink's capital projects? The Millennium Line cost $1.1-billion, and $1-billion of that was from Victoria and the rest Translink. I am guessing the NDP were also expecting to do the same for the Millennium Line West and Coquitlam extensions.

TransLink had an Memorandum of Understanding (I have a copy somewhere) that they signed with the NDP government of the day that the Province would cover capital costs and debt servicing for the MLine and both extensions, which at that time were supposed to begin after Phase 1 opened. Of course, the Libs came in, halted the MLine extensions, and presumably ripped up that MOU.

[cabotp]

Fact is it is still too cheap to drive a car in this city. Personally I think they should slap on a $100 vehicle levy. Raise the gas taxes by a $1.00 and set up a system of tolls around the metro area. But I would not raise the property tax or the transit fare.

The transit fare is way too high and so it is cheaper to drive my car to work rather than take transit.

[nova9]

Has anyone been able to get a shot of the electronic ads on the new buses yet?

[Vancity]

Originally Posted by nova9

Has anyone been able to get a shot of the electronic ads on the new buses yet?

I have. They look awesome. I like them :]

I hope they're on all the buses, eventually.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by cabotp

Fact is it is still too cheap to drive a car in this city. Personally I think they should slap on a $100 vehicle levy. Raise the gas taxes by a $1.00 and set up a system of tolls around the metro area. But I would not raise the property tax or the transit fare.

The transit fare is way too high and so it is cheaper to drive my car to work rather than take transit.

I can't say I'm in favour of a blankey vehicle levy. What is needed (and recommended in Crilly's report) is a levy based on the amount you drive (kms per year or whatever). If they can't come up with a decent system for that, a gas tax will serve the same purpose.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I can't say I'm in favour of a blankey vehicle levy. What is needed (and recommended in Crilly's report) is a levy based on the amount you drive (kms per year or whatever). If they can't come up with a decent system for that, a gas tax will serve the same purpose.

I have often thought this. I drive a very short distance to work, but I must still drive, because I drop my young kids off at schools. (Technically, I guess that makes me a carpooler...?) I don't cross any bridges or city boundaries, or use any provincial highways. In my opinino, I should be able to pay a much lower insurance rate than the guy who sits on Highway 1 for 2 hours/day from Abbotsford to Burnaby, who probably travels 15x as much roadway per day as I do.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Zassk

I have often thought this. I drive a very short distance to work, but I must still drive, because I drop my young kids off at schools. (Technically, I guess that makes me a carpooler...?) I don't cross any bridges or city boundaries, or use any provincial highways. In my opinino, I should be able to pay a much lower insurance rate than the guy who sits on Highway 1 for 2 hours/day from Abbotsford to Burnaby, who probably travels 15x as much roadway per day as I do.

I agree. I share a compact car with my girlfriend and we put maybe 12,000 kms a year on it. Neither of us rely on the car for daily commuting, although we obviously pay plenty for insurance (even with huge discounts).

I don't mind paying what I pay, and I'd support an increase in gas taxes, but if I'm going to pay some $200 levy, equal to the guy down the block driving his Navigator 30K kms/yr, that's simply not fair.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I can't say I'm in favour of a blankey vehicle levy. What is needed (and recommended in Crilly's report) is a levy based on the amount you drive (kms per year or whatever). If they can't come up with a decent system for that, a gas tax will serve the same purpose.

I do support the idea of tolling all the bridges (except for burrard, granville, and cambie). But at the same time I realize that it isn't a fair system as it really only goes after people who happen to not live on the burrard inlet.

So I thought of system where they could across the entire metro area on all main roads (not side streets) set a system of electronic tolls maybe 1km apart from each other and maybe charge $0.10 each time you pass a toll. So when I drive to work which is 10km. It would cost me $1 to drive to work. And also setup the system so that if I pass under a toll and then try and cut through a bunch of side streets to get past the next toll. That when I pass the 3rd toll the system would realizethat I can't be suddenly here when the last toll I passed is over there without going through at least one other toll and so it would charge me the $0.10 for the toll in the middle that I apparently missed.

That would be the fairest system to me as it would charge people directly for the distance they drive. It wouldn't matter if they went from vancouver to burnaby or my surrey to langley.

Of course I realize that the cost to implement such a system would mean it would never be built.

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by Zassk

I have often thought this. I drive a very short distance to work, but I must still drive, because I drop my young kids off at schools. (Technically, I guess that makes me a carpooler...?) I don't cross any bridges or city boundaries, or use any provincial highways. In my opinino, I should be able to pay a much lower insurance rate than the guy who sits on Highway 1 for 2 hours/day from Abbotsford to Burnaby, who probably travels 15x as much roadway per day as I do.

I don't agree. I do believe that were some sort of car levy implemented you should be charged less--assuming they can come up with a way to determine how much someone drives that is not involve an extreme invasion of privacy and huge administrative expenses.

Insurance, however, is another matter. The rate you are charged is a function of your probability, ceteris paribus, of getting into an accident. (Of course, vehicle age, value, etc., play into it as well.) Most accidents occur during the morning and afternoon/early evening rush hours. And harried parents dropping kids off at school? Also a high-risk group.

[Zassk]

But isn't the risk of accident proportional (linear or otherwise) to the distance driven?

[racc]

Pay-As-You-Drive Vehicle Insurance
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm79.htm

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Zassk

But isn't the risk of accident proportional (linear or otherwise) to the distance driven?

Not all the time example some who drove 5km in Vancouver would have a higher chance of being in an accident compared to someone who drove 5 km out on a country road with nothing around except a bunch of fields.

Originally Posted by racc

Pay-As-You-Drive Vehicle Insurance
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm79.htm

I would support such a system. But the whole reading the odometer I don't like because anyone in the know how could turn the odometer back hence making it look like they hardly ever drove.

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by Zassk

But isn't the risk of accident proportional (linear or otherwise) to the distance driven?

No. It depends on where you do your driving and how many other cars are on the road at the same time. Someone driving 200km round-trip on a relatively empty country road has a lower probability of getting into an accident than someone driving 10 kilometres a day during the evening and morning rush hour in greater Vancouver.

[mr.x]

I'm not really for regional tolls, it's a bit to arbitrary and could split up the region economically....i could see it being used for individual bridges though, but not all of them. Not to mention it's expensive to implement, unlike the gas tax. Hike the gas tax as it's truly a distance-traveled tax and it isn't expensive to implement and operate unlike tolls.

[Zassk]

So I think you both agree that the type of driving also factors in, but the accident rate is proportional to the distance driven. I think it would help shape commuting habits and population growth to have distance-based insurance. It would have the same effect that we seek when we build transit. We want people to live in certain areas and live near their work, and we really want those who travel further distances to use transit. The transit service itself is not the only way to shape that, the cost of driving can also help - not just tolling specific structures or routes, but tolling all driving.

[Metro-One]

haha, distance based insurance, now there is an unrealistic approach. i am sorry, but basing insurance on one's driving recorde is the best system in my opinon.

and no, the accident rate is not proportional to the distance driven. i know many people who drive all the time far distances to the interior and the island etc... all the time who have rearely (if ever) had an accident, on the flip side i know many people who live near downtown that drive very little and have had plenty of accidents.

Also, if you are going to toll all bridges, then toll all bridges, dont leave the False Creek bridges out of it. These ideas to me though all seem to be tax stratgies that reward the rich who can afford the over valued realistate priceses to live near downtown Vancouver and other such areas and punish the working stiffs who can not afoard to live so close to work or who have consistantly changing work locations.

I feel so many of the hair brained eco-schemes thought up here are by those who have a lot of money, or those who have very little responsibility (such as no family).

If one were to toll all bridges (which i somewhat support, if all bridges are included) the toll would have to modest, somewhere in the range of a dollar a crossin (or less). And commercial vehicles would be given a 50% reduction.

[Gordon]

Martin Crilly talked about some sort of distance based Transportation Fee \ congestion charge that would have been administered through ICBC,

Something like that would probably work.

fare incresses can tend to be dis-incentives to ridership, and the 3 zone fare @ $5 is already higher that it should be.

[kylemacmac]

Anyone know if Google Maps plans to put the Skytrain lines on the map anytime soon?

Like this:

[Metro-One]

Some days I take the WCE when working downtown during the day. Here are some pics of the Maple Meadows Station.

Mr. X get a load out of these platform lengths! Sometimes I think you just need to set up a lawn chair where I took these pics and breathe deep....

Here I stood somewhat in the middle of the station, here is the platform looking to the east of me....




And looking to the west of me....




And the train arriving....




While the West Coast Express is great, and the trains themselves are amazingly clean, there is some graffiti that needs to be cleaned off the stations. Also it seems people in our society do not have the maturity or respect to handle the luxury of glass panels in a public place fore many of the glass panels are missing and need to be replaced.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by mr.x

I'm not really for regional tolls, it's a bit to arbitrary and could split up the region economically....i could see it being used for individual bridges though, but not all of them. Not to mention it's expensive to implement, unlike the gas tax. Hike the gas tax as it's truly a distance-traveled tax and it isn't expensive to implement and operate unlike tolls.

I do support the idea of increasing the gas tax has it directly punishes those who drive the most. The only down fall I see to it is in the future when there a more and more electrical cars. How are you supposed to tax that. Of course if they are hydrogen than that is easy just tax the hydrogen.

And while yes if we are all driving electric cars it would be great for the air quality. It still means we would be stuck in traffic.

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Also, if you are going to toll all bridges, then toll all bridges, dont leave the False Creek bridges out of it. These ideas to me though all seem to be tax stratgies that reward the rich who can afford the over valued realistate priceses to live near downtown Vancouver and other such areas and punish the working stiffs who can not afoard to live so close to work or who have consistantly changing work locations.

I feel so many of the hair brained eco-schemes thought up here are by those who have a lot of money, or those who have very little responsibility (such as no family).

If one were to toll all bridges (which i somewhat support, if all bridges are included) the toll would have to modest, somewhere in the range of a dollar a crossin (or less). And commercial vehicles would be given a 50% reduction.

I think a modest toll of $0.50 would be good to start off with. Has for the downtown bridges. While I don't particularly think they should be tolled I'm not against the idea either.

As for commercial vehicles. I'd setup a system where they pay full toll price during the day but in the late evening get a discount. Give them the incentive to work during the night.