When Vaughn Palmer, The Sun’s Victoria columnist, turns his attention to an issue, he provides both valuable information and the context into which it fits.
.
People spoke in 2009 – did anybody listen?
Transit feedback: Road user fees, carbon pricing top options for more than 9,000 Metro residents
January 25, 2014
.
Last time Metro Vancouver residents were consulted in depth, they gave strong indications about what they would and would not support in terms of new revenue sources to pay for transit expansion.
… the TransLink consultation was far more extensive than the one the Liberals themselves conducted in advance of the decision to put a toll on the Port Mann Bridge.
“Participants consistently indicated that carbon pricing and road user fees should be considered as the top two options. These were preferred because people understood the relationship between the impact on the environment and the transportation network and the need to pay for sustainable alternatives. ”
… the public offered reasonably clear support for a broad-based system of road-pricing: “Discussions on road user fees tended to focus on tolls and congestion pricing. There was some mention of high-occupancy toll lanes.
Measures that drew general support included parking stall fees (“overall support for an increase between 14 and 21 per cent”) a vehicle levy (variable, between $65 and $200) and continued reliance on the fuel tax. …
Other revenue-raising possibilities to emerge from the consultations, some creative, others nonstarters … Most people had a problem balancing investment priorities with revenue. It should be noted that many of the people that said “no” to current funding sources still supported moderate or significant investment levels.”
Still, to recap, the survey found “strong support for funding sources that influence behavioural change for example, kilometres travelled, fuel tax, tolls, efficiency of vehicles, etc.” On that basis, the report provides a starting point for framing any referendum question on funding sources for transit.
Instead of grousing about the lack of input from TransLink and Metro Vancouver on this issue, the Liberals should recognize that it has already been provided – and at their behest, no less.
.
Coincidence, possibly, but yesterday the Premier indicated that the timing for a referendum concerning Metro Vancouver’s transportation system is open for discussion. Since she was previously adamant that the referendum had to happen on civic election day, even entertaining a change makes it as good as done.
That, I think, was partly the effect of sustained and increasingly negative media coverage that accelerated after Palmer started to engage the issue in his columns.
While the date may change, one thing hasn’t: We still don’t know what the Premier really wants as an outcome, and whether she’s prepared to let her transportation minister follow through on his original commitment: “It is imperative to get this right, to win this referendum.”
9000 people is hardly democracy nor broad support. Of course those that commute by bus, bike or on foot support a per km charge.
Did Vaugn also predict an NDP majority in May 2013 ?
The Liberals are right to nib the socialists in BC in the butt, many of which run various cities’ councils or sit on them.
Funny, how the level of salaries and benefits of public servants never gets put to a vote, nor is it ever discussed in public nor by Vaugn to my knowledge.
Also, why should people in Prince George, Kamloops or Kelowna pay for MetroVancouver’s traffic issues or public transit ?
ALL measures to fund more public transit have to be discussed, incl. higher user fees, lower salaries of the employees operating the system, union’s rights to strike, road tolling, vehicle levies by engine size, parking fees, fuel taxes … But again, I have seen nothing on the first three on my list here , neither in this forum nor by Vaugn nor by MetroVan mayors council. Perhaps that is why Christy Clarke got elected and wants tax payers to have their input here on all of these issues !
If you have not seen discussions about lowering salaries and the inevitable conclusion that it would have a negligible effect, it’s because you have not been paying attention.
Transit fares are constantly discussed as well, and in fact they are periodically raised.
As for unions’ right to strike… perhaps you should read the newspapers about the recent court rulings regarding teachers.
Having said that, if you would like to present a solution to TransLinks’ woes based on the above three categories, then by all means do so. But if you’re going to present it on this blog, you’ll need to come prepared with a well-thought-out proposal and not just nebulous accusations of ideological bias.