.
Brent Toderian makes the case not only for Yes but on the danger of No – potentially the ‘Rob Ford’ moment for Metro if, out of anger, we vote for dysfunction.
Article Categories
Archives (2003-13)
Recent Articles
Recent Episodes
- Podcast
- Events
- Support
- About Viewpoint Vancouver
- City Elections 2022
- Climate Change
- COVID Place making
- The Livable Region
- Transportation
- Urbanism
- All The Livable Region
- Business & Economy
- Energy & Resources
- Governance & Politics
- Housing
- All Transportation
- Cycling
- Infrastructure
- Motordom
- Public Transit
- Walking & Mobility
- All Urbanism
- Architecture
- Art & Culture
- Design & Development
- History & Heritage
- Policy & Planning
- Nature & Public Spaces
- Podcast
- Events
- Support
- About Viewpoint Vancouver
- City Elections 2022
- Climate Change
- COVID Place making
- The Livable Region
- Transportation
- Urbanism
- All The Livable Region
- Business & Economy
- Energy & Resources
- Governance & Politics
- Housing
- All Transportation
- Cycling
- Infrastructure
- Motordom
- Public Transit
- Walking & Mobility
- All Urbanism
- Architecture
- Art & Culture
- Design & Development
- History & Heritage
- Policy & Planning
- Nature & Public Spaces
This ink doesn’t seem to be working. I’d be really curious to hear it. Can you resend?
Click where it says “on global”
Brent nailed it. Love when Jill say some people think our transit system is awful. We have become so used to a high standard here its crazy.
The “NO” side is saying Translink should be perfect and “Perfect is the enemy of good”.
Why is there no discussion about the intention to charge by the kilometre for all driving?
From The Mayors’ Plan:
“The Mayors’ Council is committed to implementing a more consistent region-wide approach to pricing road usage “.
That could just as easily be bridge tolling more consistently across the region I guess.
Which would you prefer?
Because it isn’t on the ballot. It isn’t what we are voting for or against, which is simply a half percent sales tax increase. Why does the no side keep bringing this item up?
Perhaps you should go to the Mayors’ Plan website and read the information there. We are voting on the Plan and the Vision.
“An important early step is for TransLink to launch a mobility pricing field study in the next year that will help us identify the most promising approaches for implementation …This Vision calls for usage charges to help pay for the capital cost of the new Pattullo Bridge and to manage demand. ”
Already read it, thanks. You should read it again, and not take individual lines out of context.
There were five funding options considered. Mobility pricing was one of them. The half percent sales tax increase was selected as the preferred funding option. That is what we are voting on.
Longer term, mobility pricing makes sense to me. I think comprehensive mobility pricing is fairer than bridge tolls on a limited number of routes. But that is a future debate. Right now, it is about a half percent sales tax. The closest we will get to mobility pricing is a study on how it could be implemented, and what the trade offs would be in terms of reduced fuel tax, etc, vs mobility pricing.
You are wrong. The Mayors’ Plan web site clearly states:
“HOW DO WE PAY?
The following funding sources are required to deliver this Vision:
Staged introduction of mobility pricing on the road network
The Mayors’ Council is committed to implementing a more consistent region-wide approach to pricing road usage as the most fair and effective way to reduce congestion.
The Plan also wants some of the Carbon Tax:
NEAR TERM: Use BC Carbon Tax revenues collected in Metro Vancouver to reallocate towards transportation in this region
The BC Carbon Tax is recognized as an effective way to reduce carbon emissions and improve economic efficiency. The benefits of this tax would be greatly increased by directing the revenues towards regional transportation improvements that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Vision calls for $250 million of the BC Carbon Tax currently paid by Metro Vancouver residents and businesses to be reallocated to transportation investment in this region.
If the Government of British Columbia chooses not to pursue this approach, another option is to increase the existing BC Carbon Tax rate for the Metro Vancouver region to support transportation investment.”
This is not buried at the end, it’s right at the top after the intro., under Highlights.
Comprehensive road pricing for all vehicles is also an important item in the Transport 2040 document that the City of Vancouver adopted as official policy in 2012.
Eric, you appear to be referring to documents dated June 2014. Much has happened in the past 9 months. The use of carbon tax revenue was turned down by the province and is off the table. Mobility pricing was determined to take too long to implement. That led to the sales tax increase being chosen as the preferred alternative, and it is what we are voting on. This is all explained on the mayor’s council site if you look at the more recent documents.
Wow! I’m impressed. He’s saying what everyone else is thinking.
Amazing bookends from this Krop character.
Intro: “so, Brent, you call yourself an urban planner?”
Outro: “those people on buses are no-hoper students who can’t pay their debts…”