Page 1 of 3

The NDP's anti-Environmental Move

PostPosted: Sep 12th, 2017, 10:55 am
by Glacier
Removing the tolls on the bridges was good politics, but it's complete hypocrisy for anyone on the environmental left to support it. More cars = more pollution. Stupid, stupid, stupid. But don't worry, the province will up taxes on the interior residents to make up for it (expect your heating costs to go up with a higher carbon tax that's no longer revenue neutral).

http://globalnews.ca/news/3737799/traff ... nn-bridge/

Re: The NDP's anti-Environmental Move

PostPosted: Sep 12th, 2017, 3:24 pm
by Keith Duhaime
Glacier wrote:...on the environmental left to support it..../


Leaving tolls on those bridges is hardly a policy of the left. Removing them however is in that it forces people not involved with the decision to use them to pay for them, including people that will never use them. IOW, it's wealth redistribution from people like myself to benefit people in the lower mainland, very much a policy of the left. Policies of the right limit externalities like this and force decision makers to take responsibility for their own decisions.

Re: The NDP's anti-Environmental Move

PostPosted: Sep 12th, 2017, 3:25 pm
by The Green Barbarian
Glacier wrote:Removing the tolls on the bridges was good politics, but it's complete hypocrisy for anyone on the environmental left to support it. More cars = more pollution. Stupid, stupid, stupid. But don't worry, the province will up taxes on the interior residents to make up for it (expect your heating costs to go up with a higher carbon tax that's no longer revenue neutral).

http://globalnews.ca/news/3737799/traff ... nn-bridge/


Yup - raise carbon taxes to force everyone to heat with electricity, then block Site C so that our grid gets maxxed out and everyone is forced to use electricity generated by natural gas in Alberta. This is the NDP at work folks.

Re: The NDP's anti-Environmental Move

PostPosted: Sep 12th, 2017, 4:11 pm
by twobits
Too bad the "rest of BC" can't succeed from the lower mainland and Vancouver Island. 5% of the land mass and 100% of the control. Mr potato head and the green giant are going to decimate this Province with their wealth redistribution ideology. Tax evasion is going to skyrocket with people fed up of supporting the working poor that CHOOSE to live in the lower mainland and look to wealth redistribution policy as their answer.
For the first time ever, between the Trudeau and the NDP/Green alliance, I am seriously looking at moving my capital out of country and giving up Canadian Residency. Quite a few people I know have already done so even prior to these elections. Some of you will say "I'll help pack your bags" until you realize that the collective taxes we pay and are now gone will only increase your tax load until you too become resentful of supporting the people less ambitious and motivated than you. You will become the target of the socialist's that lobby for asinine carbon taxes.

Re: The NDP's anti-Environmental Move

PostPosted: Sep 12th, 2017, 4:20 pm
by seewood
On the CBC news, carbon tax going up and not revenue neutral. So I guess the areas of the province that did not vote NDG are now having to pay for the bridges in the lower mainland.
Looking at the budget update, looks like they are doing their best to spend up to what the Libs have done + the surplus if the economy and government revenues are similar to last year. Current surplus has already gone to pay down past operating deficits...a good thing and then spend the interest savings.

Re: The NDP's anti-Environmental Move

PostPosted: Sep 12th, 2017, 5:46 pm
by maryjane48
Glacier wrote:Removing the tolls on the bridges was good politics, but it's complete hypocrisy for anyone on the environmental left to support it. More cars = more pollution. Stupid, stupid, stupid. But don't worry, the province will up taxes on the interior residents to make up for it (expect your heating costs to go up with a higher carbon tax that's no longer revenue neutral).

http://globalnews.ca/news/3737799/traff ... nn-bridge/

hardly. what it means is a shift towards more mass transit. the bclibs idda of tolling bridges was a fleece job that did zero to address the needs of a metro sized city. . ideological politicaly motavated OFF TOPIC

Re: The NDP's anti-Environmental Move

PostPosted: Sep 12th, 2017, 6:42 pm
by blueliner
. More cars = more pollution. Stupid, stupid, stupid. But don't worry, the province will up taxes on the interior residents to make up for it (expect your heating costs to go up with a higher carbon tax that's no longer revenue neutral).
Stupid ...Stupid ....Stupid ....
Pretty well sums up any one who voted for the NDP :cuss:

Re: The NDP's anti-Environmental Move

PostPosted: Sep 13th, 2017, 3:23 am
by madmudder
Well with that thinking there should be a toll on the Bennet bridge. People of the lower mainland are paying for our bridge they never use.

Re: The NDP's anti-Environmental Move

PostPosted: Sep 13th, 2017, 8:29 am
by 36Drew
Keith Duhaime wrote:Leaving tolls on those bridges is hardly a policy of the left. Removing them however is in that it forces people not involved with the decision to use them to pay for them, including people that will never use them. IOW, it's wealth redistribution from people like myself to benefit people in the lower mainland, very much a policy of the left. Policies of the right limit externalities like this and force decision makers to take responsibility for their own decisions.


The lower mainlaind contains 60%+ of the population. Don't feel too slighted, though. We're paying for your bridge, your upgrades to West Side Road that pretty much serve a small reclusive community, and all of your forest fire fighting efforts. It's wealth redistribution from the lower mainland to benefit a tiny chunk of the population in a more remote part of the province.

Re: The NDP's anti-Environmental Move

PostPosted: Sep 13th, 2017, 8:42 am
by Keith Duhaime
36Drew wrote:
The lower mainlaind contains 60%+ of the population. Don't feel too slighted, though. We're paying for your bridge, your upgrades to West Side Road that pretty much serve a small reclusive community, and all of your forest fire fighting efforts. It's wealth redistribution from the lower mainland to benefit a tiny chunk of the population in a more remote part of the province.


I never agreed with removal of the tolls on the Coq nor with the new bridge here being toll free either. And FYI, I seldom use either. Both should be on tolls as well as all new bridges and major highways, but i doubt that will happen now that the communists run the province. These morons also want to remove MSP premiums as well instead of simply reforming them to be real insurance premiums based on client behaviours and lifestyle choices like progressive health insurance companies in the US do. And then there is ICBC, another tool of the communist manifesto these idiots created in the 1970s. And FYI, no i am not a Liberal supporter. They had 16 years to fix problems the NDP created but actually did the opposite (eg. dropping the tolls on the Coq).

Re: The NDP's anti-Environmental Move

PostPosted: Sep 13th, 2017, 9:52 am
by rustled
I didn't have a problem with the tolls on the Coq. There were two routes to get to the interior, and when another option was added, those of us who chose that route helped to pay for that option. That's how it worked on the Lower Mainland.

If we were given the option of paying a toll for an option to using the Bennett bridge, you can bet I'd pay to use it. Particularly if it bypassed West Kelowna and avoided Harvey entirely. Traffic idling at intersections for miles and miles does absolutely nothing to improve air quality, or quality of life for people who live along that overburdened transportation corridor.

How long are we going to have to wait for that option? Or for better public transit options? No swing ridings involved, so you can bet it's nowhere near the NDP's vote-mining radar.

Re: The NDP's anti-Environmental Move

PostPosted: Sep 13th, 2017, 10:01 am
by Urbane
    rustled wrote:I didn't have a problem with the tolls on the Coq. There were two routes to get to the interior, and when another option was added, those of us who chose that route helped to pay for that option. That's how it worked on the Lower Mainland.

    If we were given the option of paying a toll for an option to using the Bennett bridge, you can bet I'd pay to use it. Particularly if it bypassed West Kelowna and avoided Harvey entirely. Traffic idling at intersections for miles and miles does absolutely nothing to improve air quality, or quality of life for people who live along that overburdened transportation corridor.

    How long are we going to have to wait for that option? Or for better public transit options? No swing ridings involved, so you can bet it's nowhere near the NDP's vote-mining radar.

My thoughts as well. I wish the tolls on the Coq had remained in place long enough to pay for the Kingsvale to Aspen Grove section that the NDP government should have completed when they were last in power. The fact that Merritt is a swing riding trumps the environment though. Too bad.

Re: The NDP's anti-Environmental Move

PostPosted: Sep 13th, 2017, 10:14 am
by 36Drew
rustled wrote:If we were given the option of paying a toll for an option to using the Bennett bridge


And there's the crux of the matter. You're willing to pay for a toll when there's an alternative. The plan was (and perhaps still is) to replace the Patullo bridge with a new bridge and toll it. The toll on the Port Mann bridge had the effect of driving a large chunk of traffic to the Patullo bridge, thus driving a need to replace it. The plan was to toll the replacement.

The George Massey tunnel was to be replaced with a bigger, more expensive bridge than the Port Mann bridge - and then tolled.

There wouldn't have been any feasible options. Imagine if the Bennett bridge were, in fact, tolled - and you were told that your option was to drive up Westside Road, and then back down Hwy 97 from Vernon. I'm quite certain that you, and every other person in Kelowna and West Kelowna, would be calling for blood.

That's what happened down here. "The People" got fed up with having to pay $6/day to cross the damned bridge just to earn a living.

I think the tolls were a good idea, personally. I think they were too high (enough to divert traffic from the Port Mann to the Patullo). At the same time, however, I think the Bennett bridge should also be tolled. I also think the Coquihalla should have kept the toll.

Re: The NDP's anti-Environmental Move

PostPosted: Sep 13th, 2017, 10:31 am
by rustled
36Drew wrote:
rustled wrote:If we were given the option of paying a toll for an option to using the Bennett bridge


And there's the crux of the matter. You're willing to pay for a toll when there's an alternative. The plan was (and perhaps still is) to replace the Patullo bridge with a new bridge and toll it. The toll on the Port Mann bridge had the effect of driving a large chunk of traffic to the Patullo bridge, thus driving a need to replace it. The plan was to toll the replacement.

The George Massey tunnel was to be replaced with a bigger, more expensive bridge than the Port Mann bridge - and then tolled.

There wouldn't have been any feasible options. Imagine if the Bennett bridge were, in fact, tolled - and you were told that your option was to drive up Westside Road, and then back down Hwy 97 from Vernon. I'm quite certain that you, and every other person in Kelowna and West Kelowna, would be calling for blood.

That's what happened down here. "The People" got fed up with having to pay $6/day to cross the damned bridge just to earn a living.

I think the tolls were a good idea, personally. I think they were too high (enough to divert traffic from the Port Mann to the Patullo). At the same time, however, I think the Bennett bridge should also be tolled. I also think the Coquihalla should have kept the toll.


I fully admit I'm not well-versed in LM traffic patterns. Is Westside Road a reasonable comparison for commuters there?

Here, if traffic had the choice of using a properly upgraded Westside Road to bypass Kelowna when heading to Vernon or beyond, or a second crossing to get to Rutland, or an upgraded route from Penticton to Rutland, I'd be absolutely alright with a toll.

I'd expect there to be a cap for those who are commuting daily, but honestly, IMO, everyone should fully consider the extra strain they're putting on infrastructure by living in one community and working or educating their children in another. Our actions have consequences.

Re: The NDP's anti-Environmental Move

PostPosted: Sep 13th, 2017, 11:50 am
by Dizzy1
rustled wrote: Our actions have consequences.

But we shouldn't be held accountable for that :biggrin: