NDP removing tolls on Vancouver bridges

[Opeeved]

The NDP are in government now, despite losing the election, because of the promise to remove the tolls. It wasn't enough to win the election but it was enough to get them into power. Ironically, the man who put the NDP into power calls the removal of the tolls "reckless."

This bridge toll promise, the promise to freeze Hydro rates, the promise to eliminate MSP premiums, the promise to bring in $10 per day childcare, the promise to get rid of all school portables within a few years, and the general promise to "make life more affordable for ordinary British Columbians" will make for an interesting fiscal plan when the NDP comes up with one.

Ok what? I don't remember any such promise to remove tolls. I may have missed it. Please, don't pretend about elections. She lost her riding and chose one that she'd likely win. At the point of ousting a democratically elected mla, to win.

That's just lame of you to bring up, again.

Corruption. I know that you know what I mean. In another thread... that I've forgotten about. :)

Given the amount of coverage the promise got in the media, I find it very difficult to believe you honestly missed that bit about removing tolls.

On the other hand what I do find much easier to accept, is the apparent epidemic of NDP'ers with selective memory, when things that don't suit their agenda come to the surface. Let's just blame it on that.

Find it difficult then :)
I don't recall any such promise. Then again, I don't pay much attention to lying corrupt dip sticks like the easily swayed news watchers. It's all bs. You know that, don't you? The almighty dollar and power. Open a history book. It's all there. Nothing has changed except we have a constitution that our courts recognize. Are people that naive? That money and power are the drivers of this world?

Never mind. When someone comes to take what you have, you'll figure it out

[hobbyguy]

*removed*

[JagXKR]

Ok what? I don't remember any such promise to remove tolls. I may have missed it. Please, don't pretend about elections. She lost her riding and chose one that she'd likely win. At the point of ousting a democratically elected mla, to win.

That's just lame of you to bring up, again.

Corruption. I know that you know what I mean. In another thread... that I've forgotten about. :)

Given the amount of coverage the promise got in the media, I find it very difficult to believe you honestly missed that bit about removing tolls.

On the other hand what I do find much easier to accept, is the apparent epidemic of NDP'ers with selective memory, when things that don't suit their agenda come to the surface. Let's just blame it on that.
Find it difficult then :)
I don't recall any such promise. Then again, I don't pay much attention to lying corrupt dip sticks like the easily swayed news watchers. It's all bs. You know that, don't you? The almighty dollar and power. Open a history book. It's all there. Nothing has changed except we have a constitution that our courts recognize. Are people that naive? That money and power are the drivers of this world?

Never mind. When someone comes to take what you have, you'll figure it out

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news ... rs-bridges
snip
"During the provincial election, the Liberals promised to limit tolls on current and future bridges to $500 per year, while the New Democrats have promised to eliminate tolls completely."


I do not believe you never saw this in the news. I am not calling you a liar but how could such a staunch NDP supporter NOT remember this major story in the election. Does not pass the smell test....at all. Not one tiny bit.

[Urbane]

Stuff your socks and wait to see what the Throne Speech has to say and then what Carole James puts forth for the budget.

Are you suggesting that this throne speech will break from tradition and contain a lot of details? Of course it won't. Carole James has already said that it won't be until February of next year before there's a full-blown budget. And you're fine with that! No detailed fiscal plan until then either. And you're fine with that! The bridge tolls have been removed and a lot of other promises were made that are very expensive. How will they be paid for? Some of us would like to know what the NDP plan actually is. We wait.

[Urban Cowboy]

General theory is that if you say something over and over without substantiating it, it is just brain flatulence.

A phenomenon that has infected the lion's share of NDP tooters.

I wonder if Gas-X would be of any benefit to address that affliction?

[36Drew]

Lol. https://www.translink.ca/en/Getting-Around/Driving/Park-and-Ride/Park-and-Ride-Text-Only.aspx

They are for the shnail bus system. One only for Sky Train east of the Fraser. One. 1471 spaces for over a million people..

Sorry - but I fail to see the message you're trying to convey. Just because translink doesn't provide free parking doesn't mean that there isn't parking. There's plenty of other options available. If you can't find them when you come down this way to visit, then that's entirely your own problem.

(Hint: I've just given you a big-ass list. Print it and stick it to your sun visor. You seem to need it)

[Urban Cowboy]

Stuff your socks and wait to see what the Throne Speech has to say and then what Carole James puts forth for the budget.

Are you suggesting that this throne speech will break from tradition and contain a lot of details? Of course it won't. Carole James has already said that it won't be until February of next year before there's a full-blown budget. And you're fine with that! No detailed fiscal plan until then either. And you're fine with that! The bridge tolls have been removed and a lot of other promises were made that are very expensive. How will they be paid for? Some of us would like to know what the NDP plan actually is. We wait.

Just imagine the diatribe we'd have inflicted upon us if the Liberals were doing the exact same thing. It's the NDP now though so it's all good. She's not even putting forth the slightest effort now, Off topic

[LordEd]

*removed*

[lasnomadas]

There's a little box up in the top right area of your screen that reads "Search". Click on it and type in 'shadow tolls'. See what comes up on your screen.

Or you can just close your eyes, plug your ears, and hum, so that you never have to know why the extra tolls have been taken off the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges.

[LordEd]

There's a little box up in the top right area of your screen that reads "Search". Click on it and type in 'shadow tolls'. See what comes up on your screen.

Or you can just close your eyes, plug your ears, and hum, so that you never have to know why the extra tolls have been taken off the Port Mann and Golden Ears bridges.

Typical conspiracy response.

*Discard*

[fluffy]

Removing bridge tolls is a move born out of political ideology, as are many of the other promises made by the NDP that Urbane listed on the previous page. Under all the political harangue the numbers remain, doing away with bridge tolls won't do away with the expenses associated with building and maintaining a bridge, it is simply a change in who pays. With a move away from a "user pay" approach the bridge expense is spread out among the entire populace of the province whether they use a particular service or not. By funding the expenses through general taxation, most likely sales and income taxes, a sliding scale comes into play where those who are better off financially will bear the lion's share of the burden. This is what it comes down to, whether or not you subscribe to the concept that those with a greater ability to pay should subsidize those of limited means. It has been said that a measure of society's enlightenment can be found in how we look after our less fortunate.

Edited to add: To put this in context, with the median income somewhere just under $30K/yr anyone earning above that would find themselves in the company of the "haves" as opposed to the "have-nots". Whether this means that those people will see an increased tax load is anyone's guess, left-wing governments generally like to target the very well-off, say those well into six digits, but the reality of Canadian politics usually sees the middle class footing a big chunk of the bill.

[LordEd]

I looked up your history... You mention "shadow tolls" 7 times and shadow toll 4 times.

I suggest you google 'shadow tolls'.

Shadow tolls........Google it.

There was, and still is, a shadow toll on both those bridges.

Not once have you cited a shred of data. You just say it exists or say to Google it.

You probably fear Dihydrogen monoxide as well.

[rustled]

Removing bridge tolls is a move born out of political ideology, as are many of the other promises made by the NDP that Urbane listed on the previous page. Under all the political harangue the numbers remain, doing away with bridge tolls won't do away with the expenses associated with building and maintaining a bridge, it is simply a change in who pays. With a move away from a "user pay" approach the bridge expense is spread out among the entire populace of the province whether they use a particular service or not. By funding the expenses through general taxation, most likely sales and income taxes, a sliding scale comes into play where those who are better off financially will bear the lion's share of the burden. This is what it comes down to, whether or not you subscribe to the concept that those with a greater ability to pay should subsidize those of limited means. It has been said that a measure of society's enlightenment can be found in how we look after our less fortunate.

Edited to add: To put this in context, with the median income somewhere just under $30K/yr anyone earning above that would find themselves in the company of the "haves" as opposed to the "have-nots". Whether this means that those people will see an increased tax load is anyone's guess, left-wing governments generally like to target the very well-off, say those well into six digits, but the reality of Canadian politics usually sees the middle class footing a big chunk of the bill.

This works reasonably well where shared contribution to the delivery of a necessary public service is the goal. One can apply this concept to the delivery of infrastructure.

However, in the case of the tolled infrastructure at the Lower Mainland there is also the second goal: strongly encouraging the increased use of public transit, so there would be better use of that publicly-supported infrastructure and less pressure to invest in additional publicly funded infrastructure for personal transportation.

There's really no sensible way the rest of the taxpaying public can assist in contributing to that goal, and the absence of tolls makes that goal harder to achieve. It's a bit of a conundrum.

[fluffy]

This works reasonably well where shared contribution to the delivery of a necessary public service is the goal. One can apply this concept to the delivery of infrastructure.

However, in the case of the tolled infrastructure at the Lower Mainland there is also the second goal: strongly encouraging the increased use of public transit, so there would be better use of that publicly-supported infrastructure and less pressure to invest in additional publicly funded infrastructure for personal transportation.

There's really no sensible way the rest of the taxpaying public can assist in contributing to that goal, and the absence of tolls makes that goal harder to achieve. It's a bit of a conundrum.

With that perspective, it's odd that the greener side of the GreenDP didn't kick up a stink. It could be a votes vs. principle thing, for as much as British Columbians like to tout an environmentally responsible facade, not a whole lot of us are willing to give up the "one-vehicle-one-passenger" mindset.

[hobbyguy]

I really don't think the NDP promise to "eliminate the bridge tolls" (which they aren't) was born out of an ideological position. When I looked at the NDP so called platform, it was actually just a vote mining list. Essentially trying to say "you can have everything you want for free" when that is clearly not the case.

The "eliminate the bridge tolls" was nothing more than a pure vote mining operation. It worked. Now the "elimination of bridge tolls" is evolving into replacing the bridge tolls with, possibly bridge tolls - but more likely mobility pricing - which will be much more regressive.

It also transfers the GVRD costs of ridiculously silly transportation policy to the rest of the province, rewarding the NDP mayor complex in the Vancouver area. So the costs are now added back into general taxes, and the same folks will wind up paying for a portion anyway.

A good portion of those transportation costs are a result of the abysmal planning and management evident in the NDP mayor complex. "Demovictions" Derek is forcing low income folks to move out - and creating more transportation demand in the same fell swoop. "Social housing in election years only" Gregor has been doing that for years, constantly allowing rental housing to be torn down, also forcing folks to move out. Note that "Demovictions" Derek tries to maintain that Burnaby has no responsibility to provide social housing - really? That sounds like a pretty hard right position, and one that most metropolitan mayors around the world don't take.

So the NDP mayoral policies have punished lower income folks in the GVRD, and now they are going to punish them again with mobility pricing or reinstating bridge tolls - except on ALL the bridges.