Transit and Translink: How should public transit be funded?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Silvi on July 11, 2010 at 2:48pm

Here's how I augment the cost of my transit use these days:

I sign up for one class at Langara, which gets me a U-pass (that's worth 4 months of unlimited rides in all 3 zones). Check out tuition prices for Vancouver residents: http://www.langara.bc.ca/university-career-studies/fees/domestic.html

Maybe the balance of taking a college course would work for you. Langara has several classes that can be taken around a work schedule, and people of many ages go there.

Permalink Reply by myna lee johnstone on November 22, 2010 at 5:55am

ICBC should up the insurance rates and all surplus must go to public transit.
Auto corporations and dealers need to pay into the social costs of driving. In Canada, these social costs, which include emergency response teams, police surveillance, street cleaning ,etc are up to $190 Billion last count.
People complain about long waits at emergency and lack of hospital beds, but how much of this is due to automobile accidents?
Choose to drive and you should pay extra for all these extra costs .
Parking fees need to be raised and that money put into transit as well.
Anything to do with autos and repairs should have an extra tax that goes into funding for transit as well.

Permalink Reply by Peter Finch on July 24, 2011 at 11:14pm

I think that increasing ICBC rates is on the right track.  There should be rewards for low mileage combined with lack of accidents.  Also, there should be penalties for luxury vehicles, especially those vehicles that are conspicuous consumers, and some of this should be based on engine displacement.  All of the penalties should be allocated to the transit budget.  With such a formula, behaviours would be modified to favour those who choose smaller fuel efficient cars and drive less.  Another possibility would be to have a class of license/insurance for those who drive only a couple of days a week.

Permalink Reply by Randy Chatterjee on July 25, 2011 at 9:03am

I am a big fan of charging insurance based on kilometres driven, although the rates would have to be set after the fact through credits or surcharges once the odometer count is verified--and thus it would be difficult to implement.  A self-reporting trust-and-spot-verify approach might work if the surcharges were graduated rather than stepped.  For instance, if people knew that going over 10,000 km/year kicked them into a higher rate, they would have a huge incentive to lie or tamper with the odometer.  Odometer-fixing is trivial and all to common.  If, however, the surcharge were simply 3 cents per kilometre, then self-reporting and random verification might work.

As a counterpoint, remember that the carbon footprint of a car has so much to do with its manufacturing and storage (taking up asphalt or garage space) that charging by actual usage misses some of the point.  If we actually want to deter car ownership, usage-based billing is counter-productive.

In any case, a simpler method of usage-based taxation, charging at the pump, is already in place, and at least appears to be used to subsidize transit (if you believe the province and Translink).

On your final point, ICBC already gives a discount to drivers who claim not to use their vehicle for commuting.  This is of course not verified.

The real solution, CLOSE THE TAR SANDS, and drive up petrol prices through scarcity of supply.  Yes, this is a social justice issue; people who are necessarily car dependent (almost everyone in the suburbs and all of BC's rural areas) will be big losers.  We need to take care of these people first, or there will be no health care, access to food, or access to jobs in more rural areas.  We need these people, because--among other things--they grow our food!