🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Feb12.212347.2538@sfu.ca>, lort@fraser.sfu.ca (Charles Lort) writes:
( some stuff deleted )
|> 
|> Thirdly, shouldn't the tolls be equal to the cost of public transportation,
|> that is either at the 2 zone or 3 zone rate?  The additional funds collected
|> could be used to upgrade the public transit system.  The net effect would
|> be to ease the traffic situation, reduce pollution, and provide considerable
|> employment thereby enhancing the quality of life for all citiizens 
|> of the lower mainland (including those who would continue to use their
|> vehicles to get to work or school).
|> 

The point of the toll is to pay for the construction of the bridge.  The
government is adopting a "user pay" approach, where those who benefit from
new roadways pay the cost.  The tolls are expected to be lifted when the
cost of the bridge is fully paid.

I strongly disagree with using the toll to further a social agenda.  If
that is done, there is nothing to prevent tolls from becoming more 
widespread.  Why not further your social agenda by also imposing tolls
on all the other bridges?  Furthermore, none of these tolls would ever
disappear.

Another "advantage" to allowing tolls is that communities could increase
the priority of construction they desire in their area by indicating
willingness to pay tolls.  For example, if a community wishes a road
built, and the government agrees but indicates that funds will not be
available for 15 years, the community could probably pressure the government
into the construction if the cost were reimbursed through the tolls.

I am surprised that an NDP government is taking this approach, though.
I would have expected a social agenda behind virtually all taxation
imposed by this regime.  Perhaps they are of the opinion that everyone
in North/West Van. is wealthy ...