Transportation guru Stephen Rees, Green Party candidate for Richmond East, said that funneling Metro Vancouver's carbon tax revenue to Translink isn't necessary to achieve better public transportation in the region.
He spoke at a press conference today about the Green Party's liveable cities plan, which includes investing in light rail transit, canceling the Gateway program and providing funding for co-op and non-profit housing.
"The purpose of our plan is to start giving people some choices," said Rees. "One of the things you notice about living in Greater Vancouver is that for most people getting around means driving. For a long time we’ve said we’d like to increase the transit mode share."
When asked what he thought of the Mayor's Council on Regional Transportation's appeal for carbon tax revenue to make up a $450 million shortfall, Rees said that asking 'where do you get the money for public transit' was a "tired old argument."
"We've got the money," he said, pointing to the $3.1 billion Port Mann Bridge.
Party leader Jane Sterk also called Vancouver's new $883 million convention centre a "waste of money" that could have been better spent on transit or housing.
"We're not a party that would have supported that big project," she said, in response to a reporter's question asking what she thought of the centre's green roof.
Sterk also said municipalities need more money for green infrastructure, and said the provincial share of federal tax dollars should at least double.
Rees said that most people in the Greater Vancouver area move from suburb to suburb, not to downtown Vancouver, and said that Fraser Valley suburbs could be serviced by passenger rail cars on the Interurban line immediately.
He said he was initially approached to run in the Fraser Valley, but didn't want to commute.
"I'm not afraid of getting elected," he joked -- noting that Richmond East is a Liberal stronghold -- but said he wanted to join the Greens because he felt they had the best policies.
Colleen Kimmett reports for The Hook.
15
Login or register to post comments
seth
3 years ago
Green's don't know SH## from Sherlock
What the Greenie's don't talk about since they are too busy trying to get the Liberals elected are the two most obvious and cheapest alternatives to gateway, carbon taxes, and transit builds, alternatives that actually save instead of costing money - telecommuting and 3 day work weeks. Unfortunately until government/corporate execs are forced out their dinosaur butts in a seat mentality little will change.
We need to force our government organizations to institute mandatory telecommuting plans then add corporate carrot/stick incentives later. To illustrate the effect on energy/traffic/. US GTA has marked 40% of US federal civilian employee jobs are telecommutable that includes us forest and postal services I would assume the BC government is more or less the same. A Carlton university survey found 60% of those surveyed would telecommute if they could. Stats Can has it that that institutions under the control/purview of the BC Government ie hydro ferries municipals control more than 350,000 employees. Gordo could have ended rush hour almost overnight, but that would have emptied the big downtown office buildings of his real estate campaign donators.
The problem with transit builds is the difficulty in trying to get commuters out of their cars. This has never been addressed by the clueless ones in the Green party.
A commuter from White Rock to downtown Vancouver can at present save at least a hour in time and $25 in automotive costs a day by taking the bus. Unfortunately, they love their SUV's,starbucks coffee, and makeup kits and think buses are for low class white trash so only 10% of commuter trips are on the bus. It is quite hilarious zooming along in the bus in the HOV lanes past these nitwits.
Finally an afternative transit structure that would never occur to a Greenie would involve a change in taxi structures. Kingston had a taxi system in the 70's where the cabs were dispatched in an orderly fashion east to west and north to south picking up and dropping off passengers as they went along. The fare was about double the bus fare With modern GPS and computer based control ,it would be easy to set up a similar system.
Taxi cab companies like it the way it is and spend millions in campaign donations to keep it that way. An outfit tried to set up a van based system $5 anywhere in the Surrey BC but were quickly shut down by the sleazy city council.
Grumpy
3 years ago
Neither does Seth
A round trip from Whiterock, by bus is $10, gas for the car and parking $10 to $20 per day. So for less than $10 a day one can enjoy the privacy and safety of their car.
Rod Smelser
3 years ago
Stephen Rees
Stephen Rees, according to his own blog, commutes by car every day through the Deas Island Tunnel. You must understand that Mr Rees if forced to travel by car by the circumstances of his life. This is unlike the thousands of other people who could so easily stop driving and take transit instead, or walk or bike, or simply move closer to work as the GVRD doctrine says they should.
The difference between Mr Rees's situation and that of so many others is that Mr Rees is a blogger, an urban guru, and a critic of highways. So if he has to drive, he's allowed to, since he's spent so much time condemning highways and automobiles. He's earned it!
Geof
3 years ago
Need transit choice
Grumpy, although you're right transit wouldn't save $25 from White Rock, your number is low.
The marginal cost of driving my Corolla is about $.16/km at current gas prices (that includes maintenance and minimal repairs, but not insurance or car purchase). According to Google Maps, White Rock to Vancouver is 44.8km, which works out to $301 for 21 days. Add, say, $150 for a monthly parking pass (found on Craigslist - is this figure representative?). Compare that with $109 for a three-zone pass ($136 minus 20% tax deduction). Difference: $342 a month or $16.30 a day.
The difference would obviously be much greater if you were able to get rid of the car entirely (e.g. going from a 2- to 1-car family).
I don't begrudge you feeling more safe or comfortable in your car, but not everyone feels that way. On both counts, I personally prefer decent transit if it's available: no risk of accidents and no need to drive (so I can snooze or read). My wife feels the same. That's why it's so important to provide the choice - and why we need so desperately to improve transit quality and availability, particularly south of the Fraser where the current situation is inadequate.
Campbellwearsatutu
3 years ago
Rees is a ............
Moron
He is rude,obtuse,an elitist,never will he admit he`s wrong.
Not only that he has broken the unwritten code,he betrayed posters to his blog by stating their real private names when he responded to their posted criticism......
Rod Smelser,you are correct,Rees thinks everyone should pay through the nose,walk to work and share everything,he also talks about making room for millions more people moving to the fraser valley.(the more the merrier)
As a final note,Mr.Rees has many good ideas but his biggest fault is blowing away anyone else`s ideas,his opinion is the only one that counts.
seth
3 years ago
Grumpys Magic car
Gee I hope your other transit comments are better costed out than that one.
Revenue Canada allows something in the order of 47 cents a km for auto mileage expenses which would include a contribution of the purchase price of the auto as depreciation. If you never drove the car it would last a lot longer, and use a lot less maintenance than stop and start driving on Hwy 99 and Granville now wouldn't it? Works out to $35 a day over a transit pass without parking and $44 with.
Dudes like you are the bane of transit planners because you never consider the long term average total cost of your car when you choose to drive. I also get to sleep, read, or work with my laptop in my nice comfortable seat on the 351. I sometimes even sneak on a coffee.
Geof
3 years ago
Seth's numbers more typical
The CRA number quoted by Seth is probably more representative. I don't like driving a whole lot, so I'm cheap on my car. My $.16 is based on actual accounting I did for all costs for my car over a period of 2 years. I assumed I would have to pay for insurance regardless, as I would keep it for pleasure.
I'll add a depreciation estimate. For me, the important cost would be replacement. If I ditched it today, you have my purchase price (used) of $12000/135000km = .09. That takes daily savings to $24.36, monthly $520. The $12000 is in unadjusted 1999 dollars, but then the car has a lot of life left in it. Call it just about even.
As you can see, the savings amount to a fair bit of housing - perhaps enough to live near decent transit (we do).
rac
3 years ago
Cars Aren't Safe
Grumpy
Safety of a car. Don't be ridiculous. Automobile fatalities take one year off the average lifespan.
Grumpy
3 years ago
This is the reality of the situation.........
........... you have a car, you insure the car, and you use it. Thus one is talking of minor wear and tear and gas, when commuting.
You guys have been buffaloed by too many statistics. Not all people drive new cars and not all people pay for parking.
I would say your figures are a tad to high. Seth's comments are the bane of good transit planning, simply because the bus is not a transit solution. But that is another story.
Rod Smelser
3 years ago
Thanks Campbellwearsatutu
Campbellwearsatutu
Not only that he has broken the unwritten code,he betrayed posters to his blog by stating their real private names when he responded to their posted criticism......
I didn't know that. Interesting. It sort of fits in with his "I drive, you bike it" schtick.
Rod Smelser
3 years ago
I wouldn't do it
Grumpy
........... you have a car, you insure the car, and you use it. Thus one is talking of minor wear and tear and gas, when commuting.
I think this is probably true for short commutes, say under 5kms. But for longer trips the insurance premium is going to take a visible leap, and what is more, the risk of accident to the driver is going to go up if commuting long distances five days a week is going to be a sustained activity. While one could argue that the risk of injury is financially captured in the increased insurance premium, the non-compensable costs (permanent loss of some abilities) remains a major obstacle that has to be considered.
And the minor wear and tear on the car is going to increase as well, becoming major mileage in just a few years.
Lewis N. Villegas
3 years ago
Getting People out of Their Cars
We know how to get people out of their cars. It requires a combined design strategy. You have to design both the (surface rail) transportation system and the neighborhood footprint.
If you live within easy walking distance of shopping, work, and a transit stop, you will opt to walk and not drive for 75% of your trips, a California study showed.
We need an alternative to the Liberal-NDP polarity in our province if we are going to "get on" with building a livable region.
As to Mr. Rees's elitism, increasingly in the EcoDensity debate being in possession of "concrete facts" is becoming an elitist position.
Rod Smelser
3 years ago
What "concrete facts"?
Lewis N. Villegas
As to Mr. Rees's elitism, increasingly in the EcoDensity debate being in possession of "concrete facts" is becoming an elitist position.
What "conrete facts" do you mean? Really?
Frank
3 years ago
Lewis
"We need an alternative to the Liberal-NDP polarity in our province if we are going to "get on" with building a livable region."
Well, there isn't one. The leader of the Greens says she voted Conservative when living in Alberta.
Dave2
3 years ago
>A round trip from
>A round trip from Whiterock, by bus is $10
Maybe for somebody who only makes the trip once or twice a month, but regular commuters will be using a monthly pass, which works out to about $6.19 per day.