Frances Bula header image 2

Ask not for whom the bridge tolls. It tolls for thee.

September 25th, 2013 · 138 Comments

Okay, that is a really terrible headline: a mutilation of a lovely piece of poetry and also something that is guaranteed to fail all SEO tests. But whatever, we can have some fun every so often.

So, just to do that horrible thing that middle-class people now do, this topic of tolling is very relevant for me because I drive occasionally in Europe and it is always startling to realize how much I have paid in tolls. (So awwwful, I had to pay so much, I could hardly enjoy my French meal of duck in marsala and hazelnut sauce.)

Okay, ignore the pretentious “I travel in Europe” stuff and focus on the topic at hand. Which is, governments are increasingly in love with tolling. As the professional pay-per-drive people were pleased to tell me at length, when they held their international convention here this week.

What does that mean for you locally? Well, that bridge that the premier talked about — very unlikely it will be tolled. (And, btw, no, tolls don’t pay the full cost, just as transit fares don’t pay the full cost. Both are subsidized.)

Here’s the explanation from the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association people:

FRANCES BULA

Published Tuesday, Sep. 24, 2013 08:00AM EDT

Last updated Tuesday, Sep. 24, 2013 11:25AM EDT

Drivers will likely pay for the Lower Mainland’s new Massey Bridge through electronic tolls, international experts on the topic say.

The world is experiencing a “renaissance” in enthusiasm for tolling as governments struggle to find ways to cover costs for the expensive infrastructure that cars, trucks and buses need, the experts say.

“It’s a significant facility, and this community’s going to have to think long and hard about whether either they pay for it with tolls or pay for it with taxes,” said Patrick Jones, the CEO of the International Bridge, Tunnel and Turnpike Association, which is holding its annual convention in Vancouver this week, by chance just after Premier Christy Clark announced the new Fraser River crossing with few details on financing.

Mr. Jones is one of the 650 people gathering on Monday and Tuesday – after a special tour on Sunday of a new bridge that demonstrates everything they are saying: the electronically tolled Port Mann.

The people at the conference are part of the growing global network of governments and companies in the pay-per-drive business. They come from regions as different as Europe, where 25 million people have electronic passes to use 73,000 kilometres of tolled highways, and China and India. Those countries are experiencing an astronomical rise in car ownership, and are turning to tolls to pay for the roads needed.

The message from this burgeoning industry is simple.

The odds are in favour of tolling, because surveys tell governments that people prefer tolls to taxes for transportation, industry leaders say. They are more confident the money they pay through tolls goes directly to something they can see for themselves is necessary.

Gas taxes, which paid for the free highways of the past century, are not enough to keep up with the price of the road network. Governments need their general revenue to cover the skyrocketing costs social programs. And collecting tolls, especially with today’s new technology, is cheaper than anything else.

It is also much faster than it used to be.

Speed is a preoccupation of the industry, says the association’s president, Robert Horr. (Mr. Horr also runs a tolled span familiar to eastern Canadians, the Thousand Islands Bridge, which connects northern New York with southeastern Ontario.)

“The day of the toll booth is dead,” he said. Instead, government and private agencies are moving to electronic tolling to prevent congestion and reduce annoyances for drivers – whom Mr. Horr calls “customers.”

Those agencies are even looking at how to connect their systems so that drivers with a transponder (a device in their vehicle that the electronic toll reader can see) for one region can use it in another without having to sign up there.

This is becoming increasingly necessary as tolls are applied, not just to the traditional bottleneck points like bridges and tunnels, but to stretches of road where governments are creating fee-restricted express lanes.

Highway 407, a 108-kilometre express route running north of Toronto, opened in 1997, the first all-electronic tolled facility in the world. It is an early example of offering an alternative to the congested free highway to drivers who were willing to pay.

That kind of paid express service was just introduced to the Beltway road in Washington, D.C., and is under consideration in San Francisco.

Nothing like that is yet being pitched for the Lower Mainland. But it is likely just a matter of time, as the province and TransLink continue to talk about “road pricing.”

That phrase has been used with increasing frequency by Lower Mainland transportation planners and advocates in the past three years as they ponder how to create a new system of collecting money for transportation – including transit, in the case of the Lower Mainland – that people are willing to support.

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • teririch

    @Bill #96 and gman #99:

    http://www.cfact.org/2013/03/18/wind-turbines-kill-up-to-39-million-birds-a-year/

  • Bill

    @spartikus #100

    You have overlooked the $233 million in CEE and $478 million in CDE benefits that while not Capital Cost expenditures are identical in nature – accelerated write off of actual expenditures (exploration and development) which are only applied against taxable income. These income taxes are only deferred and are recouped from future income taxes when the mines/wells are producing income.

    Contrast that with renewable energy where the public power utility enters into long term contracts with alternative energy producers at much higher cost to conventional energy. This would be the same as the government saying to the oil companies they will guarantee a minimum price at the pump for Canadian oil.

  • spartikus

    Contrast that with renewable energy where the public power utility enters into long term contracts with alternative energy producers at much higher cost to conventional energy.

    Ontario provides some subsidies to wind power, but I’m not aware of another Canadian government that does the same.

  • brilliant

    @teririch 101-they’re destroying nature to save it dontcha know! Of course a few ducks die near Fort Mac and they’ll all be in a tizzy.

  • rph

    Meanwhile, as reported in the Vancouver Sun this morning, apparently cats kill 196 million birds a year in Canada.

    If you own a cat – keep it inside or bell it.

  • IanS

    “If you own a cat – keep it inside or bell it.”

    And so, to bring us back around to Ms. Bula’s original thread title: “Ask not for whom the cat bell tolls. It tolls for thee.”

    🙂

  • Bill

    @spartikus

    The subsidy to wind energy (and other alternatives like run of river projects) is captured in the contract price that BC Hydro agrees to pay for the energy which gets passed on to consumers.

    Compare that scenario to an oil producer who must spend money to find a deposit, overcome the inevitable environmental objections, build a well to get the oil, find a way to get it to market and then be subject to price variations on the world market. As well, oil resources provide much needed export revenues unlike wind energy which is strictly for domestic consumption. (unless you are Ontario which is exporting surplus energy they are contractually forced to purchase at a tremendous loss)

  • Bill

    @brilliant #104

    “The real concern for birds is that up to a quarter of all birds could become extinct by 2054 due to global climate change, for which wind energy is one of the solutions”

    BC Sustainable Energy Association

    When you are on a mission to save humanity you can pretty well justify any action.

  • teririch

    It is not just ‘birds’ it is the large birds of prey as well as bats that are being negatively impacted under the name of ‘green’ tech.

    As for cats killing birds – natural prey, and no, I am not condoning it in any way but cats are not a man made machine of destruction.

  • Gulley

    Your arguments against wind power because of bird deaths are silly and ignorant.

    Just today there is an article on CBC about leading causes of bird deaths.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/9-leading-causes-of-bird-deaths-in-canada-1.1873654
    16,700 out of 270 million deaths related to human activity.
    That’s about 0.006%.

    But actually taking two seconds to look up numbers might clash with your preconceived notions, I guess.

  • Bill

    @Gulley #110

    You have completely missed the point. Environmentalists set their hair on fire over a few ducks that died in a one off incident in the oil sands tailing pond yet they say nothing about the birds killed by wind turbines. You can’t use the death of a few ducks to argue against the oil sands if you are going to ignore the millions of birds killed by wind turbines.

  • Jay

    Not on anybodies side really, but a quick check reveals that oilfield oil waste & waste water pits kill between 500 000 – 1 000 000 birds annually (in the U.S.). Wind turbines kill 0.269 birds per GWh, while fossil fuel power plants kill 5.18 birds per GWh produced.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Birds

  • Frank Ducote

    Thanks for some facts, Jay and Gulley. Always appreciated, at least by some.

    Now, if those particular hairs have been split sufficiently ad nauseum, perhaps we can put this whole discussion to bed until Madame Bula gets back from Montreal and can post another blog where the usual adversaries can do their thing all over again.

  • teririch

    @Gulley #110

    That is not what the article stated.

    16,700 is an estimated number of wind turbine kills and it went on to say that number is expected to increase tenfold with the increase of new turbines coming on-line.

    There are many other on-line sites – such as the one I linked to in #101 that show these numbers far greater that the Enviro Canada ‘estimated’ model.

  • Brian

    @teririch #114

    I think that was the point of using a rate of kills per GWh in Jay’s link. If we get more of our power from wind, and less from deadlier sources (such as nuclear and fossil fuel), the total number of bird deaths would diminish.

    I think the table in Jay’s link sort of says it all when it comes to this argument. The total kills produced by all types of power generation is dwarfed by the deaths caused by the powerlines themselves. And even this is lower than the estimates of birds killed by domestic and feral cats.

    There you have it: wind turbines are safer than cats.

  • Bill

    @Frank #113

    “Thanks for some facts, Jay and Gulley.”

    Just because they presented numeric information doesn’t mean they are facts, Frank or perhaps you find them persuasive because they confirm your beliefs. If you took the time to read the wiki entry you would have discovered that the estimate of deaths from power stations is based on one study which wiki acknowledged has be criticized for its treatment of data. This study purports to calculate and include in mortality statistics the number of birds that are not born (that’s right, born, not killed) because of environmental degradation around power plants.

    So these numbers may be estimates but they are not facts.

  • Bill

    @teririch #109

    You are absolutely right about the impact on large birds. From the Sibley website:

    “Wind turbines may kill 33,000 birds per year, and, as in the case of electrocutions, these birds tend to be large and scarce (e.g. raptors). “

  • boohoo

    “perhaps you find them persuasive because they confirm your beliefs”

    mirror mirror on the wall…

  • Gulley

    #114: a tenfold increase would be 167 000, or 0.06% of those deaths that can be attributed to human activity in Canada.

    Your link refers to US, not Canada, and is a non-peer reviewed blog post that there is a massive cover-up in bird death counting. As such, wild numbers are bandied about with no proof, just conjectures.

  • teririch

    @Gulley #119

    Just watched the news coverage on this and they (Enviro Canada…etc) admit these are ‘crude’ estimations.

    And the your response makes zip sense as I took that ‘quote’ direct from the CBC news link you provided. It is in the text of the article.

  • waltyss

    Let’s see. Who shall I believe? Environment Canada, even after Harper has pummelled them or a right wing climate change denying coal promoting website that cites no evidence for its highly ideological views. teri the rich predictably went for the American climate change denying web site. I and most other people would choose Environment Canada even in its weakened state.

  • Jay

    @Bill 116

    The table in the Wiki article is based on multiple studies, not one study as you say. Here’s a quote from the Wiki article:

    “Different sources have variously estimated that in the United States wind turbines kill between 20,000 and 573,000 birds per year, but either figure is minimal compared to bird deaths from other causes. Fossil-fueled power plants, which wind turbines replace, kill almost 20 times as many birds per gigawatt hour (GWh) of electricity. Bird deaths due to other human activities and cats total between 797 million and 5.29 billion per year in the U.S. (see Causes of avian mortality table). Additionally, while many studies concentrate on the analysis of bird deaths, few have been conducted on the reductions of bird births, which are the additional consequences of the various pollution sources that wind power mitigates.”

    While each of the studies conducted could never come up with identical results, they clearly show a trend.

  • gman

    “Different sources have variously estimated that in the United States wind turbines kill between 20,000 and 573,000 birds per year,”

    Variously estimated,are they kidding? I think they have a little more work to do to narrow down their so called estimates.Between 20,000 and 573,000 seems like a pretty big spread.

  • Ned

    waltyss #121
    Environment Canada and other reliable sources, eh?
    Have you read the story of the scared meteorologist ?
    http://news.yahoo.com/meteorologist-vows-never-to-fly-again-after-seeing-latest-climate-report-134014509.html
    Yeah. I’ll fly though, more room for moi!
    And how’s your carbon thumbprint BTW?

  • Bill

    @Jay #122

    Take a look at the footnotes accompanying the Table in the Wiki article and you will note that most statistics come from study. In fact, I could not locate any reference to fossil fuel plants (which are predominantly coal and not oil driven) in any other listing of causes of bird mortality.

    If you are interested there is a Canadian based source which lists two studies – one for the oil sands which estimates between 11,000-60,000 deaths and another study for turbines that estimates 23,000 deaths.( http://www.ace-eco.org/issues/view.php?sf=4 )

    But my point was not which activity kills the most birds but rather that environmentalists over react on an isolated incident involving the oil sands while ignoring the ongoing deaths caused by wind turbines.

  • waltyss

    Bill @125. Whatever the number used, the number of birds killed at the Alberta tar sands is hardly “an isolated incident”.
    While this thread has meandered far off the original topic, it as usual has attracted more than its fair share of climate change deniers, Mme. Bula’s own version of the flat earth society.
    For you, I offer Jeffrey Simpson’s column in today’s Globe & Mail: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/climate-deniers-in-their-own-universe/article14639865/

  • Bill

    @waltyss #126

    And I offer you Margaret Wente’s column, also from the Globe and Mail:

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/climates-big-pr-problem/article14491748/

  • waltyss

    Yes, well Margaret Wente would be one of the climate change deniers, at best her usual contrarian views. Wente is one with the committee in Texas who decides what school texts to use and considers evolution just one theory among many valid theories.
    In any event, what Wente calls unsettled science (in an article written before the report came out) is not what the report or just about any reputable scientist considers unsettled and the questions she raises are mostly if not all addressed in the report..

  • gman

    When you cant attack the argument attack the person…….wake me up if the climate stops changing,now that would be something worth seeing.
    Oh and could someone tell us what the temperature is supposed to be so we know how scared we should be?

  • waltyss

    All you have to do is mention climate change denier and flat earth society, and faster than lightning, gman appears.

  • Bill

    @waltyss

    I came across this quote which just may explain why you and the other warmists ignore the failure of all your climate models to predict the last 17 years of no increased temperatures:

    “One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”
    ― Carl Sagan

  • waltyss

    I thought Jeffrey Simpson described you perfectly when he said:
    “When [scientists] are somewhat less sure, they say so. That is more than can be said for the critics, who are sure all the time about everything, to say nothing of the really intellectually dishonest among them who admit grudgingly that climate change is man-made but then scoff at everything recommended or attempted to combat it.”
    Both kinds of climate change deniers have appeared on this thread. Which category do you fit into?
    Anyway, there is little point to this debate. You will believe what you will believe because as Sagan pointed out, a charlatan has power over you

  • brilliant

    @Waltsyss 132- yeah we get it. You’re very, very, very concerned about global warming (but not enough to get out of your car for that grueling commute from Dunbar to downtown).

  • gman

    Maybe Waltyss should take one of the hundreds of climate related courses we pay for that are offered in BC.I wonder how many peoples livelihood depends on keeping the scare alive?
    http://pics.uvic.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/course_report_June2011.pdf

  • Bill

    @gman #134

    Maybe waltyss’ livelihood depends on keeping the scare alive.

  • Bill Lee

    Metro Vancouver raises Massey Tunnel replacement concerns 2
    By Michael Mui, 24 Hours Vancouver
    http://vancouver.24hrs.ca/2013/10/06/metro-vancouver-raises-massey-tunnel-replacement-concerns

    Victoria’s plans for a new 10-lane bridge to replace the aging George Massey Tunnel could “unleash pent-up travel demand” and encourage commuters to take their own cars instead of transit or carpooling, according to a new Metro Vancouver report.
    “Unfettered access could easily result in a congested facility,” Raymond Kan, Metro Vancouver regional planner, said in the report. “Further, an expanded facility may simply move the ‘bottleneck’ further downstream or upstream.”
    Just 1% of vehicles going through the George Massey Tunnel carry more than one-in-four commuters.
    According to Metro Vancouver, that type of vehicle is a bus. But despite the signs of clear demand for transit, a Delta councillor says bus service has barely grown in his municipality.
    Coun. Robert Campbell said Sunday taking the bus through George Massey continues to be a pain that consumes “half a day” compared to the faster option of using a car.
    He wasn’t surprised to learn 77% of current traffic in the Massey Tunnel consists of “single-occupant vehicles.”
    Delta Mayor Lois Jackson said she’s not concerned people would move away from transit, and anticipated that if there were more buses, ridership would also increase.
    She was “appalled” to hear criticism from Metro Vancouver about the proposed bridge and added equal tolling for all bridges in the region could solve funding problems for the project.
    “One of the reasons we have not seen emphasis put on the Massey Tunnel by TransLink is it’s not their tunnel, so frankly, they don’t care,” Jackson said.
    “They are not looking at what’s going on at the very western … alignment of the Lower Mainland.”
    According to 2006 figures, 22,000 vehicles use each of Massey Tunnel’s four lanes on a typical day.
    Campbell added there’s just one bus service hour for each resident south of the Fraser compared to three times that service north of the river.
    “They’ve added a few community buses, but there hasn’t been any increase to the major routes,” he said.
    “You’ve got to have rapid bus, you’ve got to have more bus service … (there’s currently) B-Line from the ferry terminal to Richmond and the Canada Line, but there’s more of that that could be done.

  • Bill Lee

    Already contracts [ to friends? ] are being let for the Massey/Deas Island bridge project.

    http://2010goldrush.blogspot.ca/2013/10/four-big-massey-bridge-contracts-up-for.html

    “The Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure issued requests for proposals on Oct. 1 for four major, long-term contracts, just a week-and-a-half after Premier Christy Clark’s Sept. 20 announcement.
    … Companies hoping to win contracts for community relations and consultation, technical advisory, environmental management and owner’s engineer services have until Oct. 24 to file their bids. A rather short three-week window for something so complex.
    Contract values were not disclosed in the tendering documents, but the terms run November 2013 to March 2022. The government has an option to extend each contract until 2024. ”
    …A two-year seismic upgrade costing $19 million finished in 2006.
    [ more ]

  • MB

    The RFPs are already issued, Bill L.?

    RFPs take time to write and edit, so they were already in the works at least a month in advance of the announcement. The basic design was already locked in prior to that without any meaningful public consultation or feasibility analysis.

    A transit project of lesser value, say the always-a-comin’ Broadway subway, generates years of debate over cost and mode, and whatever decision is eventually made — if indeed one IS made within our lifetimes — is backed by studies and analyses. Even with all the afromentioned, there are those who react with incredulity.

    This 10-lane, 3.5 billion dollar bridge will carry 200,000 vehicles a day to … what? The millions of farmers tending the potato patches of South Delta? The Hong Kong densities of White Rock, Crescent Beach, Ladner and Tsawwassen town? The new fleet of 3,000-car superferries departing Tsawwassen every 20 minutes?

    Where’s the incredulity? Where’s the referendum?