With billions on the table the feds could easily demand contractual, binding agreements with the provinces and cities to tie smart growth principles to transit, and to kiss highly questionable projects like Gateway goodbye, or at least not renew federal support for follies like this.

The feds have been shamefully absent in any meaningful discourse on the management of our cities, including on transit issues. Until they are more involved ideas like dinging drivers from several directions seems inadequate. London’s congestion charge has worked marvelously, but it wasn’t in the absence of heavy involvement in London’s infrastructure by parliament.

Yes, cities have been downloaded to the provinces under the constitution. But 85% of us live in cities, and the question needs to be asked, Why shouldn’t the federal government be more involved in its cities? We have a patchwork of policies everywhere as the result, yet transit requires a special focus beyond the scope of locals.

Shepsil, just to add a little anecdotal evidence to your assertion: In the many, many years I’ve lived next to the railyards in Gastown, today, right now, is the first time I have ever seen it COMPLETELY empty. Not a single train anywhere in sight. Not one. It is eerie.

As for the Carbon Tax being used for transit. It really is a no-brainer. Unless you are a Neo Con and the only reason you brought in the Carbon Tax was to create a smokescreen for all the other environmental destruction you were spearheading across the province…

It has been said by opponents of the SFPR from the beginning that there is no evidence that increased port capacity is necessary and now, in the light of increased transportation costs and a worldwide financial crisis, there is even less need for any additional port capacity. The billions being spent unnecessarily on ports could have easily been used for public transit instead.

Finally, we also should understand that skytrain, with its immovable stations, creates definite zoning requirements in regards to densification and commercial zoning. In the future, we need to move past the idea of continuing to build these types of fixed transportation hubs. Instead, if we built a bus/trolley system, the stations (always movable) could be moved to wherever they are needed, and as such, we would not be tied down and possibly held hostage to the wants of land owners around committed skytrain stations.

I for one want to argue for a much more aggressive ‘reverse’ user pay system. I would like to see road tolls, congestion taxes, etc. which are commonplace in Europe and so many other countries, with the revenues used in part to pay for public transit improvements.

I would forget the parking lot tax…it was really dumb, unfair and very difficult to administer. Instead use new technologies to charge motorists for the distances they travel and when they travel. You should check out the sophisticated system in place in Singapore.

We should also explore a whole range of other ideas…why not have special license plates that only allow you to drive on weekends… which are less expensive…while charging more for 7 day license plates.

Maybe we should consider generating revenues from a revamped auto insurance program…based in part on distance travelled, rather than the current system.

When I was interviewed as a potential director of Translink…(yes, I even got to the interview stage!) I talked about generating more revenues from the rezoning of land around transit stations. I still think this is a good idea, but in some jurisdictions, the revenues may be limited since the cities want to take a cut of the rezoned land lift, to pay for needed amenities. There are some opportunities here, but not likely enough.

I also argued for charging people to use the SkyTrain system. This was my daughter’s suggestion. When I asked her what she meant she told me that none of her friends pay to use SkyTrain. Those revenues might help a bit too!