9/12/10 -Mayors Council vote on Translink tax increase

[officedweller]

Looks like they're switching to a vehicle levy:

Proposed vehicle levy to fund Evergreen Line
Report goes to Metro Vancouver Board Friday

Mike Lloyd/The Vancouver Sun
Nov 22, 2010 07:00:57 AM

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - Ditch the plan for a property tax and bring in a vehicle levy instead. That is the recommendation going before the Mayors of Metro Vancouver as they try to find a way to fund the Evergreen Line.

The proposed rapid transit line would go from Port Moody, through Coquitlam to Burnaby.

A staff report goes before the Metro Vancouver Board Friday. It recommends mayors reject any plan from TransLink that involves property-tax-based funding.

The Vancouver Sun reports the board will be urged to direct TransLink to come up with a new plan, one that includes a vehicle levy or some other kind of carbon tax.

TransLink wants the board to come up with more than $68 million next year to help fund transit options and has suggested a $31 to $54 property tax increase for the average household.
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...evergreen-line

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

What part of 'potential' don't you understand? Car drivers are constantly being hit with the stick (carbon tax, provincial and federal fuel taxes).. we should be improving non-SOV infrastructure rather than punishing those that don't ride bikes or take transit everywhere. But I wouldn't really expect anything else from someone with as many posts as you in the bicycle infrastructure thread.

Except how do you pay for non-SOV infrastructure improvements.

At the end your revenue sources are.

Transit fares,
Property Taxes or possibly Sales or Income Taxes?
A fee on a driver. Whether that be in gas tax, vehicle levy and what have you.

In one case only people who use transit pay.
In the 2nd case almost everyone pays depending on whether it is a Property or Sales or Income tax.
In the third option drivers pay.

While in a way it is nice to have transit riders pay for everything. The problem is eventually transit would become too expensive to ride. Then no one would want to ride it and everyone would end up driving.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Looks like they're switching to a vehicle levy:

Proposed vehicle levy to fund Evergreen Line
Report goes to Metro Vancouver Board Friday

Mike Lloyd/The Vancouver Sun
Nov 22, 2010 07:00:57 AM

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - Ditch the plan for a property tax and bring in a vehicle levy instead. That is the recommendation going before the Mayors of Metro Vancouver as they try to find a way to fund the Evergreen Line.

The proposed rapid transit line would go from Port Moody, through Coquitlam to Burnaby.

A staff report goes before the Metro Vancouver Board Friday. It recommends mayors reject any plan from TransLink that involves property-tax-based funding.

The Vancouver Sun reports the board will be urged to direct TransLink to come up with a new plan, one that includes a vehicle levy or some other kind of carbon tax.

TransLink wants the board to come up with more than $68 million next year to help fund transit options and has suggested a $31 to $54 property tax increase for the average household.
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...evergreen-line

They are not switching anything. That thing that will happen on Friday is to get the mayors to "urge" Translink to propose the levy or carbon tax. But we all know Translink will simply come up with a lame excuse of "no time", even though they had YEARS to get off their overpaid fat *sses and nitpick on how to make the vehicle levy and / or carbon tax a selling point, having a proper game plan for it. They only want Property Tax, as directed by the Province, and since its a no brainer that mayors are against it, Evergreen Line is really meant to fail so it can continue to be a carrot on the stick come election time.

TBH, Voony's suggestion makes the most absolute sense, and frankly it should be the one to be proposed since it would make *ssholes like Malcolm Brodie and Derek Corrigan think twice about voting down plans that will help those regions that bailed them out, and continue to do so through perpetuity for as long as Skytrain and Canada Line exists. Unfortunately, people like him who can think of better solutions for free instead of those morons in Translink that are paid hundreds of thousands of dollars just to do that full time are likely not to be heard nor considered by the "powers to be".

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by cabotp

While in a way it is nice to have transit riders pay for everything. The problem is eventually transit would become too expensive to ride. Then no one would want to ride it and everyone would end up driving.

Right now, the cost of transit is by and large subsidized by drivers. IMO the province should use income taxes to pay for transit. Everyone should be paying for transit infrastructure.. but then you get into the whole regional whining thing about northerners having to pay for skytrain lines and etc..

[Metro-One]

And don't we already have the highest fuel prices of any major city in North America?

In fact I believe our fuel prices are pretty close to those in Japan now (filled up yesterday with regular for 114 yen per litre).

We just had the carbon tax added.

And is Translink not already using tolls? GEB? The proposed Patullo? And what about the new Port Mann (which I know is not translink) it will also have a hefty toll on it. That is 3 new major tolls added / being added to our region in a short span of time.

So to me, it does seem we have been making driving adequately more expensive in the last decade in Vancouver to encourage transit use. Hence for this funding gap it seems right to find some other solution besides more taxes on fuel and more tolls. Unless these tolls are designed so they do not cost commercial / industrial drivers or HOV drivers any more money, which would be pretty hard to implement.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Looks like they're switching to a vehicle levy:

Proposed vehicle levy to fund Evergreen Line
Report goes to Metro Vancouver Board Friday

Mike Lloyd/The Vancouver Sun
Nov 22, 2010 07:00:57 AM

VANCOUVER (NEWS1130) - Ditch the plan for a property tax and bring in a vehicle levy instead. That is the recommendation going before the Mayors of Metro Vancouver as they try to find a way to fund the Evergreen Line.

The proposed rapid transit line would go from Port Moody, through Coquitlam to Burnaby.

A staff report goes before the Metro Vancouver Board Friday. It recommends mayors reject any plan from TransLink that involves property-tax-based funding.

The Vancouver Sun reports the board will be urged to direct TransLink to come up with a new plan, one that includes a vehicle levy or some other kind of carbon tax.

TransLink wants the board to come up with more than $68 million next year to help fund transit options and has suggested a $31 to $54 property tax increase for the average household.
http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...evergreen-line

I don't get why SoF residents would want vehicle levies. It makes absolutely no sense. It shifts the burden of funding transit from those close to the city that enjoy the best service to those in the burbs that have poor access and typically lower incomes.

The average increase in property taxes will be about $60 a year. But for the average family, the vehicle tax will be what?... $70/year per car? So the average SoF family will be hit for more than $150 a year via vehicle levies (for 2 cars) instead of $60 a year on taxes? The vehicle levy probably won't discriminate between cars either, or how much you actually drive. You could have a V8 luxury SUV and drive it every day, or Toyota Yaris you only drive to see your parents in Kamloops, and still pay the same.

I don't see why Diane Watts would be looking to give taxpayers in Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond (where they have great rapid transit) a break at the expense of those in her city.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I don't get why SoF residents would want vehicle levies. It makes absolutely no sense. It shifts the burden of funding transit from those close to the city that enjoy the best service to those in the burbs that have poor access and typically lower incomes.

The average increase in property taxes will be about $60 a year. But for the average family, the vehicle tax will be what?... $70/year per car? So the average SoF family will be hit for more than $150 a year via vehicle levies (for 2 cars) instead of $60 a year on taxes? The vehicle levy probably won't discriminate between cars either, or how much you actually drive. You could have a V8 luxury SUV and drive it every day, or Toyota Yaris you only drive to see your parents in Kamloops, and still pay the same.

I don't see why Diane Watts would be looking to give taxpayers in Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond (where they have great rapid transit) a break at the expense of those in her city.

Fantastic point here.

Yeah, it seems that Diane Watts is not the white knight forward thinker of politics everyone was making her out to be before.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

Right now, the cost of transit is by and large subsidized by drivers. IMO the province should use income taxes to pay for transit. Everyone should be paying for transit infrastructure.. but then you get into the whole regional whining thing about northerners having to pay for skytrain lines and etc..

I really don't know why they don't tier property taxes. If you're within X km of a major transit node ( All SkyTrain stations, West Coast Express stations, Seabus and a couple of Major bus exchanges ) then your property tax is higher than other regions.

Income Tax IS used to pay for transit. Where do you think the lump sum amount provided by the provincial government is coming from?

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I don't get why SoF residents would want vehicle levies. It makes absolutely no sense. It shifts the burden of funding transit from those close to the city that enjoy the best service to those in the burbs that have poor access and typically lower incomes.

I don't see why Diane Watts would be looking to give taxpayers in Vancouver, Burnaby and Richmond (where they have great rapid transit) a break at the expense of those in her city.

Tha't because I suspect Dianne Watts, and most of the other mayors are stalling and are aiming for short-term political gains. Vehicle levies will hit SoF hard, and she fails to see benefits of expediting property taxes.

More concerningly, she is now talking about "fair tolling", which means 10+ years to decide what that means.
------

That being said, I'm not dogmatic about prop taxes. As long as we have a stable plan to move forward. A vehicle levy would actually be better to move people from cars.

It would be interesting if the MoT called the mayor's suspected bluff, and allowed collection of a levy, say with annual car registration, but left the details of the implementation and the levy amts to the mayor's council. As long as they have some sort of funding promise in place by next year would be important, TL has the cash to start now. The prop tax could be the back-up. That way the MoT can seem to be 'listening' to the mayor's council, wash its hands of the nitty-gritty decisions and swoop in to the rescue if (when) the mayors start tearing each other's limbs apart.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Income Tax IS used to pay for transit. Where do you think the lump sum amount provided by the provincial government is coming from?

Well sure, but not directly. Income tax currently goes into general revenue, I believe. In any case, I meant that we should be building it entirely out of income tax rather than mixing things that penalize certain groups like fuel or carbon taxes or vehicle levies..

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

What part of 'potential' don't you understand?

I understand that if the mayors cave now, it will remain "potential" and not become "reality"...

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

What part of 'potential' don't you understand? Car drivers are constantly being hit with the stick (carbon tax, provincial and federal fuel taxes).. we should be improving non-SOV infrastructure rather than punishing those that don't ride bikes or take transit everywhere. But I wouldn't really expect anything else from someone with as many posts as you in the bicycle infrastructure thread.

I know that it is a common perception than car driver are paying thru the noise for the privilege to use roads like there is a common perception that all transit users are cheating, but those perceptions are obviously not supported by facts.

The car driver pay only a fraction of the cost of the facilities they use:
the mot budget is supporting this assertion,

and when you consider all the external cost like accident, health, pollution (not even talking about GHG, but just local pollution like noise..), time lost in congestion...You will quickly find out that the reality is that car drivers are barely paying more than lip service for their transportation choice, and eventually transit user are paying a more complete share of the total cost of their transportation mode than motorist.


Obviously saying that we "punish" driver is a question of viewpoint: I find out they benefit of an extraordinary privilege to be HST exempt when they go to the gas pump...(but electric vehicle has to pay the HST on their energy!).

Originally Posted by GeeCee

Right now, the cost of transit is by and large subsidized by drivers...

Is that true?

Well Translink is also responsible for road and bridge benefitting primarly to driver, from Translink plan, you will find that transit user pay roughly 50% of the operating cost, and driver in the tune of 25%...not sure that fit the definition of "large subsidy". That said, is it fair to have the driver to subsidy the transit?


Transit by removing car from the road, benefit to motorist:
So instead to build more road, we put more transit and have basically the same result in term of congestion, so there is some rational to have the motorist to contribute to Transit, since it makes is life easier.

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I don't get why SoF residents would want vehicle levies. It makes absolutely no sense. It shifts the burden of funding transit from those close to the city that enjoy the best service to those in the burbs that have poor access and typically lower incomes.

Well that is a problem of the vehicle levy.
But yo could also consider that putting the burden of tax on properties value,
you make people living close to transit overpay for it since real estate is usually more expensive.

Taking the example of Vancouver and Surrey:
It is no secret that Transit in Vancouver is near to break even, while in Surrey, fare recovery is dismissal: Why those people living in Vancouver, not all rich, far from it (and here also there is some wrong perception: you will see from stat Canada that there are numerous postal code in Vancouver where average income is lower than most of the SoF area) should subsidize the Transit operation in Surrey where the city is happily opening new land to development, expecting someone else gonna foot the bill for providing a bus to those transit unfriendly new acreage?


Sure the transit levy has some drawback, but the property tax too, one "punish" a behavior we want to discourage (people over relying on car), and the other one punish a behavior we want to encourage (have people living close to Transit).
I believe, we should deliver full credit to Dianne Watts to not take a parochial stand on the issue, and instead speak in the interest of the region, which is also the interest of Surrey.

That says a vehicle levy is not a good enough move, since it punish the car ownership, but a car sitting in a garage/driveway doesn't impact the region traffic.
What is harming the region traffic and its economy (congestion toll), is all those driver hitting the road, a limited resource, at the same time.

And when the resource is limited, the best way to allocate it is to resort to a road pricing scheme.

So yes a vehicle levy could not be good enough, but it is a step toward a transport demand management (which ultimately is road pricing), so it is still better than a property tax.

[mezzanine]

The more I think about it, a vehicle levy might be feasible for the MoT politically, now that the mayor's council has backed themselves into a corner by flatly refusing property taxes. if the MoT gave legislation and set a deadline for the mayor's council to approve a levy, then that would expose huge rifts when the mayors have to put it to a vote.

But i could be wrong, they might hold hands and sing while they pass the levy, who knows?

TL has done some work on potential levies for the evergreen line as per Jeff nagel. IMO they can move quickly on a simple levy based on emmissions. It might be harder to propose a levy that weights equivalent transit service as in jeff nagel's article.

[invisibleairwaves]

I think Watts knows that a vehicle levy, gas tax, and tolling will impact Surrey unfairly, but I don't think she actually cares. This seems like an attempt to use the stick method to change commuting patterns south of the river. Which is, of course, foolish when the alternatives don't exist yet, but Surrey City Hall is usually completely incapable of putting carts and horses in the correct order, and Watts is no exception.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

Maybe this would give me a reason to buy that Golf TDI...

[CameronT120]

Scrap AirCare and redirect that money to transit.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Last I heard aircare was getting scrapped.

Another problem with vehicle levies is that fact that that a used car is still the most economical and environmentally friendly, even if its unit of use puts out more pollution. I would get taxed more on my old 92' Golf GTi than a new one due to emissions, even if my car already has most of it's impact out of the way.

Even though I telecommute most of the time, the fact that I have a motorcycle and a car would cost me a fair bit compared to someone actually drives a lot in the city. If my gas consumption is taxed, my vehicles only cost me money when they're in use, and in the end since thats a very small amount it's proportional to my impact.

[GeeCee]

Somewhat ridiculous reply to my email to Derek Corrigan..

Dear Mr. MacPherson;

Thank-you for your e-mail. As you have so aptly pointed out, the system is broken. There is not much point in continuing to throw money at a system that is fundamentally flawed with the expectation that more money will somehow fix it.

The provincial government is running the Translink Board and demanding the cities pay for their choices. Turnstiles, unnecessary highways and bloated budgets are part of their legacy. They arbitrarily changed the Evergreen technology from light rail to skytrain in order to satisfy their friends in Ottawa, reducing the stations by half, eliminating the station at Cameron street and increasing the cost by 50%.

Their favourite trick is to use the threat of withdrawing federal funds to force local politicians to make bad decisions. They used the same technique in order to make the Canada line the priority over the Evergreen line. They are simply going to the well again. Why would federal funding be lost? What changed while the province dithered for years and did phony studies to justify a change in technology? What made the North perimeter road a priority, after it wasn't even included in the previous supplement? Why should we just obediently follow the provincial government lead after they called us dysfunctional and threw us out as the governing body for Translink, replacing us with their cronies?

Mayors from across the region are saying no and we need your support. Things won't change until we end the lies, deception and bullying constantly perpetrated by this provincial government in regard to transportation policy and funding.

Again, thank-you for writing to me. I appreciate your concerns, but sometimes we have to stand up and be counted. Regardless of political allegiance, the vast majority of mayors have agreed they are not going to take it anymore. In our view, it is the only way to finally fix this broken system.

Regards,
Derek Corrigan

[WarrenC12]

^^^^^ WOW. Spoken like a true jerk who already has 2 Skytrain lines through his city.

The mayor of Coquitlam boiled it down to this:

The council of mayors agreed with the Province (and the Feds) that they would raise the $400m portion required about 6(?) years ago, knowing exactly what their funding options were at the time. Now the mayors are saying "well, you know what, we lied..."

Simple as that.

[squeezied]

Corrigan sounds just like Zwei in his reply.