TransLink Proposes Tolls on All Metro bridges & New Vehicle Levy

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by djmk

the canada line is already branded. its called the "canada line" for a reason. and we have no problems with GM Place.

i do not think Vancouverites would mind if certain stations were further branded.

Rona station, Sears Station, Future Shop Station, Telus Station. Labatt Station.....

if the money is right....

The Canada Line is different, it's named after our country - not a corporation.

I think it would be a huge joke if we started selling naming and branding rights to our stations....note that I personally do quite dislike the naming rights for our hockey arena and Science World.

[DKaz]

Ah yes I remember that whole Labatt Station debacle.

[sacrifice333]

I'll probably get punished for saying this, but tollings and increased gas taxes sound like a good idea.

Especially as our transit options increase!

Anyone south of the Fraser will be able to take rapid-buses to Canada Line or SkyTrain and every North of the Fraser already has some pretty decent transit options.

Note: this is all coming from someone who doesn't commute much and drives an SUV when he does (crossing several bridges to either N.V. or W.R.).

[deasine]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Fact is, we're finally catching up with the lack of transit improvements we made in the 20th century.

True, but obviously we aren't doing it in a proper way. It's not like I see MTRC has shortfall issues when they look like they extend their system all the time. The truth is, TransLink hasn't been spending its funds properly nor have the found smarter ways of fixing their own budget.

[BCPhil]

Unless the corporation is funding the actual station or line construction, then there shouldn't be naming rights.

If PepsiCo wants to step up to the plate and fund 100% of the construction of a station on the Evergreen Line (as a gift to the city of Vancouver), then they can name it "Mountain Dew Baja Blast Extreme Station at Coquitlam Center" if they want to. When you go through the fare gates it can play a guitar rift.

Typically naming rights returns very little in revenue for a stadium that holds tens of thousands of people and has the name read over and over again on national TV. And it would be even less for a station used by a few thousand. You would lose too much respect compared the little bit of cash flow.

[racc]

Originally Posted by djmk

the canada line is already branded. its called the "canada line" for a reason. and we have no problems with GM Place.

i do not think Vancouverites would mind if certain stations were further branded.

Rona station, Sears Station, Future Shop Station, Telus Station. Labatt Station.....

if the money is right....

Naming rights would not bring in enough to make much of a difference at all.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by deasine

True, but obviously we aren't doing it in a proper way. It's not like I see MTRC has shortfall issues when they look like they extend their system all the time. The truth is, TransLink hasn't been spending its funds properly nor have the found smarter ways of fixing their own budget.

There's no doubt that Translink has some fat to trim, but that's perhaps only worth tens of millions....not hundreds of millions. It'll certainly help, but that only resolves a fraction of the funding crisis.

The MTRC is a completely different company that works in a completely different environment. It's privatized, it's listed in the HKXE stock exchange, and most importantly you'd have to be a complete idiot to not be able to profit from public transit in a city like Hong Kong. There's also no union and wages are generally lower.

We can certainly learn a few things from the MTRC like having trains and buses move efficiently and on time, as well as how they built such a successful real estate empire, but aside from that we're too different. We tried a form of privatization with the Canada Line, and the results weren't that great as there was just far too much responsibility given to the private sector, in an environment where breaking even on costs will take time and will only be marginal.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Unless the corporation is funding the actual station or line construction, then there shouldn't be naming rights.

If PepsiCo wants to step up to the plate and fund 100% of the construction of a station on the Evergreen Line (as a gift to the city of Vancouver), then they can name it "Mountain Dew Baja Blast Extreme Station at Coquitlam Center" if they want to. When you go through the fare gates it can play a guitar rift.

Typically naming rights returns very little in revenue for a stadium that holds tens of thousands of people and has the name read over and over again on national TV. And it would be even less for a station used by a few thousand. You would lose too much respect compared the little bit of cash flow.

Emphasis added, well said.

[Yume-sama]

I don't actually think it's possible to "cheapen" the image of public transportation.

Especially not by being a corporate slave

[mrjauk]

I think that putting new tolls on existing bridges that don't have them would be unfair. What they should do is to toll Highway 1 when the new PMB opens. Signalling that this will happen ahead of time will allow individuals to make decisions based on full information.

I like the idea of an increased vehicle levy (after all, Translink is responsible for our region's roads, is it not), but base it on a sliding scale that is based on distance from existing transit infrastructure. So, for example, if you live a block or two from Waterfront Station, you'd have a relatively high vehicle levy, whereas if you live in the outskirts of Langley, the levy would be quite low.

I'm also in favour of raising the gas tax. If we want good infrastructure, we're going to have to pay for it. It's as simple as that.

[mr.x]

Premier to Translink: Get your house in order before hitting the taxpayer


By Rebecca TeBrake, Vancouver Sun
July 31, 2009 1:01 PM

TransLink must look for in-house savings before passing on transportation costs to taxpayers said Premier Gordon Campbell at a press conference today.

"I think that before people start talking about tax increases, they should start talking about savings in their own organization," said Campbell.

TransLink unveiled a proposal today to collect $450-million in new revenues by putting tolls on bridges and charging drivers a $122-annual road levy on every vehicle they own.

Without another $150 million in new annual revenue, TransLink is projected to go into deficit by 2011 due to the subsidies required by the Golden Ears Bridge and the Canada Line. With an extra $3 million, TransLink said it could expand public transportation in the region.

But TransLink requires legislative authority from the provincial government before it could implement the new charges.

Campbell said the first thing TransLink needs to do is look at their administrative and overhead costs for savings.

He also said the transit authority overstepped their boundaries in planning tax increases.

"What I've heard of the report is that it is outside the framework of their legislation. ...and I think everyone's disappointed they haven't acted within their legislation and they have a responsibility to do that," Campbell said.

TransLink does have the legislative power to collect an extra $275 million a year through property tax increases, the vehicle levy, higher gas taxes and parking tax hikes and it plans to do so by 2016.

The provincial government is currently reviewing TransLink operations and administration to ensure taxpayers are getting enough bang for their bucks.

With files from Kelly Sinoski

rtebrake@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

[Yume-sama]

What?! Balance the budget and stop wasteful spending, instead of just taxing more?!

But... it's... the government? Can they do that?

[Metro-One]

I have no problem adding more taxes on gas, but bridge tolls are a problem, because they are not distance based. For example, if someone want to go from Pitt meadows to Poco to go shopping that is a very short trip by car, but that trip will become much more expensive because the Pitt River bridge would have a toll, but at the same time someone living in Poco can drive all the way to downtown Vancouver with no extra costs! Also sucks to live/run a business in Richmond if every bridge has a toll. Also not to mention paying a toll for old shitty bridges that are found throughout our region would be hilarious. Again the only way to properly toll roads is by per km traveled, and in our region this could only be accomplished on the #1, the 99 and the 91 (if they finally upgrade the 72nd intersection into an interchange). All other roads have far to many access points to be tolled properly and are not up to toll standards.

[fever]

Gas tax > Tolls > Vehicle levies

The gas tax is already there, so it costs nothing extra to administer. It's also pay-as-you-go, so people can switch modes for some trips to avoid the full cost.

Tolls can be set to directly target congestion by placing them on the bridges and freeways that are most congested, and by varying their rates to encourage off-peak trips over rush hour trips. It's also pay-as-you-go. It would be costly to set up, and there would be ongoing costs to collect tolls (visitors may not get billed, but that's a small fraction of trips).

The vehicle levy may just get tacked onto insurance, and if so it would not be so costly to adminster. However, once the fee is paid additional driving is not taxed more. Because most people will continue to own a car regardless, this tax won't encourage people to use a different mode for some trips (i.e. commuting) while still having the car around for when it's needed (i.e. camping).

[go_leafs_go02]

Scrap Translink for roads..give it back to the MOT or the municipalities.

let them focus on developing transit.

[mrjauk]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Premier to Translink: Get your house in order before hitting the taxpayer


By Rebecca TeBrake, Vancouver Sun
July 31, 2009 1:01 PM

TransLink must look for in-house savings before passing on transportation costs to taxpayers said Premier Gordon Campbell at a press conference today.

"I think that before people start talking about tax increases, they should start talking about savings in their own organization," said Campbell.

TransLink unveiled a proposal today to collect $450-million in new revenues by putting tolls on bridges and charging drivers a $122-annual road levy on every vehicle they own.

Without another $150 million in new annual revenue, TransLink is projected to go into deficit by 2011 due to the subsidies required by the Golden Ears Bridge and the Canada Line. With an extra $3 million, TransLink said it could expand public transportation in the region.

But TransLink requires legislative authority from the provincial government before it could implement the new charges.

Campbell said the first thing TransLink needs to do is look at their administrative and overhead costs for savings.

He also said the transit authority overstepped their boundaries in planning tax increases.

"What I've heard of the report is that it is outside the framework of their legislation. ...and I think everyone's disappointed they haven't acted within their legislation and they have a responsibility to do that," Campbell said.

TransLink does have the legislative power to collect an extra $275 million a year through property tax increases, the vehicle levy, higher gas taxes and parking tax hikes and it plans to do so by 2016.

The provincial government is currently reviewing TransLink operations and administration to ensure taxpayers are getting enough bang for their bucks.

With files from Kelly Sinoski

rtebrake@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun

How much money would Translink save by "getting its house in order"? This kind of grandstanding reminds me of the US Presidential election campaign when John McCain's grand idea for cutting federal spending was to rein in "pork-barrel" spending. Apart from the fact that a lot of this spending adds to social welfare (like medical research), the total amount of this type of spending is less than 1% of the total federal budget (let alone state and municipal spending).

The basic fact is that there isn't a lot of wasteful government spending in developed countries. Based on studies that I've read, the BC government, and its related bodies, are actually quite lean comparatively. Thus, I don't know how much "fat" there is to effectively trim from Translink. By all means, conduct the required inquiry into the Translink's efficiency, but don't be surprised to learn that any savings from doing so will save pennies on the dollar. Translink needs a steady and regular funding stream.

[yaletown_fella]

Generally I'm a libertarian who supports abolishing income tax completely in favour of consumption tax, however, this dosen't seem fair for the commuters using Lions Gate bridge. The citizens of North and West Vancouver have been treated like garbage when it comes to transit options. There isn't even a proposal for a skytrain extension to the north shore.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by mrjauk

How much money would Translink save by "getting its house in order"? This kind of grandstanding reminds me of the US Presidential election campaign when John McCain's grand idea for cutting federal spending was to rein in "pork-barrel" spending. Apart from the fact that a lot of this spending adds to social welfare (like medical research), the total amount of this type of spending is less than 1% of the total federal budget (let alone state and municipal spending).

The basic fact is that there isn't a lot of wasteful government spending in developed countries. Based on studies that I've read, the BC government, and its related bodies, are actually quite lean comparatively. Thus, I don't know how much "fat" there is to effectively trim from Translink. By all means, conduct the required inquiry into the Translink's efficiency, but don't be surprised to learn that any savings from doing so will save pennies on the dollar. Translink needs a steady and regular funding stream.

^ that's exactly what I said several posts earlier before the article came out.

There's certainly fat to be cut from Translink, but at the very most it'll be tens of millions....not the hundreds of millions we need. It'll help in closing the funding gap, but it's only a tiny fraction of what is needed.

[BCPhil]

The province needs to kick in more money, plain and simple. Last time I checked, people of the lower mainland were still residents of the province and paying provincial income and sales taxes.

In Boston, the MBTA, is a state run authority. They get 1.5 million passengers a day, and their operating budget is $1.4 Billion. They are also one of the most in debt authorities in the US with about $9 billion in debt because they also pay for infrastructure through the authority. Fare collection in Boston is only $450 million a year (we make $348 million with half the daily riders), but a large portion of their budget comes from the state sales tax. 1% of the state sales tax goes to the MBTA, which is about $750 million (municipal assessments get transit only $143 million).

A rather simple solution would be for the province to allocate 1% of the new HST directly to Translink. That would probably be about $800 million a year in new funding. It's more than enough to expand Translink's services in all regions without the Province needing to put up extra funding for individual projects. With a steady, non-fluctuating budget that's not dependent of photo-ops for politicians, Translink can plan accordingly and maintain steady growth. Other tax sources could also be reduced, to give residents a bit of a tax break on their BC Assessment. The sales tax is our money, why can't we get more of it back to make our city more liveable.

If the Province wants Translink to run transit and roads in the lower mainland, then they should give it steady funding. Not these cash injections to partially fund mega projects that Translink has to pick up the rest of the tab and operating costs on. The Evergreen line shouldn't need hundreds of millions in funding from the Province. Translink should have the annual funding in place from the province and feds to fund the project directly.

Either that, or the province and feds should fund mega projects entirely on their own without needing the municipalities or Translink to pay, then transfer the assets to Translink debt free. It's what we did for BC Hydro. If we are going to load up Translink with debt, it needs more money.

[deasine]

We can't fund anything more if we have no money. That's as simple as that. At this point, if the Province can give TransLink more funds, they would do so. The Province is not only in charge of TransLink, but also other ministries. I'm sure we know that Healthcare needs a lot more money. Not everyone can have what they want and now the Province isn't giving out anymore because they themselves are in the red. Then really, TransLink needs to reorganize itself to come up with the funds.