How refreshing to see that the Mayor’s Council and the Province are talking nice on the proposed increase in gas taxes and a vehicle levy to fund the B-line routes in Surrey; upgrades to SkyTrain stations; more Seabus service; Highway 1 rapid transit from Langley to Lougheed station; road and cycling improvements … and what else was there? Oh yeah, the Evergreen Line.
There’s been a worry that even the mention of gas taxes was verboten, especially with provincial and civic elections on the horizon. And yet – so far – there’s been no uproar, not even from the red-meat columnists who usually consider ‘tax’ a four-letter word. So unlike the American Right.
No doubt Blair Lekstrom, the provincial Transportation Minister, gave his blessing. Otherwise, the proposal to raise the gas tax would have been dead in the water. While the vehicle levy is no sure thing (the default option is an increase in property taxes), at least it’s on the table.
Presumably everyone had an interest in getting the Evergreen Line funded and a little soil turned over in time for an election photo-op. The risk for the local politicians is that, once done, the Province will lose interest in any other tough decision (like the vehicle levy) to expand the transit system, particularly South of the Fraser where the need is dramatic given the ‘Gateway Effect’ (all those expanded arterials, highways and bridges that will shape car-dependent land use unless there’s an offsetting alternative in the way of practical, frequent transit.)
But let’s acknowledge success when we get it: the local leadership (kudos to Richard Walton and Pam Goldsmith-Jones) have achieved something special. This proposal creates a revenue stream from the use of roads, bridges and vehicles (together with fare box increases for transit riders – that always passes) to affect behaviour – and gets some real transit improvements on the ground in the short term. Translink continues to ‘Move Forward.’
While gas taxes are likely an eroding source of revenue (peak car use may be upon us, and oil will likely diminish as a motive fuel in any event), a vehicle levy can help make up the difference.
And – again, so far – everyone seems to be responding like adults to the idea of another two cents a litre. I feared the prospect of blowback on another gas tax would prevent the Province coming to the table in a serious way. So kudos to Blair Lekstrom too.
None to my surprise, bby mayor derek corrigan is against the whole plan. For some reason, he was out of town when the approvaal was made in spite of being aware of all the negotiations being made all this time.
….
“Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan was out of town when the Metro Vancouver mayors’ council on transportation held an emergency meeting about the Evergreen Line today, and he’s none too happy with the results.
Corrigan spoke with the NOW while on vacation in Alberta, saying he was very disappointed that the council had approved a funding formula that suggested a property tax increase.
“When I come back I will raise the roof,” he said, adding there was no reason to hold an emergency meeting on the issue at this time.
“It’s not an emergency, just because some politician thinks it’s an emergency,” he said, adding it seemed as if those involved waited until “key people” had left the Lower Mainland before holding the meeting.
…
burnabynow, links to follow.
FYI, he has said this in the past about other funding initiatives:
…
“Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan believes the possible development of rapid transit along Broadway has blinkered Vancouver politicians to the funding constraints facing a regional transit authority he calls “bankrupt”.
He added that he favours a position of “no supplement”, which is the base-plan option. This would require “drastic cuts”, according to TransLink documents. (The remaining option, called “Funding Stabilization”, requires an additional $130 million a year above current levels.) ”
…
Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, however, warned TransLink’s plans are unaffordable and argued scarce funding should be used to sustain service to areas with strong existing ridership rather than areas with low transit use if cuts are required.
“There are significant subisides going into many of the South of Fraser routes that are questionable in terms of business efficiency,” he said.
What a pleasent treat. Agendas, political games playing seem to be put aside. Notions of taxes, density. public transit seem to be evolving at least in metro Vancouver. Such cooperation needs to be applauded and I lend my voice.
Yes, kudos!
I believe that a tax on the VALUE of a motor vehicle is a more progressive alternative to a fixed levy, or one based on fuel efficiency. Someone who drives a ten-year-old Corolla will pay far less than someone who can afford a brand new Range Rover every three years. Other jurisdictions do this, Massachusetts, for example.
seconded. That’s a really good idea I haven’t heard raised here.
Only problem is that discourages people from buying more expensive fuel efficient hybrids and electric cars. I’d prefer a charge based on vehicle weight or size. Longer vehicles take up more space on the roads while heavier vehicles are more dangerous to other drivers, cyclists and pedestrians. Tall vehicles parked near make it difficult for peds, bikes and vehicles to see each other while tall vehicles in traffic also make it difficult to see other road users.
Heavier vehicles also create more wear and tear on roads.
Congratulations to the Mayor’s Council for not caving to provincial pressure last year!
Actually, here’s some ranting from the province against the 2 cent hike:
http://www.theprovince.com/news/asia-pacific/speaks+taxed+motorist/5082608/story.html
“I’m not usually a fan of specialinterest groups. But I think it’s high time we had a group (or coalition of groups) that spoke out forcefully for the motorists of Metro Vancouver who increasingly are being plucked like a goose.
I agree with B.C. Tory Leader John Cummins that a proposed twocents-a-litre gas-tax increase, given the green light last week by Metro Vancouver mayors, is part of an ongoing assault on the pockets of Lower Mainland drivers, who already pay some of the highest gasoline taxes in Canada.
It demonstrates the virulence of the anti-car movement in this region, and the impotence of the emasculated motoring lobby.
This is unfortunate. Auto transportation is key to our freedom and prosperity. And motorists form by far the majority of commuters.
They deserve to have their voices heard by the powers that be -as bike riders do with the backing of a veritable army of cash-rich green advocacy organizations, from Simon Fraser University and the University of B.C. to the David Suzuki Foundation and Vision Vancouver.”
“cash-rich green advocacy organizations” hahahaha!
Spoke too soon. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/bc-politics/clark-cool-to-mayors-gas-tax-proposal/article2094173/
“Ms. Clark said she’ll give the mayors more time to come up with a funding proposal that fits with her preference to cap or lower the tax burden on B.C. families.”
So until someone can find a tax cut that will fund the Evergreen Line we’re stuck … WTF. Is she for real?
Actually, Clark spoke too soon: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/07/13/bc-evergreen-line-gas-tax.html
Really inspires confidence in our premier.
I personally think that motorists are paying their share and more of the freight for Translink and transportation gernerally. It’s beyond user pay and has not been rationalized in those terms, even by gas tax only advocates, for ages. Rather, it’s deterrent fee or “behaviour change”.
Which of course is utterly false, because if a major share of motorists stopped driving and filling their tanks and suddenly appeared on the bus system, the system would be broke financially and overwhelmed with demand.
It’s high time property owners, who benefit through increasing land prices that result from transportation infrastructure investments, paid up.
“I personally think that motorists are paying their share and more of the freight for Translink and transportation gernerally.”
What do you base this conclusion on?
“Which of course is utterly false, because if a major share of motorists stopped driving and filling their tanks and suddenly appeared on the bus system, the system would be broke financially and overwhelmed with demand.”
Actually, if a major share of motorists stopped driving and used the bus system, we would adapt to that change and beef up the transit system. Popular routes (like along the Broadway corridor) can be managed to break even or turn a profit to subsidise other routes.