The Wording:
Do you support a one half percentage point (0.5%) increase to the Provincial Sales Tax in Metro Vancouver, dedicated to the Mayors’ Transportation and Transit Plan, with independent audits and public reporting?
.
The Poll:
At this point, do you believe the referendum will pass:
Tough to say without seeing how the response shakes out. Of course the anti-tax parrots are already hard at work, but there seems to be wide ranging support and understanding that this needs to pass–depends on how well they get the message across.
Yes, it’s one thing for talking point parrots like Jordan Bateman to predictably come out against, but I’ve already heard people saying they might vote no because they think $X tax would be a better choice than the sales tax. Important to get across the idea that there’s no plan B if this fails.
Plan B: increased road tolls, increased gasoline taxes, increased vehicle levy, increased parking fees, higher property taxes with credits to resident income tax payers or senors, reduced salaries/benefits for civil servants.
But this is the easy question and low income earners, socialists and students will love it. It will likely pass although it is the WRONG approach as car use will not drop as it will continue to be far too cheap too drive.
Rather than doing the right thing the MetroVan mayors decided to do what is easy. This is leadership ? This is vision ? This will reduce car use ?
Retail spending will shift out of the region. Jobs will be lost, especially if coupled with the proposed $15/h minimum wage in retail and restaurants.
Saving 0.5% will not make it worthwhile for me to drive out of the region to buy anything. I’d save on gas and time by just staying in Metro and paying for stuff here. I could see somebody in Langley and Maple Ridge possibly making the decision to go a little bit east for some stuff, but that’s about it.
Plus, I don’t think low income earners or students will love this because a sales tax would them harder in the pocket book than us working folk. Though certainly, socialists may jump in glee. However, remind me if sales tax is even part of socialism. I’m honestly wondering. Is it? The one “socialist” country (People’s Republic of China in this case) I visited didn’t charge sales tax.
The way the question has been framed, what does that 0.5% sales tax increase get the region? Is it simply an increase in funding to apply to a laundry list of transit projects? Is it THE extra source of transit funding? Does the sales tax increase preclude congestion or cordon pricing? Will this sales tax increase cover the entirety of the region’s transit expansion plans? I’d be pleasantly surprised if that were the case.
Should the region vote “yes”, what exactly does it get? I’m honestly asking. Can someone respond?
More bus service and more routes.
Increase service on Sky Train, Canada Line, Sea bus, West Coast Express.
Add 11 new B-line routes connecting town centers.
Maintain and upgrade the region’s major roads.
Build a new earthquake-ready Pattullo Bridge.
Build LRT connecting Surrey Centre with Guildford, Newton, and Langley.
Extend the Millennium Line tunneled along Broadway.
Improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists.
And the same # of cars. Not less congestion.
With more and better transit, pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, a greater proportion of people will be able to not use cars as often. Now this might mean the same # of cars IF the regions population grows fast enough to absorb all the increased facilities. Your local car dealership might still do well if enough people still buy cars just as status symbols even though they might not drive them as often or even if people buy less often but choose more expensive models and/ or more durable models. A worrying trend though is that more younger people are choosing not to even get a drivers license or just the car sharing services sporadically if they do. Hopefully taxis or driverless cars will be available when they need to use a private vehicle.
djross2074: My understanding is that the money should go to whatever is listed on the list and not more. I believe the intention of the question is to give a clear mandate on the projects listed with the question. If there were other projects that they wanted to fund, I would think it would have to go to another vote. I think that’s how the US civic/county proposition referendums go. However, I think this is a first for a Canadian city/region. So maybe things work differently.
I was at the Sustainability Breakfast yesterday where Metro Vancouver talked about their Food Isn’t Garbage campaign. They have put a decent amount of energy and consideration into it, and it is working. Can the same be done on educating the public about the referendum? Clear simple messages like enhanced transit frees up road space for drivers? Something the motorist can buy into.
I heard someone from an environmental organization comment on CBC Radio today that the reason that the sales tax option was chosen by the mayors is that it is the most “fair”, and would apply to tourists as well as residents.
I would say that is true, but the real reason they chose it is more political, and also a reason that most would be afraid to state: it is more acceptable than all the other options: a gas tax, a property tax, a carbon tax or a vehicle levy, all of which would have prompted more organized opposition.
I think you are exactly right.
Urbanists or economists might arguably prefer other options over the sales tax, but it is probably the least unpopular of the potential tax sources.
For one – it applies to all groups. This means there is no one vocal minority (drivers being interviewed at the gas station) that can complain about being shafted. Proponents can say “we all benefit from transit, so we all should pay”.
Also nice: it’s easy to make the vacuous argument that the sales tax applies to tourists, which has a nice populist ring. Of course, the amounts raised would surely be negligible, and other taxes would indirectly trickle down to tax tourists as well, but no matter.
Tourists would pay 5% of sales tax revenues. Businesses and households would share the rest.
Wow, that much? Maybe it’s not so vacuous of an argument. I didn’t realize tourists did so much of the consuming of taxable goods and services in the region.
This is a resort.
Although the prposed increased tax for consumption purchases would apply to all groups, it unjustly penalizes lower income classes more harshly.
Why ? They use these subsidized transportation services far far more than richer guys with a Bentley !
Groceries and rent, two of their major expenses, are GST and PST exempt.
The more you buy, the more you pay. I am surprised that Vancouver doesn’t have higher property taxes or luxury taxes. Missing, of course, in this referendum are things that would actually reduce car use such as: vehicle levy for high powered vehicles, higher parking fees, road tolls, higher gasoline taxes. When is that coming ?
This is a fairly FAIR and well reaching distribution of the pain. One could argue the only advantage for the Bentley guy is less congestion, and that is why he (usually a he) might vote for it.
The province has already said they won’t allow many of those tax sources. They haven’t given the cities many options, frankly.
I am cautiously optimistic that the referendum will now pass by a narrow margin.
I am somewhat worried about sales tax being a declining source of income as more and more merchandise is purchased online from companies that do not operate in Metro Vancouver. I’m one of those people who believes that shopping local is the right thing to do, but many of my friends, family and colleagues acquire a high percentage of their goods from outside the region, much of it from outside the country. Delivery companies and Canada Border Services are not obliged to collect a local sales tax.
As the population grows, sales tax revenue might also grow, despite a decline in local shopping.
Indeed. Especially when coupled with the proposed $15/h minimum wage. Retailers will suffer, and associated property taxes will drop. Every action will have an unintended consequence elsewhere.
David: If it’s any consolation, I have tried buying things online from our lovely tax-free neighbour of Alberta. However, online Canadian vendors are required to apply all the sales taxes to sales to residents of different provinces. So when I went online shopping from an Alberta vendor, they were required to charge me GST and BC PST because I was a BC resident. So online buying from Canadian vendors should still bring money into BC coffers. It’s a totally different story with foreign online vendors, I’m sure.
Unlike a #VehicleLevy a #SalesTAX has nothing to do with Transit & will do nothing to reduce #RoadCongestion or #AirPollution – This is not the “Beginning of the End” – It is the “End of the Beginning” – To the Journey !
Before we jump all over the mayor’s council, let’s never forget that it was the province who forced this referendum bs in the first place. Clearly there are more progressive solutions available that would fund transit and encourage people to actually use it at the same time but there are serious issues that make that nearly impossible to do that in the short term.
Practically speaking, we need this money now, and any road pricing etc needs careful planing before it can be implemented. Part of the reason for the mess we have now is that the Port Mann and Golden Ears Tolls have brought in so much less money than expected. Solutions such as road pricing, vehicle carbon tax etc. etc. are more likely to get public buy in if they are phased in overtime. Opting for sales tax now does not preclude other options in the future.
Politically speaking, this thing has to pass!! A confused mind always says no, and anything that is even slightly complex will be be understandably perceived as unfair or unreasonable, and there are plenty of spin doctors who would love nothing better than to capitalize on that to spread Fear Uncertainty and Doubt. Most people are not transportation policy nerds like of us. Remember how vehicle levies and parking stall taxes were the last time they were proposed?
You say that the bridge tolls have realized less than expected revenue. Road pricing would likely repeat the revenue short fall. The political party that instigated it would then have to bring in another method to secure the funding of their plan, or back off and have a less ambitious overall plan. The result would be disappointments and disgruntlement all around.
This is exactly what happened in London. The Congestion Charge was so effective that it didn’t raise as much money for the public transport system as was intended.
That is why we need it here: to reduce congestion. Drove to the airport today along Granville. For free. If they charged me $20 at rush hour I’d take the bus & Canada line. For $5 I might still take the car. I am surprised how cheap car use is (once you have one). Why not charge $25 for the center lane on Granville, $10 in the middle and 0 in the right lane. That might change behavior real fast.
Car use in cities is still far FAR too cheap, and this referendum fails to address it.
CTV Vancouver News Hour ran a poll, would you support a 0.5% incease in the provincial sales tax to fund transportation:
24% Yes
76% No
The only interview they had was with Jordan Bateman
You got to love “balanced” reporting. No wonder I don’t watch TV news anymore.
CBC Vancouver: Do you support a 0.5% increase to the provincial sales tax to fund transit in Metro Vancouver?
39.34% Yes
56.56% No
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/pst-hike-of-0-5-proposed-for-metro-vancouver-transit-referendum-1.2870043
Btw, here’s the current Vancity Buzz poll results:
38.83% YES
53.51% NO
7.66% Undecided
Very similar numbers to CBC poll.
Sobering. The ‘yes’ campaign is going to have to first educate people of the value of transit and then tell them that a ‘no’ vote won’t mean getting the money from some other mysterious source of funds but will likely mean no funds. It’s uphill work.
Maybe this info is out there and I’ve just missed it so far, but:
Is the 0.5% in place until Translink’s share of the plan’s budget is reached, or until costs are covered whatever they turn out to actually be, or for a certain length if time, or indefinitely, and if it continues how is it allocated once the original mandate is met?
I hope at least some of the discussion leading up to the referendum is the need for stable long-term funding for Translink, or whatever replaces Translink if that’s what it takes, and that the provincial government is firmly planted in the hot seat over their responsibilities and choices for transportation. I fear further downloading unless the politicos see merit in becoming leaders and listeners when it comes to moving people and goods, rather than campaigners entrenched in the familiar territory of moving cars and trucks.
I also hope that the mayors that voted against this being the question will now publicly state their support for a yes vote, as even though they didn’t get what they wanted they a) support the decision made by the majority and the process that led to this result, and b) support the PST tax proposal itself as being significantly better than the alternative.
Important to get across the idea that there’s no plan B if this fails?
there is a plan B, at least in Surrey
For all, increasing the property tax doesn’t need a referendum: To raise $250M/year could require a modest rise of the general property mill rate (0.03% for the residential mill rate or $300 additional tax on a $1M property)… and the Pattullo bridge could even be funded by toll rather than a PST tax.
One has to remember that the mayors have constructed the opposition to a property tax hike on the ground, that any supplementary Translink funding, should be transportation related, and be able to influence transportation choice (that is even stated in the Mayors plan), so it has been lot of dramas to end up to pretty much square 1, since as far as transportation is concerned, the PST is not worse/better than a property tax
The property tax used to shift the burden on high income/high property value, while the PST shift the burden on low income and expose essentially the East limit of the region to business leakage issue
Regarding the sustainability of the PST tax, it will be not much different than a property tax:
If you look at the last 5 years, the PST revenues (province wide) have increased by 20%…but the translink operating costs have increased by ~30% In the meantime. The plan call for an additional increase in operating cost of more than 50%.
Alas, as long as the Transit revenues will not be significantly correlated to transit ridership, it will be no sustainable source. So soon or later transit productivity and fare box recovery level will need to be addressed to reduce the gap.
At this time, the plan call to put more buses like this one (430) on the road and call this route a B line:
https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2014/12/bus430atknightbridge.jpg
There is no plan to make this “express/ Bline” bus any faster than the bike in the left lane…someday this will need to be addressed if we want better transit for the buck (That could become a necessity in the case of a Plan B)
I also wonder if we had to go through this hassle and even have the referendum if the mayors agreed to a property tax increase.
Exactly. Plan B exists, but the mayors chose not to use it: far higher parking fees, higher property taxes, higher bus fares, higher car registration fees. Drive through any residential neighborhood in Vancouver and you see a sea of cars. What is every car had to pay $400/month to get a parking permit ? We’d see less cars. Plan B exists indeed. The mayors ought to communicate these alternatives.
How will this money be allocated by 23 mayors over hundreds of projects at a rate of $250 million dollars per year assuming that the referendum is successful? How much will go to transit and how much will go to motordom? How can voters make decisions when they don’t actually know critical details of the spending plan?
There is a plan:
http://mayorscouncil.ca/transportation-investments/
Yes, but very difficult to understand how this plan rolls out in real time. Seems like a big shopping list with priorities and budgets up for debate.
It is also worth pointing out that the Mayors also want to look at some form of road user charging but recognize that it could not possibly be implemented quickly. But they did commit to examining this in greater detail next year.
Most Mayors said yesterday that they did not think the referendum was a Good Idea. The one exception was Lois Jackson.
Road user charging is highway robbery!
Why ? You pay to use the pool or the community center yoga class ? Why is it not fair to charge for roads, as gasoline taxes do not cover it all, and have no demand related dimension. Using Granville at 5pm ought to be far more expensive than at midnight. WestJet also charges more for the 5 pm flight. Why not the road owner ?
Listen up coin head. It is my road. I paid for it by paying taxes. It belongs to the public. It cannot be privatized by throwing a few coins at it for your freewheeling pleasure
Why not ? You also paid for the public pool or the community center gym, yet pay for it for your yoga class or to go swimming. Why is a road any different than a public pool ?
Shippers don;t deliver goods via the swimming pool. If you were concerned about businesses leaving Vancouver why push for something that will drive up their costs even more?
Bob, if road pricing reduces congestion you may find that shippers would actually support the idea. Getting in an extra trip every day would be worth a lot to them.
Unfortunately, you only paid for a small fraction of the road. Automobile transportation in the Lower Mainland is subsidized to the tune of $billions per year. Is it fair that those who do not drive should subsidize people who do? Would you approve of a flat rate for electricity? How about a flat rate for natural gas to heat your home? The only way that motor vehicle congestion can be reduced is to put a price on driving. At the same time, gasoline taxes, property taxes and income taxes should be reduced. Mobility fees have been hugely successful in other cities like London and Stockholm. It would be awesome if we had this in Metro Vancouver.
So does public transit yet people are required to pay fares to use it. You could say road pricing and tolls are really just fare.
it’s going to be tough. prices at the pumps should be at an all time (relatively speeking) low by the time the referendum occurs. not sure how this will impact people decision making but may have a substantial impact. it’s too bad referendum wasn’t held in the summer when the traffic is at worst and gas prices are highest.
Also, the history behind the HST has ingrained a very lively culture of anti-tax within the province. Be interesting to see how Vanderzam approaches the tax? He may be a key cog in getting it passed.
couple this with with general animosity towards translink (compass card and fare gates, etc) and yikes it is going to be an uphill battle….
recent shutdowns of skytrain may work in the favour, as people realize the system is old and needs $$$.
some good literature is needed on the busses and skytrain to ensure these very captive audiences vote in favour and spread the word.
it’s a good, not overly complicated, topic that the general lay public can grasp once they get all the details. education is going to be key!
Well, yes there is a plan but no dollars attached. Hard to vote when Translink, so far, is unwilling to release a proposed 10 year transportation improvement and budget allocation, which surely they have done. If you start considering the capital, operating and maintenance of one bus is probably now in excess of $1 million and the annual borrowing cost of $1 billion in capital expenditures is probably in the order of $100 million then all of a sudden the $250 million from the sales tax doesn’t seem to be all that much. The reality is that whatever Translink is able to get will within a year or two not be enough and once again they’ll start moaning and groaning.
Really? In my opinion, the dollars have been publicly available for months.
The plan is available for perusal at: http://mayorscouncil.ca/information-centre/ Not only that, but the highlights of the proposed services are listed point by point on the referendum ballot.
It will be very difficult to do big ticket projects at the rate this tax is collected, much easier to spend it on rolling stock, buses, upgrading roads and filling pot holes.
Yes it will take many years at $250M to pay for $7.5 billon in projects, but how to get that done is well understood.
The reality is that this region has needed more transit infrastructure for ages. All the currently proposed projects should have been up and running years ago. It’s been painful watching the decades roll past with so little to show for them.
Governments don’t usually pay for capital projects with revenue, they use debt financing. A $250M a year income is more than enough to finance 1/3 of the $7.5B dollar investment starting day 1.
Unlike capital funding questions at local govt elections. which identify specific projects, this one will fail, primarily because the question is perceived, by the individual as: “Give us billions. When and where we’ll spend that and if it benefits you? We’ll let you know much, much later.” In the face of that, the cautionary vote, by a prudent person, is no.
There is a plan, those numbers didn’t just come out of thin air. The plan is available for perusal at: http://mayorscouncil.ca/information-centre/ Not only that, but the highlights of the proposed services are listed point by point on the referendum ballot.
It’s uninformed opinions such as this which will make the referendum a hard sell. Everyone who understands how important transit is to our community needs to help educate people about why this plan needs to be funded.
It’s also PR..they should know how bad translink’s reputation is, they should spell this out so every idiot can understand exactly where the money is going.
On the bus last night the two guys behind me were clear they opposed any kind of tax. “I pay too many taxes already” “The president of Translink should take a pay cut before asking for more money”.
Brutual Bias by CTV…….
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/final-transit-referendum-question-proposes-pst-hike-1.2143701
My guess is that the results of this will largely depend on how well organized the yes side is. By default, the general public sentiment is obviously going to be negative, but that can change if the focus is placed on the benefits of succeeding with the plan instead of on how this or that aspect is imperfect.
All the negative comments I’ve seen in the comment sections of popular media haven’t been about how the mayor’s council vision is bad. They’re just about hating Translink. If the coalition and independent advocates can send a consistent and positive message, I think this is winnable. After all, Los Angeles’s referendum won with nearly 70% support.
Yeah – it all depends on how well organized the yes side is. If they let inertia control the narrative, it’s doomed. They have to seize the reigns and sharply tug in the opposite direction, starting immediately.
I asked some people that live in White Rock/South Surrey what they think about the promise of a rapid bus, to New Westminster but not Vancouver. They all asked why they would want to go to New West. Everyone commutes to Vancouver. Translink management have a bad reputation too. More than a couple of times I’ve heard people that do business with Translink assure me that the management is not professional.
White Rock/South Surrey
1/ White Rock/South Surrey has already a rapid bus to Vancouver, it is the 351. service frequency has already being increased by a dramatic 50% since 2008 and it has already all the feature of a B line: fast and frequent service: it is a case I already made a long time ago here so that the map of rapid bus in the South West corner of the region could look like:
http://voony.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/richmondexpressbus1.png
However it is possible that Translink doesn’t do a good job at marketing all what has been done, at great expense, in the South Fraser.
Below is how Stagecoach is advertising its UK Oxford-Cambridge service
(which is less frequent than the 351)
https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/x5-expressbus.jpg
Hard to be missed by the motorist, isn’t it?
2/ Eric is nevertheless right, the Transit picture will become worse in White Rock/South Surrey with the Mayors plan: They will be the main causality of the Surrey LRT choice (and a reason why a BRT could perform better in Surrey):
-They will loose the direct connection with Surrey Centre (bus 321), with no time gain advantage (at the difference of the Canada line introduction on the 99Hwy route).
The “rapid bus to Scott Station” (and not New West) looks as a clumsy try to alleviate that unfortunate outcome, but it will be a much longer route…
Then people could reasonably ask, why impose the burden of a transfer to New West, just for one station, when a New West station open much more destination possibility (and less crowded train)?
It’s too early to discuss the specific route designs or vehicle branding when we’re really at a high level regional planning stage right now. See Jarrett Walker’s post on this: http://www.humantransit.org/2014/12/basics-controlling-altitude-in-planning.html
For the purposes of the referendum, I think it’s important to keep the focus on improving regional outcomes. It’s like football in Europe. When local teams are playing against each other, people support their local team and thumb their nose against other cities. When it’s the world cup, people cheer for their national team, even for players they previously hated. The only change is a new common goal and a new common enemy.
The trick here is to get residents south of the Fraser to think as one team.
That’s a healthy way to look at it. All of us just want to get to where we want to go. Fighting and competitiveness between cities or between modes will get us nowhere and not even lead to “peace” even if one “wins”.
Chris, I don’t disagree with that but notice I was answering to Eric, who seems to ignore existing service (so the reference on the bus branding).
However, The “high level planning” was done in the RTS plan
To repeat the Jarret walker word, “To see clearly, we need to get our plane to a high altitude. But to implement anything, we then need to land the plane”
It is what has been done for the Mayor’s plan: that allows to put a $ figure on the plan, and makes it more palatable to the public.
BTW, the wording “Extend the Millennium line tunnelled along Broadway” , able to convey both the general goal and implementation choice rational for the project, is the best I have seen so far
That said some line present in the RTS plan has disappeared in the mayor plan, some may be “Corriganized”, while a couple of green line seems to have popped from nowhere.
Eric doesn’t question the bus color, but, in fine and rightly, the rational for one of those esoteric line.
It could rightly looks as a minor quibble to many, since that mere line presence doesn’t really change the thrust of the plan, but other will eventually find discomfort with this sort of spice which has no peculiar goals but certainly add cost.
To take another Jarret favored ”plumbing” metaphor : it is like a contractor was offered a house with plumbing in the bedroom… that couldn’t change drastically the price or functionality of the house, but the buyer could start to feel there is something wrong with the house…and think: “May be I am asked to overpay for stuff I don’t need”
…And he could be probably right. It is very possible that the mayor plan is ~30% too expensive; in regard of what is really necessary to achieve the agreed regional goals (it is what could suggest a Translink/MOTI study and other superficial analysis).
Is it a sufficient reason to vote “NO”? Probably not, especially if we consider it is the cost to politicize a transportation issue.
Is a referendum a sufficient reason to ignore the weakness and eventual flaw of a plan? probably neither.
In the last case, and a potential reason to vote “yes”, especially for some believing in financially sustainable transit, is to rely on the Province, to save of ourselves:
Minister Stone has brought some cautious words that the “Province will finance the projects on a case by case basis provided a strong business case is made for them”
In the specific case of the Surrey LRT, the proponent will have to convince the Province that its own studies are nothing more than rubbish…it could prove to be a difficult task especially when the Province/Translink study stated in non uncertain words(*):
“The BRT and RRT-based alternatives were most cost-effective overall in achieving the project objectives due to greater relative benefits (RRT) or lower costs (BRT). LRT 1 and LRT 4 performed the worst in this account, due to higher costs and minimal benefits, respectively”
(*) When mayors implicitly consider the Translink studies as rubbish, we shouldn’t be surprised by Eric’s opinion of Translink
agreed that the 351 should have been marketed better. Lived in white rock for years and it was awesome service. every 15 minutes with 4 stops to Vancouver. How is that not considered rapid transit/b-line. Many people were still not aware of it!!!
If car use cost more, say each tunnel or bridge crossing is $5 or $15 during rush hour these buses would be used far more.
As such we cannot expect that car users will all of a sudden use more public transit because it is available with this new plan. It has to be made more expensive at the same time, too. Only if car use is slower and costs more will people switch.
I’m dumbfounded as to how Translink has gained a bad reputation.
1) They are about the only transit agency I can think of in North America that sees riders as customers.
2) They’ve overseen dramatic growth in ridership and service since the late ’90’s
3) They run a tight ship (obvious if anyone’s actually read how the provincial audits. Their wording were heavily biased against Translink yet found next to nothing in actual waste or efficiencies.)
4) They activily find efficiencies (Canada Line P3 contract, low-cost community shuttle buses, “on the way” routes)
5) They’re incredably transparent (extensive public consultation, long term plans, Buzzer, blog, Twitter, etc…)
For constrast, take Chicago. We have three transit agencies that barely talk to each other, the ‘L’ has maintenance slow zone over about 1/3rd of it’s trackage, Metra can’t run it’s trains reliably during the winter, or at all mid-day. Busses are bunched reliably every day leaving half-hour or worse gaps in service on major routes. Farebox recovery is less than 50% and mode share is far worse than in Vancouver.
Let’s take Toronto. They also can’t manage to keep buses and streetcars running on time, haven’t yet committed to solving extreme congesting on their subway or surface transit, and are wasting a billion dollars on a politically motivated sub-par subway extension to the burbs.
New York can’t even build a subway station for less than $4 billion, let alone be able to run cross-town buses that you could out-walk.
Seattle definition of frequent service is a bus every 20 minutes, although they’re also struggling with the state over the ability to implement a local tax.
Why are people trashing one of the best transportation agencies in North America?
Good question. I too maintain that TransLink is a superb transportation agency and one of the best in North America. Unfortunately, they get bad mouthed by the province and also by Jordan Bateman of the CTF. The media doesn’t help by overblowing every little misstep made by TransLink. I guess people take the attacker’s stories as the truth and don’t bother discovering the facts.
The executive receives bonuses automatically.
Fare avoidance on buses is encouraged and supported by management ideology.
Management attitude towards consultants and contractors is amateur and public-body typical and also seems endemically wasteful without a trace of remorse.
The citizenry are not permitted any avenue to require accountability.
I just don’t believe any of these statements except the first.
The proof-of-payment system makes boarding and alighting far faster, saving both operator and customer time. Studies show that fare evasion costs around 5-7 million per year (albeit in 2008) while the skytrain turnstiles alone cost more than $100 million to install and won’t completely elliminate fare evasion. Assuming evasion goes down to 2 million per year, it would take 25 years to pay off the investment, and far more than that to pay off the interest, while at the same time increasing operations costs.
Management of the Canada Line P3 process, CMBC, Seabus contracts, the Golden Ears bridge, and the Coast Merridian overpass have all delivered projects on time, on budget, and with excellent risk management compared to other projects in North America. What issues there were (cut and cover interruptions, and below expectations traffic on the Golden Ears) are problems that I would have expected any north american transportation agency to run into (or even perform worse in).
Translink is wonderfully accountable to its citizenry, far better than the province is. For instance, I’ve never heard any reason beyond a sound bite as to why the old Port Mann bridge needed to be demolished. Translink is as accountable as it comes. Budgets, area operation plans, capital plans, and strategic plans are all updated regularly, with well advertized public input and easily accesible reports and justifications. For those who don’t want to read through reports, the buzzer blog, facebook pages, and twitter account all work to reach the public in a discussion around how Translink works. Translink undergoes a large number of external audits. Finally, there is strong in-depth public debate about Translink. That’s why your visiting this blog right, or Voony’s blog, or RailfortheValley, or symposiums and student blogs at SFU and UBC.
The problem Translink has is the province’s meddling politics and the types of off the mark sound bites you just shared with us. It prevents Translink from following through on rational decisions (such as pursuing an SFU gondola) or from having the public support and funding for solving the big transportation issues we face.
@Alan, thank you for the link. The first two comments describe the problem exactly. Fare evasion is endemic and also, and importantly, associated with violence. Many people would not allow themselves, their parents or their children to travel on Translink buses because of the repeated stories of aggressive and violent riders that refuse to pay and often assault drivers. This, obviously, then extends to the rail system.
To better understand the financial cost of this fare evasion one has to factor in the lost revenue from those that just will not take transit because of the ignored crimes and criminals on board. On top of the 5-7 million a year lost you must add millions more because of potential passengers that wouldn’t dream of taking transit. Whether the fear is realistic or proportional is irrelevant. The losses are facts. Hundreds of thousands of people will not take transit as long as criminals are allowed to roam on the system unhindered.
Compound this with the fact that these non-riders are also acutely aware that it is they who are constantly asked for more money through property taxes and gas taxes while criminals continue to ride for free. No matter what you say, the perception that Translink is screwing homeowners and drivers is a perception that becomes a reality.
You might think that Translink is “wonderfully accountable” but if you were to listen to others you would quickly realise that people do not like the fact that the Translink board is unelected and have massive control and power. The public perception is that there is no unaccountability. Believe it.
@Eric
Thank you for keeping your tone civil. I’m not entirely able to as Translink bashing does raise my hackles. I do believe that there’s backlash but for the life of me I cannot see fact in any of the arguments against Translink’s management and decision making. The only reasons I can come up with for why there’s such a backlash is due to people buying the anti-tax sound-bite politics coming from the province and the Canadian Tax Payers Federation.
One of their strongest arguments saying that Translink is unaccountable is that Translink’s governance structure is indirectly democratic. Now, we will have an application of direct democracy that threatens to make one of the poorest transportation decisions our region has ever seen.
If Translink is really interested in winning the referendum they might consider backing off from continually squeezing vehicle drivers. Many of those drivers are tradespeople that need to drive for their work. A reduction in the reliance on gas taxes could be useful too. Even though a one half of one percent increase in the PST is very small, the idea that people traveling daily across the Port Mann Bridge, and paying substantially to do so, will vote for additional costs is somewhat unrealistic.
It didn’t help Translink that the Provincial Government, in an effort to duck responsibility for raising the funds to keep transit growth on pace with population, downloaded the problem to the mayors and, at the same time, repeatedly ordered audits of Translink in a bid to find “efficiencies”. These “efficiencies” were required to fund bus service over the shiny new Port Mann bridge. That service was promised as a benefit of the new bridge which they built with taxpayers money but – oops – forgot to provide transit funding for.
The mere fact that Translink was being audited (again) was bad PR, but the only way to find the “efficiencies” mandated by the government was to cut back on other services, and that gave them another black eye.
Another problem for Translink has been the installation of fare gates on the Skytrain system and the associated Compass Card rollout. This was all triggered by the insistence of the Provincial Government to abolish the honor system despite studies that showed it to be cheaper. The rollout has been delayed due to technical problems, and Translink is wearing those too despite the fact that it’s caught between government requirements and the vagaries of large technology projects.
Can someone clarify the claim bandied about here that vehicle users are subsidized by “billions”. Is there a study somewhere? the only comparable I can find is a study showing Ontario light vehicle users are paying almost 90% of infrastructure costs while Metro Toronto drivers are paying more in than they use:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/news/ontario-drivers-paying-up-to-90-per-cent-of-road-costs-study-reveals/article14901607/
On the surface BC with its even higher taxes should see light vehicle users paying a greater percentage of costs. If anyone is being subisidized it would seem to be heavy vehicles: trucks, busses etc. They are also the vehicles that put the greatest amount of wear and tear on road surfaces.
Re automobile subsidies, the province conducted research in 1993 which showed that subsidies for light vehicle trasportation in the Lower Mainland amounted to $6.6 billion per year in1991 dollars, or 42% of total costs. This was higher than transit subsidies of $330 million which represented 37% of costs.
http://bc.transport2000.ca/learning/background/transport_2021/cost_report.html
Based on this, I estimate the vehicle subsidy to be over $6000 per vehicle per year. People complain a lot about transit, however default motordom continues unabated. And like Gordon states, we do not get to vote on this.
I read the G&M article mentioned in Bob’s comment above, and notice that it is a study done by the Conference Board of Canada and commissioned by the CAA. The word “bias” comes to mind. Maybe the article mis-quoted the report, but this statement does not make much sense:
“The report released Thursday found Ontario road users driving cars, minivans, SUVs and light pickup trucks are paying 70 to 90 per cent of the costs of the road through fuel taxes, vehicle registration fees and tolls, to the tune of $7.5 billion a year.”
First of all vehicle registration fees probably don’t even cover the costs associated with registration and gas taxes only cover a portion of road costs. Most of the cost for urban roads comes from property taxes. People who don’t drive in an urban setting are subsidizing those who do. Also, the article doesn’t cover externalities which create huge burdens on society, What about hospitalization and other costs of crashes, costs related to pollution, ghg emissions, policing and sprawl? One of the commenters to the article was probably closer to the truth:
“Several credible studies – academic reviewed – have the real number at about 34%.
This study was commissioned by the Canadian Automobile Association – and that is like asking the Cookie Monster what he thinks of the price of Oreos.”
You got a more current than a twenty year old and now outdated plan showing the alleged ” subsidies ” ?
Clearly accidents, land and pollution have $ figures attached to it. But how to quantify those ?
What about benefits not shown in this study, say a firm saving two hours per day per driver vs sitting in a traffic jam or taking a slow bus with three connections ?
I wish there were a more recent study, but I suspect that the light vehicles are even more subsidized now following SFPR anbd PMH1, Trucks are probably subsidized much higher, since they cause most of the damage to roads. People analyse TransLink to death but does anyone know how efficient the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure is at building highways and how effective the management is? Jordan Bateman is quick to criticize TransLink but not a word about MOTI and they take a much bigger portion of our taxes, But I guess no one questions default motordom.
With regard to congestion relief, this is used as justification for highway expansion, but we all know that this does not work. The province even used increased pollution as a justification for SFPR since this would generate jobs in the health sector.
However the gas tax has been increased at least once since the 1993 study and the Carbon Tax was introduced. As were tolled bridges in the form of Golden Ears and Port Mann. Also, the SFPR returns to my thesis that trucks are heavily subsidized, as that was the intended clientele.
Also, the one big thing missing from these studies is the monetized value of the benefit of car use. Make no mistake, there is a measurable benefit. Otherwise citizens would not pay so much to own one. Ignoring that benefit is a form of bias.
Not sure how the carbon tax mitigates subsidy. This is revenue neutral and is a way of discouraging fossil fuel use. It is only a cost for those who insist on burning more fossil fuel than average.
Every citizen burns “fossil” fuels as every good purchased, even by the most avid walker or bicyclists, gets to the store or to your door by (fuel burning) truck, and to the trucking depot by (fuel burning) ship, railway or an even bigger truck. As such road pricing is another tax that will creep into prices of goods.
While I agree that we ought to increase pricing of road use to reduce congestion, we also need to build more roads and more public transit in a growing city. Like traveling by plane or rail, first class and second class roadways ought to be discussed, too.
Also, I wonder if oil and gas is better coined natural gas or natural oil. Is it really fossils that created all this oil ? Of course tar sands and fossil fuel sounds more evil.
Energy is life. Energy is required to sustain and grow life on this planet, especially with 8B+ people trying to improve their lives. Only those that have much, too much perhaps, usually bemoan cheap energy choices !
I am all for the transit parts of the plan but if anything sinks the Mayors Plan it will be the double talk about mobility pricing. What is proposed is a reduction of the gas tax in favour of road tolls expected to generate $250 million dollars a year. The pitch for support sounds like this:
“The Mayors also recognize that we cannot solve congestion by investment alone: we need new tools to manage the system more effectively. Of these, the most effective tool is the same one we use to allocate scarce resources everywhere else in the economy: pricing. A more consistent approach to pricing transit and roads is the single most cost-effective way to reduce congestion and overcrowding.” (Mayors Plan)
But what is road congestion? Doesn’t it just mean that many folks are in the same place at the same time? Are not the causes numerous? Congestion is everywhere in modern life caused by the ironies of road construction itself or caused by the far ranging consequences of flat tires, broken signals, car crashes, illegal parking, blow out Christmas sales, boys playing marbles, and once a year the Santa Claus parade. I note also the pedestrian, the unmentioned congestion on the sidewalks, the cross walks, in the malls and in the parking lots.
The most effective management tool for road congestion is pricing? I always thought it was take another route, use a different travel mode, change your address, change your work, or stay home and travel later.
“the most effective tool (for the management of congestion) is the same one we use to allocate scarce resources everywhere else in the economy: pricing.” Really? Roads are scarce resources? Since when did roads become resources? Since when did roads become scarce? Isn’t the car the resource and the road the infrastructure? Didn’t we pay for the road when we built it? Isn’t the car the element that is subject to pricing? Isn’t this the reason why we drive jalopies instead of brand new Teslas?
“a more consistent approach to pricing……. roads”……. Hello, we do not price roads now so how can we be more consistent?
Buried deep in the footnotes of the Mayors Report we find the real truth;
“Mobility pricing on the road network would help generate funding to implement the remainder of this Vision and shift taxation away from the fuel sales tax — which is a declining revenue source due to increased vehicle efficiency and leakage to areas outside of the region.” Yeah for fuel efficiency. So in other words a tax on fuel which is small since it is paid by everyone will be reduced by 6 cents per litre and a toll which will be paid by a few will be fair and equitable and make up the difference?
So what does it all amount to anyway? Doesn’t road pricing sound like a pitch by a transponder salesman attached to an otherwise excellent plan. I would be willing to pay even more, perhaps one percent, but without the tolls which will weigh heavily and unfairly on the poorest amongst us.
Don’t transponder me bro! no! no!
Andrew Coyne explains the concept of road pricing. Remember, your not paying for the road, you’re paying for the OPEN road with congestion pricing.
Andrew Coyne explains that using road pricing to fund transit is a big mistake. He repeats it over and over. Transit should not be subsidized. Private operators should operate transit in competitive ways to attract riders. Revenue from road pricing should be used to lower taxes too, he says. Is this the model for BC Transit? Andrew Coyne also says that road pricing will increase density of the City of Vancouver, since more people will live in the city and there will be less sprawl. This will boost the value of land and other real estate in Vancouver.
Methinks many will not support these ideas, although there is clearly some well considered merit in his thinking.
Somewhat tangential to the question at hand…how would a regional (or sub-Provincial) sales tax be implemented? I assume the Province would collect this on TransLink’s / Metro Vancouver transit finance agency’s behalf?
Would this require re-programming cash registers/debit/credit sales terminals to collect a “third level” of sales tax? If so, that pushes a substantial burden onto local businesses.
If it’s dealt with by the Province directly, does that mean they have to track all business taxable sales based on location in the Province? Is their system setup to accomplish that? Would retailers in AB, ON, etc. be required to know which part of BC you are in when purchasing online products from Metro Vancouver? Does this push the burden of collecting the proper tax onto businesses outside the Province as well?
I presume there would be some compliance period where revenues would be lower than initially expected?
Just trying to gauge the administrative hurdles of putting this in place.
All good questions.
The Province has issued its “tweaked” version:
below is a repost of a Frances’Bula’s blog comment, since it addresses point already raised in this thread:
Well it appears that skeptic people could be right: The Province reworded the referendum. Out is the PST. In is new whole tax which could be as different to the PST as the PST is to the GST:
“0.5% Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax would be applied as a sales tax to a majority of goods and services that are also subject to the PST
It is not hard to fathom that the car dealer will escape to the “Congestion Improvement Tax”, the gas station probably too…
Anyway, it looks to open a whole new can of worm generating more red tape (and damaging on the main argument in favor of a sale tax: broad tax base, no SIG…)…That is not good!
The name of the tax: Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax
Transit investments “improve” congestion?
That is a meme repeated ad nausea: I am not sure people sitting in their cars on Oak bridge share this view.
Let’s dispel the myth: Transit investments never improved “congestion”, and will not start to do magically now. they improve mobility choice, and people movement (allowing the economy to continue to growth): that is already a lot, but car and truck will still sit in traffic as they do right now.
The tax is certainly misnamed: the only known way to reduce congestion is road pricing.
LRT vs Skytrain?
With the referendum, we could have thought the very nasty debate on technology choice as behind us: Not at all! The Province clearly re opened it:
I had previously noticed many cautious words from the Province such as “ the province will contribute on transit project on a case by case basis, provided a strong business case exists”.
In case you don’t known, when come transit in Surrey, a recent joint study MOTI/Translink reads:
The BRT and RRT [skytrain]-based alternatives were most cost-effective overall in achieving the project objectives due to greater relative benefits (RRT) or lower costs (BRT). LRT 1 and LRT 4 [chosen by the mayors] performed the worst in this account, due to higher costs and minimal benefits, respectively”
Today the Province changed not only the tax but the wording of the suggested
investment:
-Out is the LRT surrey. In is an unspecified “Rapid Transit” link,
For good measure, the same apply to Vancouver (but here there is a strong business case for a subway)
…Number of B lines becomes unspecified too..(A way to say Adios on the ill conceived Scott Station B line and some other too?)
Suddenly, lot of clarity, on what we gonna pay and what we gonna get for the money, has disappeared…that doesn’t bold good either.
Curiously enough, the referendum is replaced by a “plebiscite”: the words could be interchangeable, but they could not be. An apparently accepted definition (pretty much as worded by Mc Kenzie in 1942) is:
“The plebiscite is an expression of opinion by the people on a general course of action proposed by the government. The vote is not legally binding
on the government, although there may be a political and a moral obligation to
respect the result.”
Doesn’t matter the viewpoint, you see only vagueness on every aspect of the now “plebiscite”…that is not necessarily the good recipe to get the Yes vote “out” 😐