In the event the referendum fails, people will say: ‘We didn’t vote against transit, we voted against Translink. We still need more transportation investment.’ And the Province will say: ‘But you voted against more taxes. Sorry, there’s no money available for Metro – certainly not hundreds of millions – given our tight fiscal situation.’
In which case, remember this item. From Vaughan Palmer, the Sun’s legislative columnist:
… it would appear that the only major tax change in the offing this year (barring passage of the regional sales tax to support TransLink) is one that was legislated into place two years ago. Before the last election, the Liberals brought in a higher tax bracket for people with taxable incomes greater than $150,000. But the enabling legislation also provided for the automatic phase out of the higher tax bracket after two years, effective Dec. 31.
De Jong confirmed Thursday there are no plans to bring in legislation to extend the rate. Hence it will be gone at the end of the year, delivering a tax reduction worth about $200 million to the highest income-earners.
– Feb 6, 2015 – “Provincial finances are on an even keel”
Reblogged this on Surrey Slice and commented:
Don’t vote No just to punish Translink. That’s dumb. Just like those who voted to scrap the HST. Think it through.
Surrey, a yes vote helps everyone here. It matters.
Yes, Translink needs a major overhaul. But voting no isn’t going to help anyone.
Not quite:
The money could come from higher property taxes (some or all this increase rebated to BC residents that pay income taxes, thus targeting foreigners and wealthy immigrants that pay no income taxes here yet consume education or healthcare services), land transfer taxes (say 1% per $1M to 15% over $15M), far higher parking fees, higher user fees or reduced operating expenses in the bloated bureaucratic highly unionized and overpaid civil servants apparatus across MetroVan.
Outsourcing alone will yield $100-200M a year in savings, plus $100/car/month parked on any Vancouver street in front of your residence on a road you do not own would yield $240M+ (assuming 200,000 cars @ $1200) .. or $500M+ if used in every city in MetroVan.
THAT would actually reduce congestion as car use is now far too cheap.
Plan B or C or D does exist.
This is a little unfair as you are responding what Mr Price seem to be suggesting as a follow-up to a No vote. But I wouldn’t call his “just remember” a plan.
There suddenly seem to be as many alternatives as there are residents of the region. If ideas were money we would be rich. To borrow from Edison, plans are 1% inspiration, 99% perspiration. There is no plan B.
Oh yes, a Plan B or C or D exist. The MetroVan just decided to take the easy route. No expense reduction nor parking fee increases nor property tax increases for non-income tax payers.
Just more taxes.
Spending is excessive in MetroVan, primarily on overpaid unions staff which is the bulk of the budget. Much of the foreign money parked in real estate is also poorly monetized for the benefits of its existing residents.
Car use will continue with this Plan A as there is no disincentive to use it. It is still far too cheap and convenient. You want less of sth, say car use, make it more expensive. It is just economics.
Yes, we need more transit but Plan A is a poor plan.
You are correct Thomas. Plan B, C, D…etc. unquestionable exist. Why anyone would settle for the first and only plan offered, especially when that plan is overtly inherently flawed by its vagueness, lack of accountability and professed inability to fund all the transportation improvement required, is shocking. Vote “NO” and more viable options will have to be provided. Voting “YES” for unspecified applications out of desperation and laziness will mean continued misuse of taxpayer funds.
Make that “unquestionably,” sorry, typo.
What makes you so sure that more viable options will be provided? (Not that they “must” or that “they will have no choice”, but actual, real evidence that this will actually happen.)
And what happens if you are wrong?
Agustin,
What is certain is that a YES vote, by our own municipalities’ admission, is (1) vague, with no assurances of why, when, how, how much, or to whom the extra influx of tax dollars would be spent; (2) insufficient in the amount of tax dollars accumulated from this extra tax to pay for the needed new transportation infrastructure and services; (3) utterly lacking in any accountability after the fact if we disagree with how the money is spent since we have not been provided with that information prior to being asked to pay the tax; and (4) a slippery slope of taxpayer approval for municipalities to continue to demand more and more tax dollars from citizens rather than curtailing corporate wasteful mismanagement and overspending.
What is certain about a NO vote is that (1) all of the above would not take place unless it occurs in direct opposition to citizens’ expressed wishes — a dangerous precedent to set and, therefore, unlikely; (2) municipalities will not be given blanket approval (a blank cheque) to squander more of our taxpayer dollars whatever way they choose; (3) the message will be clear from taxpayers that throwing more taxpayer dollars at transportation and Translink is not the preferred or only solution, and taxpayers want more options provided to them; and (4) municipalities will be pressured to consider other options and other methods of delivery of other options to citizens, which will increase the likelihood of more equitable, effective and reasonable options for approval.
Susan, you apparently missed the part about transparency and annual audits. When was the last time the funding for $7.5 billion road space excesses of the Port Mann and LA-style freeways audited? Or put to a project referendum or financinf plebiscite?
Exactly.
MB,
Exactly. More educated citizens are increasingly demanding more transparency and financial accountability, refusing to hand over their tax dollars in foolhardy blindness. The result is that we are beginning to see auditing and the revelation of excessive spending by our municipalities. This is precisely why we should continue to insist on being provided with the specific projects, costs, timelines, assurances and accountability consequences prior to offering an approval of tax dollar spending. Not insisting on this transparency and auditing would be regressing into past ignorance and complacency.
Susan, you’re all over the map and are making sweeping, unfounded statements about everything but the proposed tax. Let me remind you, this is a plebiscite about a ½ of one percent tax (multiply price by a whopping 0.005) for regional transit, not about TransLink’s board remuneration, unrelated city expenditures, or the sex life of Saudi princes.
So, I will happily pay my 7 ½ cents on a $15 bottle of wine, or 60 cents on a new pair of shoes if it means better-than-absolutely-terrible HandiDART service for one of my elders, lessens the bus pass-ups I regularly experience on a major arterial, and finally brings the Broadway-UBC corridor and the King George Highway into the 21st Century.
Many of us believe that public transit is actually good for cities. So voting No because unrelated individual city budgets with union-rate employees are seen as an outrage to right wing anti-tax shouters & screamers – even though said cities are legally required to never incur deficits – seems like a non sequitur.
Oh, did I mention the mosquito bite of a tax will be transparently managed and audited every year?
MB,
Of course, you can vote whatever way you like; that is not a topic of argument here, nor is the “sex life of princes” — your own demonstration of arguing “all over the map.” What makes you think that a Yes vote “means better-than-absolutely-terrible HandiDART service for one of my elders, lessens the bus pass-ups I regularly experience on a major arterial, and finally brings the Broadway-UBC corridor and the King George Highway into the 21st Century.” On what are you basing your sense of certainty that all these things will be guaranteed if you vote YES? Municipalities have provided no such assurances that these matters will ever be resolved, with or without the proposed increase in tax.
LA style freeways ? I must have missed that. Where ? Much of MetroVan’s road infrastructure is too narrow for the existing traffic or increased goods shipped via trucks. Hwy 1 is not even 6 lanes in most places. Lionsgate bridge has 3 lanes. There is not one 4 lane traffic light free road to UBC .. etc etc etc …
Yes we need more transit and bike lanes but we also need more truck & road infrastructure !
I disagree with your statement that Vancouver needs more roads. Vancouver has more roadway/capita than many cities. https://voony.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/roadpercapita.png Despite this the traffic in Vancouver is no better. Building more roadway will not reduce congestion, but congestion pricing or higher parking rates will.
Thomas wrote: “The money could come from higher property taxes”
Sure. The mayors will raise property taxes in the wake of a vote against a tax increase.
If the referendum fails, the political ability to pay for increased transit in any form is going to evaporate.
Sean,
No, you are incorrect in arguing the either-or fallacy of either vote yes for the increased tax rate or there is no money for increased transit. That is simply nonsense; as Thomas and others have pointed out, there is not just one option to solve our transportation problems. Reallocation of existing tax revenue, corporate sponsorship, provincial and federal support, educating citizens to change social attitudes and norms regarding transit, cutting transportation management costs, enforcing transportation services regulations and collecting fines from owners of vacant homes, etc., etc., as well as considering and encouraging more creative and less expenisve means of transportation, are all viable methods to improve our systems without further general taxation.
MetroVan majors can increase land transfer taxes, property taxes and/or parking fees. But indeed their municipalities are a creation of the province so they cannot increase income taxes or rebate increased property taxes to income tax paying BC residents.
The question should not have been Plan A or else, but here are three plans, which one do you prefer ( or dislike the least ) ?
No one of the 20+ mayors has even mentioned the words outsourcing, cost reduction or adequate taxation of immigrantion as an open discussion about appropriate cost reduction, work outsourcing, costs of immigration or the impact foreign money has to be discussed in the real estate and transportation ( but also education or health care) context. Is it ?
Many immigrants, not most, but many create excessive healthcare, education and transportation burdens onto MetroVan infrastructure. Where is that debate ? Why do folks already here pay for ESL, healthcare of elderly immigrants or road congestion rather than ( wealthy or female plus two kids – yet non-working) immigrants ?
The tax burden has to shift more from income taxes to property taxes as that is where most of the immigrant or foreign money goes. Land transfer tax at 2% ? Peanuts. Make it 1% per $1M to 15%, like UK or Hingkong. Why are cars that clog roads not taxed more, both its driving and non-driving state ? If we wish less of sth we have to increase its price. Economics 101.
Do we honestly believe people will use cars less if there is a bus now that is just as slow, or usually slower but far less convenient than a car ?
Well Thomas outsourcing has not worked so well at HandyDART where costs soared and service was cut. Or the Canada Line where ridership exceeds expectations but spare trains stay in the yard.
Most contracting out has been used as way to cut wages and benefits to the lowest paid, and also to reduce service standards. That has not happened a lot in Canadian transit – yet – but is very apparent in health care. The other major beneficiaries have been private sector investors and senior management.
I am not specifically referring to transit, but for example to garbage services, landscaping services, cleaning services, road maintenance services .. and, for example, the vote buying by Gregor Robertson and others by striking deals with public sector unions to vote for him in exchange to no outsourcing. Every position in the bloated municipal services needs to be looked at for potential for outsourcing. 10’s of millions of savings, likely 100’s of millions annually in a $5.5B budget across MetroVan’s 20+ municipalities. The referendum demand by the provincial government needs to be seen in this light of excessive spending (and thus taxation) by municipalities !
Before municipalities ask for more taxes they ought to clean up their own spending ship first, then look at vastly increasing cars’ costs (say parking fees or registration fees) to reduce its use, then at non-income tax paying immigrants’ shares of taxation that cause much of the congestion here and then, and only then, at increased sales (or other) taxes !
Yes, Thomas, you are right. It is unacceptable that municipalities continue to simply demand more in tax from citizens to pay for corporate mismanagement and misallocation of funds. When, where, how will that rash and inadequate default reaction end? Taxpayers do not have infinite funds to continue to pad executives’ pockets and bale out Translink and failed transportation infrastructure. Municipalities need to get their own premises in order before they come knocking, yet again, on our doors.
It is unacceptable that municipalities continue to simply demand more in tax from citizens to pay for corporate mismanagement and misallocation of funds.
Allegations like that require evidence.
Obviously either you and Thomas are clueless of what municipal work actually entails. I certainly hope the helpful, polite gentlemen who cleared the roots from the city sanitary sewer therein unblocking my drains three years back at 10:30 on a Friday night were paid at union scale. The private company tried for an hour and couldn’t manage it.
MB, it is a fact that not all City departments or workers are not worth their salt, but perhaps you would care to explain why it is that the City has done nothing about the chafer beatle that was allowed into our City by your precious officials and is wreaking havoc on the lawns of our parks city-wide as well as the lawns on private property? We fancy ourselves a “green” city; well, the “green” is rapidly turning a churned up, heavily infested brown. What has the City done about It? — Nothing!
Re: your sewage:
Could it be rephrased as below?
the private company quickly found out the drain was likely blocked by a city tree’s roots (a common issue in Vancouver)…
Instead to charge you an arm and a leg, they suggested you to call the city to come to clear it for free (since it is their trees)
Ha ha! They charged over $500 to unsuccessfully remove the blockage, but they did locate it under the road and not in my own line. The city sewers fellows had it unblocked in 10 minutes (had the right equipment) and the cost was covered under my taxes.
But the City reimbursed all but the cost of a video they took inside the line. That video revealed a deteriorated line on my side, so we had it replaced to Code.
Gosh, I’ve worked in some fairly large private corporations and was astounded by the level of corruption I witnessed. At least when it is public side we can vote the bums out, but once we sell a contract to a 3P we’re hooped. Susan, the private sector offers many benefits, but it is not the holy grail you and Thomas make it out to be.
Gitano,
At no time did I state or indicate that the “private sector…[was] the holy grail”; please do not put words in my mouth (or my keypad).
While I agree with the sentiment, I think this is a counterproductive argument to make right now. Many opponents see a No vote as a protest against both Translink and the provincial government.
“The Province gets more than it needs in tax revenues already,” reads a typical top-scoring reader comment on CBC. The tax will likely fund “crown corporation executive bonuses and MLA’s gold-plated pensions” says another.
Of course comments are not statistically representative, but they illustrate how some people are framing the issue. Translink and the Province are seen as peas in a pod: of the 34 top-voted comments in that discussion (all against the plan), half as many (8) blame the province as blame Translink (15).
The CTF is recycling a well-used strategy. The real reason for drowning Translink in the bathtub is not opposition to public services per se, but a sentiment that working people are being bled to pay elites. The broadway subway will be built for “lifting traffic burden for the wealthy,” says one comment. “I guess Christy and her 1%er bosses need a raise?”, says another.
As I think Mr Beyer has illustrated, rather than justifying the transit tax this is is seen to prove that alternatives exist. Critics agree: “If taxes must be raised, then perhaps it’s time for the corporate taxes to be raised back up to a level that would support these initiatives.”
I think it tricky to lay the blame with the province without also undermining the plan.
“Hepner (Mayor of Surrey) said she will push strongly for a “Yes” vote in the upcoming provincially-mandated referendum on transit funding in the region, but is prepared to go it alone without TransLink should the vote fail.
“I know what my Plan A is, and I know what my Plan B is,” she said. “[The referendum] is going to be an important yes in Surrey but … I’m going to have that Plan B ready to go off the shelf if it doesn’t translate into a yes.”
Bravo. That is why Surrey is growing jobs whereas Vancouver is not. Many options to fund exist besides “more sales taxes” and no change to status quo of money management.
That’s interesting Thomas. What’s your source for Surrey growing more jobs than Vancouver? Statistics Canada think Surrey added 19,800 jobs between 2006 and 2011, while the City of Vancouver added 21,100.
More job growth per capita by a wide margin, for example here: http://www.surrey.ca/business-economic-development/3514.aspx or here
http://www.surreyleader.com/news/138932329.html or here
http://www.bcbusiness.ca/retail/surrey-the-startup-city
Primary reason: 4-5 times the commercial tax per sq ft than the same residential condo. Vancouver is destined to be a resort city, a pretty bedroom community by the water, theater, bike paths, beaches, restaurant, life style .. money is made elsewhere or by selling residential real estate here … higher and higher .. jobs for younger folks: who needs them ? A very anti-business council living in la la land supported by a union afraid of shedding grossly overpaid jobs. High downtown real estate prices and rental at $50/ft and up .. only a few firms survive in this brutal retail and commercial climate. A wealthy suburb for job producing (but not as pretty) towns elsewhere. Fewer and fewer headquarters due to prices and high rents. A nice place to live though if you can afford it.
Sorry, I thought you were basing your opinions on facts; my mistake. Interestingly, the link you posted shows the 2001-2006 job growth: Surrey had 21,000 more jobs, Vancouver had nearly 29,000.
And are those Surrey jobs well paid jobs or low income jobs?
Author
Great to see a lively discussion going. But let me direct it back to the original post, and ask two other questions:
(a) Why is a tax cut for high-income earners (close to the amount being asked for in the referendum) a higher priority than a better transportation system in this region for all its citizens? (Is this the way in which the mechanism for rising inequality actually works?)
(b) If, as argued by those who oppose a Yes vote, there are “viable methods to improve our systems without further general taxation,” why is that argument not being applied, in particular, to the Massey Bridge and other highway and bridge projects in the region and province? Should the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure be told to find funds in the same way as TransLink without new or increased taxes?
(c) For those who claim the money raised as a result of the referendum will go into TransLink’s general revenue without a guarantee or audit (which it won’t), why are property taxes, especially for very general capital plans, paid as one unspecified sum to fund municipal and regional government?
Or is the expectation now that all spending by government in every respect should be subject to a vote, a guarantee of some kind and a specialized audit?
The tax cut for high income earners should not be a higher priority; I oppose such a tax cut and believe that the taxes from these higher income earners would be yet another way, Plan A1, to fund required improvements to our transportation services. I also support increased transparency and accountability for our tax dollars across the board, including property taxes, in order to limit and expose misuse for our information as the voting public. I have every right to know and judge where, how, to whom my money is being spent. Why would any educated person want to forego that right?
Author
I can’t resist: Should we have a vote on whether that tax cut (or in this case the expiry of an increase) proceeds? Especially if it could be directed to a priority we vote on. (Choose one: Broadway subway, Massey Bridge, or a tax cut for me)
That is a moot point, as the matter has already been legislated.
I would also have to know the exact wording of the proposed vote.
And so it becomes clear…cut my taxes let the other people pay…obviously it is democratic to vote on a small tax that benifits most, but clearly the forces of democracy demand that you get a tax cut without the rest of us getting a say.
We should all be granted the right to opine on who should have a tax cut or not. I contend that it is more “democratic,” by definition, to have more say than less on any matter. If society votes in favour of more say, it should be granted regardless of the issue. To date, we have not asked our government for the right to vote on cutting taxes for the rich, nor been granted that right without asking.
I’m curious as where to find real information on how much the plan will cost, and whether the tax will cover it. In every doc I looked at on mayorscouncil.ca, under “How much will it cost”, it says “A new regional revenue source generating at least $250 million
per year is required to pay for [it]”. (BTW, is that website specifically designed to make it hard to find out details, or is just an accident?!)
So basically, the plan says it will cost as much money as we raise. Well, that’s no way to understand whether it’s a viable plan or not. We already know the Patullo and the Broadway line need significant additional funding to actually happen, so what’s going to fall out of the plan if/when that funding doesn’t happen? There’s nothing in there about what the priorities are, what will happen when, who will get cut in the event of funding shortfalls.
This whole thing is asking for a blank cheque to do whatever the mandarins feel like doing, whenever they feel like doing it. I’m quite fond of blank cheques myself, but less so when I’m the one doing the writing.
I don’t think the Yes side is doing themselves any favours by obfuscating the details, and essentially saying “Trust us to do the right thing”. People’s trust in the regional governance and transit especially is pretty low already…
It seems to me that most not all-I understand -of the benefits will be to the City of Vancouver – That Mayor sure wants his Broadway project. He has all the wealthy people who will be getting this tax break Dec31st on his ‘Team’.There are many people on low/fixed incomes in outlying areas who do not even have access to public transit.If they need to pay an unaffordable extra tax – Why not tax ALL of BC?(Just keep the tax on the wealthy a bit longer!!) My other concern is that I was told that once there was a tax – it could be raised at their discretion – without our consultation- is that true? I agree with most of the issues that Susan Smith brought up as well. (typing is difficult 4 me lol) There does not appear to be any checks and balances in the plebiscite..if we vote Yes..it appears to be a blank cheque..open ended. The wording allows people to think there is only this one chance – Baloney..If we vote no..they still need the infrastructure..They will need a plan B. I am still rather insulted that Some yes people had the gall to say that anyone who voted NO would likely to be found to have high school education or less.. !! Not Sheep lol
If you review the Mayor’s Council plan, I think you will find lots of items that are not within the City of Vancouver.
Many of those items are designed to bring improved bus service to outlying areas.
If we consider the sales tax unaffordable, then we should think about what the alternative is. We have a transit plan now, agreed by the Mayor’s Council. If we don’t pay for it with a sales tax (the current proposal) how would you propose to pay for it? With property taxes? With a vehicle levy? You say that we still need the infrastructure, and I agree. But it isn’t like there is a magic source of funding. And if we don’t build it, what is the cost then? It won’t be zero, there is an impact on people who need to commute or get around within the region.
The vote isn’t to authorize the tax, the province can raise it or lower it as they like. It is an opinion poll on what people prefer. And it isn’t binding.
There are checks and balances. There is a list of what is included, and a timeline. There are annual audits and reviews. And it isn’t Translink collecting the money, it is the province, who will dole out the money for these projects.
Jeff,
The money earned from the proposed tax is not enough to pay for the required infrastructure and improvements to our transportations systems; a lot more funding would still have to be raised by other means. We also have no assurances from our goverments that any of the proposed transportation projects will ever see the light of day, and we have no accounting of their costs or promises that they will not run over budget. History shows that such projects almost always run substantially over budget. Many of us have already suggested on this and the other referendum blogs a wide variety of ways to raise funding without increasing the sales tax to over-burdened taxpayers. Governments turn first and fast to a blanket extra tax simply because it is a fast and easy way to grab more money, but this lazy and disrespectful treatment of citizens is a poor excuse for leadership, administration and managment of taxpayer dollars.
It is enough for the 1/3 local contribution scheme that other major transit projects were funded under.
You do have accounting, and audits.
Citizens will pay whichever mechanism is chosen. The sales tax just spreads it the broadest. If we raised property taxes on the west side of Vancouver to pay for the Broadway line, how would all the users from other than the west side help pay for it? They wouldn’t.
You seem to think we are overtaxed. On what basis?
Jeff,
You say we have accounting and auditing for the proposed extra tax to pay for transportation improvements. Please provide those financial statements showing and assuring taxpayers where their extra tax would be going specifically, including the specified assurances/guarantees that no further funding would be needed or further taxed in order to pay for the proposed improvements.
Google is your friend.
Corporate reports, audits, financial statements, all here:
http://www.translink.ca/en/About-Us/Corporate-Overview/Corporate-Reports.aspx
Recall also the commitment to future audits specific to this investment program.
Mayor’s plan (summary) here:
http://mayorscouncil.ca/transportation-investments/
Many more details of that plan here:
http://mayorscouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Mayors-Council_Appendices_June-12-2014.pdf
As to your request for a guarantee that no further funding would be needed, well, that is a strawman. The reason they are called budgets and forecasts is because they are forward looking. Prove that further funding will be needed, since it is your claim. Or, if you prefer, that a successful no vote will result in less net cost to the region, considering the societal costs of not realizing the proposed investments.
Jeff,
I am not referring to past audits and past spending. I am referring to a full accounting of the proposed future transportation improvements for which our municipality wants to charge an extra sales tax. Without a full accounting prior to agreeing to give yet more money to pay for improvements that remarkably have not been done to date under our past and current tax rates, I am not going to agree to throw more money into the bottomless pot.
Mayor Robertson has repeatedly stated that the Broadway subway alone will require additional provincial funding beyond the sales tax increase, but he has not secured that funding to date, and we have no guarantee that he will secure it. Further, I never stated that a NO vote “will result in less net cost to the region.” How can anyone make that comparative claim when we do not know the net cost to the region from the Yes vote either. We have all experienced the failures in the highly generalized and proven innaccurate “budgets and forecasts” for our transportation systems in the past, not to mention the failures in the projects to improve transit and infrastructure to date. Literally and figuratively, we cannot continue to go down the same road, as it has led us fiscally astray.
I’m sorry, I couldn’t have guessed that you were asking today for audits that won’t be conducted until future years, since audits are by nature backwards looking. It just doesn’t make sense. What you were provided is an example of the audits that are regularly done, and you have assurances that future audits will specifically be targeted at this fund. Better than you get on most of your other tax expenditures, I’d say.
Of course additional funding is required. Recall the municipal-provincial-federal split (1/3 each) that is proposed and which has been used before. Are you suggesting that the BC government will implement and collect this tax, refuse to match it, keep the funds, and then say it was the mayor’s fault? That is nonsense. If they decide not to match it, or the feds decide the same, then why would they implement this tax? It isn’t like it is a binding referendum. It is an expression of confidence in the Mayor’s Council plans, and a clear signal that they are expected to step up.
If you don’t think that a No vote will result in less cost to the region, then your ongoing campaign for such a vote becomes very curious.
Jeff,
At no point did I ask for or expect a future “audit” now. What we should all insist on is a detailed quotation of the anticipated expenses complete with a contingency fee cap and guarantees that the money raised will be enough to get the job done and will be used for only those expenses.
Thanks Jeff. Who would have thought the financial info would be in a doc called “Appendices” under “Additional Documents”, and not in the docs under “Fact Sheets” or “Plan Overview”…
I see that a key part of the financial plan for the period to 2030 is eventually raising $500m/year from “mobility pricing”. And a preferred way to achieve that is via wireless telematics in vehicles… I’d love to see a referendum on installing some wireless gadget in everyone’s car that tracks everywhere they go in real time… Now that would be fun for the political blogs.
Agreed, that would be an energetic debate. I think mobility pricing will be implemented in many other places by then though, and will be seen somewhat differently. It could start off like the carbon tax did in BC; revenue neutral. Those who used more paid more, but on average, it was a wash. Then the mobility charge gets ramped up to help us achieve our mode share targets. But we need to invest now to get the infrastructure in place so people will have an alternative. And it is beyond the scope of the current plebiscite.
I’m fine with investing more in transit infrastructure. I think the sales tax additional is a pretty ineffective way of doing it, because of the administration and enforcement costs, and the distortions it will introduce in the local economy. A property tax increase is much more efficient. And that would really hold the Mayors’ feet to the fire, because they couldn’t hide behind it being a provincial tax. I laugh at anyone who thinks 0.5% is the end of this. Maybe we should hold a sweepstakes as to when it gets increased to 1%. Within 5 years is my first guess.
The biggest problem I have with this plan is how poorly it serves people who aren’t on a Skytrain line, or who don’t live/work downtown. Try going E-W across Vancouver. Or commuting Van-Richmond or Van-Burnaby or N-S east of Vancouver. Sucks. And the bone that gets thrown is B-Line over Knight str bridge. Ha, express my ass. How about actually doing something about the bridge itself? Actually, of the 11 new B-Lines, 6 won’t happen for at least 5 years.
Really, this is a plan for the people who already live in the richest part of the region, and already have the best transit. But I’m looking forward to govt tracking my movements in real-time. Might as well complement CSIS/NSA tracking all my online movements in real-time 🙂