Today’s Sun editorial, with my commentary.
Voters had right to reject transit tax
.
If we may take issue with some of our esteemed columnists, the overwhelming majority of Metro Vancouverites who voted against a half-percentage point sales tax increase to fund expansion of the transportation system are not self-centred morons unable to see beyond the ends of their driveways. They did not vote in favour of their cars, more congestion or a future of fossil fuels, nor did they oppose transit improvements.
The majority did indeed oppose transit improvements – and roads, ferry, train, cycling and pedestrian improvements, even the Pattullo Bridge. They did so by opposing funding for them. What is the practical difference? No money, no improvements.
And if they voted No, expecting somehow that all those benefits would be provided without paying more in taxes, then they were certainly unable to see beyond the obvious. If “moronic” is insulting, perhaps then “oblivious”?
Commentators who didn’t like the outcome of the plebiscite berated, insulted and slandered the nearly two-thirds of voters who exercised their right to say No in a properly conducted — albeit unnecessary — democratic process.
Insult and slander abounded, but nowhere more than in the characterization of TransLink and its staff – a disproportionate rage out of all proportion to the charges. When the electorate berate the leaders they elect and slander those in their communities trying to make the best of a very bad bargain, they effectively pass a vote of non-confidence in themselves. That rage will now turn inward, leading to poisonous regional divisions – albeit ones that are, as you say, unnecessary.
Citizens of Metro Vancouver are, for the most part, thoughtful people who doubted TransLink’s ability to deliver needed projects on time and on budget and rejected a regressive sales tax increase that would purportedly be devoted to improving transportation.
Really, “… purportedly”? Is that how it’s done – commitments made in public by elected leaders, dismissed with a contemptuous jibe. Can anyone play that game? “This newspaper purportedly covers all points of view – but for the most part thoughtful people doubt it.”
Their concerns about how the money was to be spent seemed validated when the mayors warned that rejection of their transportation plan made service cuts inevitable.
Service cuts are inevitable. Should they not have been acknowledged? Imagine the sense of deception if there had not been a warning when the cuts begin.
TransLink acknowledged that a portion of the new revenue was needed to pay for cost increases on existing infrastructure with union contracts to negotiate next year, rising MSP premiums and sinking gas tax revenue. Voters clearly had good reason to assume a tax increase with no sunset clause was a guarantee of hikes down the road to fund transportation expansion this proposed tax increase — the one they resoundingly rejected — was supposed to fund.
And now what? Costs will rise, even if negotiations limit labour costs, and revenues will sink. That is why service cuts are inevitable.
The No campaign championed by the Canadian Taxpayers Federation didn’t create the public’s mistrust of TransLink. That was well-established by the agency’s bumbling over breakdowns, executive compensation packages and the Compass fiasco, and the province’s forced restructuring that took TransLink out of local control.
Here’s where the Sun could have provided some balance, which, purportedly, is its role. A comparison with other agencies with respect to performance, executive compensation, technology and governance would have been invaluable. And easy to do.
Example: what are the salaries of the executive officers of the airport and port? The same and twice that of TransLink’s. How does the Compass rollout compare to, say, Calgary, which just abandoned a similar effort? What about Hydro’s performance or that of other government ministries? How about the losses and miscalculations at the provincial Transportation Investment Corporation?
Someone’s failures do not justify other’s, but at least they provide perspective, which was largely absent in this referendum.
We sympathize with the mayors who never wanted the plebiscite, but had it foisted on them by the province, which didn’t want to suffer backlash from a tax hike. They knew from early polls they faced an uphill battle and spent upwards of $7 million to try to stall the No side’s momentum, to no avail.
Every dollar a waste, on both sides, right down to the last non-existent cent, for a process that should never have happened. Outrage, not sympathy, would have been a more appropriate emotion. Let the Premier get away with this political finesse, and it will be irresistible to use it again.
We still do not know whether referenda remain a requirement in the future – only for transit, only for Metro – thereby making planning a near-impossibility. The future of the region – its economy, environment and quality of life is at stake if more plebiscites remain a requirement.
What is your position? That at least would have given this editorial some teeth.
However, all is not lost. We are already seeing positive reaction to the public’s democratic decision. A governance model for TransLink has been proposed to bring the agency under Metro Vancouver auspices.
That suggests the No vote may bring more fundamental change in how transportation infrastructure is developed and funded than had the Yes side won.
No matter the form of governance (and the dissatisfaction with the Metro model was what led to the formation of TransLink, when its board was made up of local elected officials), it’s not going to be effective if there is no sustainable source of funding to accommodate growth, consistent with the regional plan.
That was the purpose of the referendum, and now we are back where we started – yet further behind, unable to use the political process as a way of achieving accommodation and consensus. There isn’t a governance model that will overcome the yell: Don’t you understand No!
Metro Vancouver citizens recognize that one way or another they will end up paying for transportation improvements, but they have let it be known that a sales tax hike to give more money to TransLink in its current form is unacceptable.
Don’t you understand No? You simply cannot imply that there is some form of acceptable tax alternative. Too many argued in favour of no more taxes, especially for Translink, which after several rounds of service cuts, will be more damaged than ever and less able to command the confidence needed. Perpetual plebiscites will give critics, especially those whose agenda is to reduce the scope of government, endless opportunities to send that message.
And that includes increases in property taxes. It’s unimaginable that affluent municipalities like West Vancouver will raise property taxes on the most expensive properties in Canada so that Maple Ridge can have more buses. If there had to be a regional property tax, then would there also have to be a referendum?
In the face of all that, the truest word in your editorial comes right at the end.
Unacceptable.
It’s all just a sad reflection on provincial leaders (term used extremely loosely). Infrastructure, be it roads, buses, bike lanes or trains are required for people and goods to move around Metro Vancouver. For our leaders to play the ‘it’s not mine it’s yours’ bs while the region degrades it deplorable.
The problem, like most political decisions is that the impact isn’t felt right away. Someone I know joked that the day after the referendum failed the roads weren’t full of potholes and the buses were still running so what’s the big deal. It’s the slow, degrading of services that basically goes unnoticed until all the sudden you pay attention and think, wow, this now really sucks. And then of course, as we are now, you’re in a hole much deeper than you were when the issue was first brought up by the ‘elites’.
Bottom line is, we all pay. Whether it’s direct through taxes or tolls, or through our time wasted if nothing is done, or through the price of goods going up, or however it is. We’re not likely to have a coordinated plan, with that price tag any time soon. So while the immediate cost isn’t as great, you can bet your life we’ll all pay more in the end.
But, that’s later, so meh.
The really sad part is the road expansion was not on the ballot. We will still get the Massey tunnel expansion.
Thank you, Gordon, for a direct, concise and insightful rebuttal to a highly flawed and ideologically tainted editorial.
Seconded.
Don’t worry. Gregor and his Chicago planners are already planning new separated bike lanes along; Kingsway, 1st, 12th, Oak, Knight/Clark, the Stanley Park Causeway and Granville. He’s rumoured to have said that, “they want congestion? Then we’re gonna deliver it!”. All entrances to the city from those ignorant hick suburbs are gonna feel the pain.
Hey Eric
You do realize that causeway was a provincial liberal endeavour approved by the NPA park board.
Don’t worry. Christy and her MoTH planners, who were trained when Diefenbaker was PM, are already planing an eight-lane freeway right over your house, Eric. Who needs to expropriate when they can just sail over the troublesome masses.
How to fund the Transit improvements:
http://www.straight.com/news/483946/gabriel-yiu-how-about-super-luxury-vehicle-tax-translink
Three famous Winston Churchill quotes come to mind:
For a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket trying to lift himself up by the handle.
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon.
….
There are numerous ways to finance transit. There are many plan B’s:
One is to borrow funds for capital investments.
Another one is to govern within one’s means, i.e. efficient spending on salaries, outsourcing where warranted, and efficiencies.
8000 bus drivers making $70,000/year (incl. benefits) is the same as 7000 bus drivers making $80,000/year (incl. benefits) or 14% more bus drivers for new routes. THAT is efficiency, i.e. more hiring with the same $s. Ditto across the entire overpaying MetroVan municipalities .. and yes, that includes many provincial entities too.
Road tolls and higher parking fees on residential roads too make sense if one truly wants to decongest.
btw: why not ban Susan, Eric and me altogether from this blog, as it appears that these 3 are the only 3 [ out of maybe 100?] arguing with some fiscal realities in mind ? Everyone else argues for more spending as the only means.
@ Thomas:
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.”
I’ll think of that comment next time I see a yellow line painted down the middle of a road.
The same Churchill who starved millions of Indians to death and who the war saved from political obscurity?
The same Churchill who was a public servant for many, many years.
This ones for you Eric baby….
http://www.straight.com/news/483896/martyn-brown-great-translink-railroad-job
The author of this blog and comment of the recent plebiscite lives in Maple Ridge.
http://fraseropolis.com/
Academics and their acolytes insist that studying of metrics is paramount in decision making. In academic circles this may be appropriate. In the general world outside of the academy and the watering holes of the metrics obsessed, decisions are made in another way. Simple studies tell us that people assess others instantly. We see domesticated animals do this all the time. Almost everyone knew all along that the referendum was going to be voted down because we all knew that just about everyone had a bad impression of TransLink.
The embarrassing scrambling by the Yes camp to co-opt newsworthy support from all the unions, health care notables, educational organizations and even the police and a local billionaire, plus as many far flung academics as possible, simply confirmed that instinctively they all too knew that the only way to win was to turn the tide with a massive campaign of support coming from each and any source.
The ballot was much like being presented with a restaurant menu that offered one dish; Tofuburger with all the trimmings, $50. Take it or leave it. Naturally, most left it.
Outside of central Vancouver Gregor Robertson does not have much currency. Making him the lead made the uphill climb steeper.
Absolutely nobody was surprised with the result of the vote. The result merely confirmed everyone’s expectations. The Sun editorial attempts to shed some common sense into those unsound recriminations that are lashing out suggesting that No voters all against any form of transit or any taxes. In this instance the losing side are the ones reacting with instinct, rather than consideration.
Are you seriously saying that only academics use metrics? You clearly don’t run a business …or know anything about them, for that matter.
I’ve had my own business for more than 25 years. Doing fine, thank you. No debts.
Politicians that recite metrics expecting this will help them win votes are not assured success. We all know that if Churchill had spouted metrics instead of steadfastly refusing any compromise Britain might have fallen.
I am pretty sure Winston Churchill’s opponents spewed metrics after WW2 to get free health care. And guess what it worked and Winston lost the election because he didn’t have any sound metrics, he just tried more conservative rhetoric.
@ Eric:
“In the general world outside of the academy and the watering holes of the metrics obsessed, decisions are made in another way. Simple studies tell us that people assess others instantly.”
***
You have been assessed. It didn’t take long. Let me do your 2015 taxes. I promise not to be obsessed by too many metrics.
So basically we should make policy based on our gut instinct or our feelings. Sounds like a fool proof plan!
You should use common sense.
Common sense is not so common.
Common sense, for example, is to use your taxes collected wisely, and not overpay most employees and shower them with above market wages, excessive benefits and life long pensions.
Common sense is that car users like their cars for a reason as they are very versatile, available 24×7 at fairy low cost, day and night, rain or shine, for short or long distance.
Common sense is to tax road use or parking is you wish less of it, i.e. if you wish congestion.
Common sense is to treat a subway that last 100 – 200 years as an investment, just like a tunnel or bridge. Investments are commonly, and correctly, financed by debt. Debt is cheap .. 1.5-2.5% interest rates.
Common sense is to not artificially restrict inner-city urban transportation corridors like Granville, 16th, Oak, Commercial, 70th Ave, Burrard, with free parking.
Common sense is to tax foreigners or affluent immigrants just here to collect a passport far more for scarce property, both on buying, holding and when selling, especially if they also use, for free, education or healthcare services.
Common sense is to hold a referendum on the internet or in a way that results in a day, and not in a month. Even the Greeks could do it in a day, but BC needs a month to count 1M votes ?
More common sense please. As Eric eloquently stated above, the result was as expected. It was common sense.
I stated before that the loss was partly a result of not understanding people outside of a 3 km radius of downtown. There wasn’t enough in the mayors plan to bring motorists onside be cause honestly the people who put the plan together come close to despising them. A new Patullo bridge that they’d be tolled on is hardly a compelling vote getter.
As a cyclist, there is very little in it for me when governments chose to support suburban development with sprawling roads and the support to maintain them. But then again, we don’t get to vote on that now do we. Intelligent transportation development shouldn’t be about catering to one faction or another, it should be about doing the most effective thing with the resources allotted.
People outside of that 3km radius already benefit from an increasingly subsidized transit ride (it is cheaper to service downtown Vancouver than it is to service Langley), and like everyone else – regardless of whether they are a cyclist, pedestrian, or low road user – they pay into the massive pot that builds and services roads but disproportionately benefit from (those long, rough commutes into the city).
Granted, people chose these suburban environments for a variety of reasons, but I’m betting a big deciding factor is the more land for less money thing. And rather than whinging about how unfair it is, they should reassess their math and understand that while there are such things as highly subsidized lunches (getting low road users to pay high road users, and committing more resources to move less people) there is no such thing as a free lunch (throwing an even greater portion of dollars into the failed experiment of urban sprawl).
Which is all to say I’m not accusing you of having a view in opposition to this, just reflecting on how damaging this entire thing became. The false memes of an inefficient transportation agency and people south of the Fraser shouldering the burden for the rest of us are wedged in deep and I haven’t the foggiest beginning of unscrewing that issue.
throwing an even greater portion of dollars into the failed experiment of *suburban* sprawl
Failed for who? Not for the thousands who choose to settle there every year. Having been in the condo market lately I can’t tell you how many two bedrooms I’ve looked at owned by couples with one or two kids finally throwing in the towel on trying to raise a family in such a small space. The suburbs are not a failed experiment for them, they are a salvation.
Unfortunately the same governing elite who were pushing things like the erroneously named “smart growth” were at the same time pricing families out of Vancouver houses by presiding over a mass sell-off of property to the Mainland Chinese.
The suburbs are subsidized by the dense urban center. People can only seek salvation in the suburbs because of the subsidized infrastructure that is possible from a tax pool largely generated by people living in dense urban situations. It’s a sad oxymoron. Transit routes serving the urban core are usually self sustaining and, often, profitable. It’s when the same transit providers are obliged to serve the lower density suburbs that they become cost centres.
@Bob
In terms of people growing fat off the subsidy, I’d 100% agree with you.
In terms of throwing good money after bad, suburban sprawl is absolutely a failed experiment. The only way these associations survive is through the labyrinth tax structure that sees provincial and federal money supporting exclusively local affairs. If roads, for example, were not subject to these externalities (i. mobility pricing), the value proposition of moving further out for cheaper and larger houses would necessarily shrink. A similar case could be seen if the CMHC stopped guaranteeing mortgages for lenders (now that would have a meteoric affect on affordability).
We live in a country that exerts its influence to have people settle in this way. Don’t get me wrong, I really like the fact that the government has the ability to encourage some behaviours and discourage others, I just wish it wasn’t so hell bent on stimulating something so damned expensive and unsustainable.
And it’s likely the historically low interest rates that have been driving the bulk of the Lower Mainland’s insane housing costs, not the evil boogeymen people from China.
@ Bob:
“I stated before that the loss was partly a result of not understanding people outside of a 3 km radius of downtown. There wasn’t enough in the mayors plan to bring motorists onside be cause honestly the people who put the plan together come close to despising them. A new Patullo bridge that they’d be tolled on is hardly a compelling vote getter.”
***
You neglected to mention that motorists outside of the urban core have been gorging on gluttonous freeway construction for more than a decade worth billions and billions, with more to come. All without an inconvenient vote.
But it’s over. Now we have to live with the results.
roblogrob; Vancouver was the suburb once. Only in the early 20th century did the population of Vancouver exceed that of New Westminster. Without the construction of the road, Kingsway, Vancouver would not have grown. The suburbanites of New Westminster primarily paid for that and other roads to Vancouver. Before that Fort Langley was the first settlement. Now we’re back to Langley. From there, subsidizing the infrastructure to grow Vancouver has been the norm. As Surrey grows to become larger than Vancouver it might well become cheaper to service parts of Surrey than parts of Vancouver.
It’s also important to remember that just about every single thing you can see, from your home in Vancouver, (except the water and the sky) has been transported into Vancouver by truck, van or other vehicle, on roads. In Langley the use of roads is greatly reduced for transport to the citizens of vegetables, some meats and fruits, and other imported items from around the world, because much is grown or raised close by. Surrey docks are also huge, so the roads distances to Surrey and Langley shops and people are shorter than to Vancouver. Even the products unloaded at the port in Vancouver, including bicycles, have to first be transported to warehouses in Surrey, Richmond, Delta, Langley, etc., on roads, before being taken back to shops and residences in Vancouver.
Without the rest of the province building, maintaining and subsidizing the road arterials into and out of Vancouver the people there would be in deep doo-doo. Basically, they’d starve.
False memes run deep.
Are you done? Because I’m standing over here and your fists are full of straw. Clearly, I was invoking the POST World War II definition of a suburb. You know, the ones developed on sweat heart tax deals from the government, explosive growth in North America built on the equally exploded European economy, the advent of the auto, and cheap as dirt fuel.
Fort Langley, New Westminster, Surrey, and Vancouver in the ways you have presented them are each a locus for a community ecosystem. They had people who lived, worked, and played in their communities. Beautiful and efficient, also pretty easy on the communal pocketbook all things considered. So no, Vancouver wasn’t a suburb in that or any rational sense. But I’m seriously interested for you to tell me what you think a suburb is.
And yeah, you’re right. Each development founded the next new ecosystem. But what you so spectacularly miss is the pernicious nature of the developments that are happening today. We aren’t getting the townsquares and dense developments of our forbearers. We are building large and far, connected by expensive streets that necessitate a tonne of steal with a belly full of fire to get you anywhere. And worse still, these days, those citizens of Surrey, New West, and Fort Langley who historically lived, worked, and played in their environs all travel outside of those communities (by and large in mighty expensive fashion since we won’t be getting any more transit) to downtown Vancouver to work. This turns them into something, but not entirely, resembling suburbs.
How does suburban sprawling road infrastructure equate to arterial roads that connect harbours to urban centers? Because they just don’t. Argue until you’re blue in the face but Oak Maple Avenue (23 zillionth) abutted by single detached McMansions and about 5 km from any form of interest in all directions does not shoulder the burden of the Lower Mainland’s freightage.
When I talk about the massive tax burden we all suffer under due to our investments in stupid road infrastructure, you can be assured that I’m talking about the copypasta suburban sprawl and not the historic route of commerce from sea to town.
But thanks for telling me how vegetables travel about.
Indeed, Eric, we need excellent road infrastructure AND adequate transit networks. Not more buses to accommodate new dense developments. Have you ever seen a new highrise advertised as “close to bus station” ? Anywhere ? Ever ? Only a subway, LRT or SkTrain is seen as an advantage by developers, never ever a bus. That was sadly missing from the plan or grossly inadequate.
The artificial choking off of free-flowing of car on major arterial roads like Kingsway, 70th Ave, Granville, Burrard, Commercial, both E-W and N-S is an insult to drivers and utterly unnecessary. Also not so green.
Making car use more expensive (through road tolls, higher residential parking fees or higher gasoline taxes) is also missing in this plan.
Here is what Oregon just announced: a 1.5 cent per mile road toll with a tracking device. BRAVO. We should do that, and triple that fee between 3 and 6 pm in downtown Vancouver or other choke points, and then drop the gasoline sur-taxes for MetroVan !
https://www.facebook.com/FoxBusiness/videos/10153397514625238/?fallback=1&pnref=story
Only higher use costs will reduce demand. Not a PST increase. Can’t wait to use the new Massey Bridge and we will see that the SFPR is undersized ! Where is the proposal for a 6 lane tunnel under New West to get through-traffic out of New West ?
Think AND .. transit AND more road capacity. Not either / or.
And yes to the UBC subway, too. And the one under Hastings from downtown. And a third under Burrard going south to Kerrisdale, connecting with the new subway going E-W under 41st ! That will drive development and incent car users to get off the road. [not more wobbly buses stuck on Broadway, slower than cars]
Massey Bridge will be worse of a white elephant than the new port man bridge.
Wow that is a crazy prediction:
Ok so you are saying we are going to see many uber ride sharing services with much higher occupancy for each vehicle but yet at the same time much higher amounts of traffic, IE more cars?
So that equates to a 400% increase of people moving through that new infrastructure.
We are not even considering higher rates of people working from home from improvements in connectivity technologies and adoptions.
Your prediction only adds more fuel to my view the Massey replacement will be a huge massive white elephant.
Sorry this comment was in reply to a Thomas comment, that does not appear anymore.
Public transit, like public education or public healthcare needs more and more privatization as the public purse is limited and not serving the needs of many, as free for everyone at any time at any level does not work in any economy.
Uber combined with TransLink makes an efficient combination as we have far too many 80% empty buses driving around off-hours in less dense areas. Uber-enabled mini-shuttles, with drivers or eventually self driving, will change that.
In a growing region, with more harbours, in an exporting nation with the only major Pacific port in Canada, we need more road capacity and more rapid transit. Yes PM bridge and Massey bridge appear oversized today but will be appropriately sized in 20-30 years. People like their individual vehicles, even in 2080. By 2030 they will be smaller, and more fuel efficient, possibly electric or hybrid, likely road tolled or with per km charges, but more numerous with a population growth of easily 2%/year. City planners need to keep people’s preferences in mind, be it for a house with a yard, or an individual vehicle. Not everyone prefers an 8 story building or a congested bus or subway.
Here is a possible view on cars in 2050: http://www.digitaltrends.com/features/faster-forward-imagining-the-future-car-of-2050/ .. using Massey Bridge and/or Patullo and/or congested SFPR. Maybe we have a subway under Broadway by then .. all the way to Arbutus ? to Jericho land ? To UBC ? to UBC’s south-campus with 15,000+ people even ? One to W-Can or N-Van ?
The article doesn’t mention the increase in occupancy that can occur with uber like services associated with driverless vehicles. The last mile problem gets reduced so it becomes more efficient to go express buses, or metros. So I guess you are stating and agreeing that a 400% increase in people moving will occur over the Portman or Massey tunnel. So basically you are stating we need to build a bridge now that will be fully utilized in 2080.
Or we could focus on public transport that we know has a high demand right now like Broadway subway.
The choice is clear build the metro, maybe reconsider a road expansion in 2080 if we need it.
Eric, your hectoring lecturing exposes your ignorance. You clearly did not research local history. Kingsway and Douglas Road were horse trails built by Colonel Moody which did not move many people.
Here was a transportation revolution what truly opened up the Lower Mainland to settlement … the Interurban.
http://buzzer.translink.ca/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/053-0011.jpg
The Interurban ran mostly on the Kingsway-BCER alignment and predated road expansion and car-dominance by two generations.
You do not know what you are talking about.
To clarify, the Interurban was extended all over the Lower Mainland, but it’s Kingsway Ridge alignment predated the espansion of Kingsway Avenue by about 40 years.
All over Surrey and into Langley new attached townhouses sell immediately. This style of building isn’t easy to find in Vancouver and if it is it’s much higher priced because of land costs and city fees. Done properly, townhouse complexes offer density for the city and greenery with living space for the largest demographic of buyers; young families. Edgemont in North Van, Cloverdale in Surrey and Langley offer this type of community that has all necessary services as well. As mentioned earlier. Yet, as Thomas points out too, no rapid transit was offered to these areas.
What happened to this type of community in the East Fraser Lands area of Vancouver? Why is there not a plan from Vancouver to expand rail service to this much lauded new community? You can’t blame this on Surrey and Langley. Why no plan for a train to connect with the line that goes to New Westminster, across to Marine Drive, or a few blocks deeper into the residential area, and on to Fraser Lands and connecting to the Canada Line. A direct link from New West to YVR and Langara and the hospitals area. To the east this should be extended across to Coquitlam and connecting to the Evergreen Line.
Why didn’t we see any commitment to extend the line that just stops, around 100th & King George in Surrey?
Why didn’t we see any mention of a train to the north Shore?
If these regions are in Metro and they also have the greatest concentrations of residences, one would expect they to be included in any grand transport plan. Particularly if those same residents are being asked to finance a, so called, massive transportation expansion initiative.
People don’t mind paying for things if the value and comfort is right. Buses don’t excite anyone.
Hard to count how many more trains you want to see going everywhere especially into areas that are much lower population densities. The municipalities would need to ask for a 3 or 4% VAT tax to finance that. You really think that is feasible and the electorate would agree to that much of a tax increase?
Eric, glad to see your deep and until now secret support for passenger rail. Now, please explain your devotion to the car and your No vote in this contradictory context.
Today’s Sun Editorial is respectful, well-reasoned, insightful and accurate; it does not paint every “No” voter with the same brush, as Gordon does, and it recognizes the fact that “No” to the question asked of voters was “No” to the question asked of voters. Gordon, presumably a “yes” voter, is overtly biased in his assertion that “No” was a blanket rejection of all things “transit.” What nonsense, and he knows better. Who does he think he is to tell me what I was thinking when I voted “No” or what any other “No” voter was thinking, and Gordon could not be more incorrect in his assumptions, which he arrogantly declares as absolutes: I respectfully beg to differ most vehemently; a “No” vote categorically did NOT mean that “[t]he majority did indeed oppose transit improvements – and roads, ferry, train, cycling and pedestrian improvements, even the Pattullo Bridge. They did so by opposing funding for them.” We were not asked if we supported or opposed funding for improved transportation services. We were asked if we supported an extra tax without any accountability to partially fund improved transportation services. Many of us opposed the means as already historically proven to be an intolerable waste of our tax dollars. The difference between the two questions is where the “No” response lies. Be careful what you ask for; you might NOT get it.
“We were not asked if we supported or opposed funding for improved transportation services.”
Actually, that was exactly what we were asked. You may not like the choice of funding, but it doesn’t change what the question was.
Actually, no. We were asked if supported a sales tax dedicated to a specific plan.
There’s a big difference.
Isn’t it a bit early to be trying to rewrite history?
At this point, who cares. What I’m still waiting for with great anticipation is the no sides alternative plan b. Or c. Or d. Our any actual plan at all.
@Eric please can you keep it positive for once and give us an alternative solution. Please tell us what you support and how will you pay for it. I am not asking for full cost accounting just let us know:
1)what tax would you raise?
2)what/if funding would be cut for some service?
3)what infrastructure you want to build?
The vote was not about whether people supported improvements to transit, it was about how to pay for improvements to transit. I opposed the sales tax increase, but support improvements to transit, and I don’t even take transit (have chosen to live within bike riding distance of where I work and “play.”)
There are many ways to raise the funds to improve transit without taxing the public as a whole through a sales tax. I read at one point that the sales tax would have an average impact of about $250/household, I hope I’m remembering that correctly. It’s also been suggested there’s a 10% vacancy rate due to absentee ownership/investment in property in Vancouver. I would suggest if you can afford to let a million dollar (or more) property sit vacant as you sit on your investment, then you can afford a $2500 annual vacancy/property sur-tax on that property. $250/household = $2500/10% vacant properties.
If the owners of those properties prefer to rent them out then there would be an immediate 10% increase in available housing which should drive down the cost of housing (even if marginally) in the city of Vancouver. With most people living at the limits of their income, the slightly reduced rent will mean more money spent of “stuff” and an increase in sales tax revenue at the current rate simply because people have more money to spend. It might also mean 10% more people living in Vancouver outright because of more available housing which would also increase sales tax revenue at the current tax rate.
The reality is, without raising taxes, tax revenue can be increased. Even if it’s technically a tax increase that spawns it. The tax levy on property owners is one they would never have to pay by having them simply rent out their empty living spaces, and would actually put more money in their pockets from the revenue generated by the renting of their vacant apartments.
I think it would be hard to administer and find out who is vacant. I would prefer a raise in property taxes with a corresponding increase in tax credit. This credit would be eligible to Canadian passport and PR holders. Effectively raising property taxes on foreigners only.
This would however need the permission of the BC provincial government. They have already said no to taxing foreigners so then my fall backs are in order:
road tolls, parking taxes, luxury car taxes, carbon taxes
But like my previous suggestion need provincial approval. Are we noticing a trend here…..
Jeff,
Again, No, you are wrong: we were asked if we agreed to a sales tax increase to fund transportation improvements. There was no mention of accountability, revamping of Translink, or strategies for enhancing efficiencies and reducing wasted spending. We had no choice but to vote “No” given the question parameters. And, the win of the “No” vote is hardly a “failure” but a TRIUMPH of the democratic process and the right of the individual to stand up to government misappropriation of taxpayer funds.
Executive vice president Bob Paddon and BC Rapid Transit Company president and general manager Doug Kelsey have been let go. Paddon’s position as executive vice-president for strategic planning and stakeholder relations has been eliminated.
We presume he wasn’t integral to the proper workings of the enterprise.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/TransLink+makes+changes+after+failed+referendum/11213438/story.html#ixzz3g0RLl81n
Bob Paddon started the conversation on Road Pricing. http://www.sfu.ca/content/sfu/dialogue/news-and-events/archives/2013/moving-in-metro.html
Maybe TransLink is about to start running a transportation operation instead of a social engineering one. Seems like the old Livable Region Plan is looking a bit like last years’ New Year resolution.
Actually to have free roads is a social engineering operation. We are encouraging people to pollute, live unhealthy lives and spend less time with family and friends. Road pricing would be the opposite of that by not subsidizing one type of transport over the other. Eric I thought you were a conservative? Shouldn’t conservatives be against road socialism?
I’m glad you agree. Either free or charged for, this is social engineering. TransLink is a transportation organization.
“Either free or charged for, this is social engineering.” It is not socially engineering if the cost of using the road is equal to cost of building, maintaining and externalities.
Historically, roads were paid for by gasoline taxes, and other levies on cars such as PST. Since it was expensive to toll, most roads are untolled. But today, with modern electronic one can toll roads efficiently, and with more and more hybrid, fuel efficient or e-cars that is the next logical step. rather than a PST increase. or free parking. Indeed a major major oversight in the Transportation Plan.
In time, we see more road tolls, and also less other free social stuff like healthcare, education or pensions. All being reduced, in time and other services tolled/charged. As we see now in Europe that too much free services (healthcare, education, roads, pensions leads to nations’ decline. Even in socialist France they toll roads and have excellent, for fee, universities like Insead. Most European nations have a two-tier healthcare system, missing in Canada. We’ll get there, on tolled bridge or knee operation at a time.
Tolling highways is one thing, but more highways means more suburban development means more local/collector roads. You can’t toll all those roads, and those roads are the money losers. Every new single family house in the burbs is a money loser for the City when you factor in the costs required long term. But, long term thinking is rarely an issue with politicians.
You can’t force people to live in the expensive city. If people want to raise a family they will look at what works for them. For all but the rich this is in the suburbs.
What is happening, fast, to Vancouver is a demographic that reflects what many people decry. Rich and poor and no middle class. First it was the west side going way expensive, now the east side is catching up. The massive growth in social housing, now expanding east from Gastown and all around the Olympic Village, gives home for the poor.
The wealthy mostly drive and ride bikes recreationally. More than 50% of the bike riders are recreational riders. There are a few young biking commuters and students. The poor and students take transit. The middle class, the largest sized group that also includes all the tradespeople, drive.
In summary; the importance of uncongested efficient roads is essential for all services, commercial and trades vehicles, industrial vehicles, transit vehicles, the middle-class workers and families, the wealthy and many of those that are poorer, as well as all that live and work in all rural and semi-rural areas, that includes all around the sacred ALR lands.
Does anyone wonder why a city transit obsessed referendum, headed by a cycling city mayor that forgot to pay for a subway ride failed?
@Eric permalink
July 17, 2015 9:10 am
You can’t force people to live in the expensive city.
I do not want to force people, I just want too end road socialism. I want people to pay for the cost of building, maintaining and the externalities of using the road through user fees.
“You can’t force people to live in the expensive city. If people want to raise a family they will look at what works for them. For all but the rich this is in the suburbs.”
It is so partly because we subsidize suburbia. That’s the rub. If the true cost of those suburban developments were factored in, I don’t know how much cheaper it would actually be, if at all. No one is forcing anyone to live anywhere. But, you should be responsible for the costs of living where you choose to live.
Well stated Don. I believe Eric and Susan experiencing a form of Cognitive Dissonance.
In the municipalities around the edge of Metro the residents pay for their roads, sidewalks and utilities. They also send funds to Metro, including funds for transit. The farther out one goes the less people use transit, yet they still pay for it.
It’s not easy to say who is subsidizing who.
That is not a user pay model, that is point that you Eric and Susan do not want to accept.
As you can see from page 2, cars are the most subsidized form of transportation:
http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/plans_and_projects/regional_transportation_strategy/Backgrounders/Transportation_Funding_Backgrounder.ashx
…and some believe that. Others voted No.
Eric,
Can you provide evidence supporting your position?
Eric,
They don’t. This is my point. They don’t pay the full cost. They pay DCC’s and other related fees to initially build things, but those don’t cover the costs associated with long term maintenance and operation (and often not even the short term costs). That’s why so many cities are now having a maintenance crunch.
Cities try to increase DCC’s and other fees but of course the development communities cries foul because it will increase their costs and by default the cost of housing. So politicians keep the fees artificially low to appease that short term need at the expense of long term needs.
It’s a completely unsustainable model that we’ve just been faking for decades, it’s starting to take its toll.
If your municipality has maintenance shortcomings then they must look to see where to cut, or raise taxes. Which cities are you speaking of? My municipality is in full repair and maintenance mode. Sidewalks, roads and landscaping are being updated everywhere.
Transit is certainly where user-pay is not being employed. TransLink clearly states that fares account for 50% of operating costs. Building the infrastructure is not even mentioned as an expense.
No wonder they are firing people and trying to reduce expenditures.
No wonder vehicle sales are up almost 30% since 2011.
@Eric: “My municipality is in full repair and maintenance mode.”
Which municipality is that?
We call it Portmeirion. Everyone is happy.
Indeed, Eric. They also pay the highest share of overall property taxes, PST, GST, CPP, EI and income taxes as they have, on average, higher wages. How much do bikers pay for their bike infrastructure (besides $100 PST every 10 years for a new bike), btw ? Or regular transit users that are renters on a lower income with no car ?
But, as stated earlier, with more and more fuel efficient cars, hybrids and e-cars the gasoline tax that used to pay for roads needs to be replaced with another form, i.e. road tolls or per km GPS enabled systems like the one in Oregon.
Any large city needs choices, for the poor, for the middle class, for the rich, for the Uber-rich, for young folks, for old folks, for families, for multi-generational families or for singles. One size does not fit all.
We can debate pricing mis-allocations, but by and large the middle class and the upper class subsidize everyone else. Many folks pay far too little in taxes, and many far too much. For example, affluent passport seekers masquerading as “immigrants” that pay next to nothing in income taxes or PST, yet absorb expensive services for healthcare or ESL, or for example foreigners buying single family homes with no tax-surcharges, higher property taxes, higher capital gains taxes or higher land transfer taxes like we see now in Hongkong, Singapore or London.
Many issues here. I’ll pick one.
What is the true public cost of transit? Let’s look at it another way.
What’s the true cost of everyone having an automobile? I would argue that the automobile itself is – without a doubt — the largest “tax” on our economy. We don’t make cars here. We don’t have a significant oil industry here. Automobiles, and especially internal combustion automobiles (as opposed to electric) are the greatest burden on our economy siphoning significant money out of our Province monthly. Reduce the reliance on imported cars and imported oil, and there is much more money flowing in our local economy. Good transit and urban planning enables us to reduce reliance on this significant tax on prosperity. For the average person, reducing car ownership costs is a huge financial benefit to citizens, in the order of $7-10K per annum per car. Without options, people are stuck with cars.
That’s what transportation systems do — provide options. They make an economy — our economy — more efficient.
One transit line is infintesimally cheaper than a network of congested asphalt roadways, pollution, and all the upstream damage to our environment to provide endless supply of finite natural resources, metals, and fossil fuels to support this. Healthcare costs for automobile accidents, auto industry bailouts, oil & gas royalty reductions, infrastructure funding. Pipeline cleanups, oil disasters, tanker spills. Billion dollar government grants for notions of carbon sequestration… the list is too long…
It’s time to point out the real burdens in our economy and environment.
t’s not transit coordinated and consolidated by government and funded by taxes and user fees.
Indeed, we need a carrot (better transit, especially rapid transit) and a stick (i.e. higher car use fees, such as higher taxes on vehicles, far higher parking fees as well as road tolls/per km charges). Where was this in the (now failed) plan ? Which politician will spearhead this across a wide variety of user demographics in a wide variety of density across MetroVan ? How do you propose to finance this scheme ? How will rural users, mothers with 3 kids, wealthy immigrants or car commuters from W-Van or Surrey respond to this,?
I would have gladly voted for the PST increase, say even 3% to 10% if far more rapid transit AND higher car use fees had been introduced for true de-congestions (i.e. faster road throughput), coupled with salary adjustments for the bloated municipal and provincial governments, and reduction in income taxes, as our overall taxes are quite high in BC due to high expenditures, mainly salary and benefits such as pensions to age 95+.
How do you propose to finance it AND get consensus from the voting and tax-paying public ?