Martin Crilly’s report analyzing TransLink’s plan — being voted on this Friday — for what to add to the system and how to pay for it is fascinating reading. Better than the average airport novel, if you ask me.
Mr. Crilly, for those who don’t know, is the regional transportation commissioner who weighs in with an anlysis of plans by BC Ferries and TransLink before they are officially adopted.
His report is a masterpiece of brevity (in the world of government reports) and helps lay out exactly what the new plan, aka The Supplement or “Moving Forward, will achieve and won’t. (He also makes an interesting comment on TransLink’s base plan, the one already adopted by the board for the base budget to keep the current system going.)
You can read it yourself here, with a handy little chart that explains exactly where the $1.24 billion is going to come from (about one third from the gas tax; one third from increased fares; one third from whatever new mechanism the province and TransLink come up with).
Or, for the attention-challenged, here’s my story in the Globe.
77 responses so far ↓
1 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 5, 2011 at 10:26 pm
Just heard about the 7 mayors voting the 2-cent gas tax in today on the radio. How many days to election? 30-or-so?
On the heels of the HST slap-down, how did the Mayors do the math that let’s them put a tax on a voting public that is mad as hell and just won’t take any more?
I’ll read the reports after I gorge on Thanksgiving turkey, Frances. Some of the oxidants in the sauce are going to be needed to keep my attention focused.
2 Bobbie Bees // Oct 5, 2011 at 10:51 pm
I would love to actually see the motoring public pay for their fair share.
Operating a private automobile has to be one of the most heavily subsidized endeavours.
First, provincial and federal gas taxes get pooled into general revenues for a reason. Anyone want to guess why? That’s right, so that there’s a larger pool from which to withdraw from to pay for the thousand upon thousand of kilometres of roads that crisscross this vast country of ours. If gas taxes paid for provincial and federal roads on their own, we might be lucky if we had a two lane highway from one end of this country to the other let alone all of the other highways that crisscross.
Next, there’s the maintenance of those highways. As lower mainlanders, you all pay provincial gas tax, well you should rest assured that your taxes go to maintain highways that reach out to some of our very sparsely populated towns up north where their own tax base couldn’t pay for 5 km of road let alone 400 km to the nearest town.
Now, let’s talk about in the city. Well, provincial and federal gas taxes, except for the odd little project, don’t go towards municipal roads. That’s property taxes. And as property taxes are a recoverable expense, even apartment renters pay property taxes.
Property taxes pay for municpal road building, municipal road maintenance, traffic lights, traffic light maintenance, street lights and street light maintenance, police squads specifically only for the benefit of motor vehicles (Bait car, stolen motor vehicles, traffic enforcement).
Throw on top of that a sad little fact that our health care system also subsidizes the motor vehicle. See, as we have universal health care in this country, the insurance companies don’t actually have to reimburse the health care system for basic health care associated with traffic accidents. Oh, and can’t forget the impacts on health in general that the automobile has, such as lung diseases, coronary diseases, etc.
2500 Canadians killed every year, 250,000 Canadians injured every year. All of those people being out of the work force results in lower income tax taken in by government along with less spending.
3 Bobbie Bees // Oct 5, 2011 at 11:07 pm
I for one would love to see what the true costs of the South Fraser Perimeter Road or for that matter the Golden Ears Bridge, the Ski and Die highway, The Port Mann Bridge actually are. Billions of dollars of bad accounting practices have the auditor general severely concerned about where the money is going and all anyone can get worked up about is how the welfare bums riding the 52 window loser cruiser are costing you an extra 2 cents tax on your gas.
Give me a break.
Gotta put fare turnstiles on Skytrain even though the installation costs, maintenance costs and added infrastructure costs mean that Translink will never recoup the costs of installing the turnstiles.
Instead of blowing billions on the Port Mann alone, why not put that money into health care or even better yet a kick ass public transit system south of the fraser river so that single vehicle car trips over the Port Mann just to go to Ikea aren’t required any longer.
4 brilliant // Oct 5, 2011 at 11:53 pm
I for two would love to hear the end of tiresome anti-car screeds from out of touch downtownies.
5 boohoo // Oct 6, 2011 at 12:12 am
I don’t live downtown and I primarily drive to work so where do I fit into your simplistic generalization? Do you think investing in transit is money well spent? Is this enough? Spent wisely?
6 Roger Kemble // Oct 6, 2011 at 4:50 am
This isn’t about TX.
Seven clueless, small town mayors, wrestling with their junk, have no concept how debt is created, how it is designed to grow exponentially, never to be paid back? How it stops all movement!
Have they no sense of how it overwhelms the organism to which it is attached?
This never-ending TX debate is about perceived prestige: little minds trying to keep up with the big boys.
Clanking shiny trinkets emerging from holes in the ground, or swooping, in menacingly from above, lacking flexibility, too widely spaced, sporadic station stops, to service an on-line population.
Of course, it will be used. Just like the Canada line: a fix! The lifeboats on the Titanic were used too.
There is no point in debating this stuff: it has long gone ex-cathedra.
7 Richard // Oct 6, 2011 at 8:30 am
I’m in Mexico City where it is pretty clear (the air not so much) that the consequences of not investing enough in transit are pretty dire. They build a good metro system decades ago but did not expand it to keep pace with growth. It is really, really crowded at rush hour but still walking is often faster than driving around the city.
8 mezzanine // Oct 6, 2011 at 8:57 am
Finally. I hope that this tax passes, and we can build on the transit system we have already.
Obviously, civic politicians have a major role to play with transit wrt transit planning. For them to say they have to wait for transit improvements is misguided. From Mr. Crilly:
Achievement, however, of land use goals has been mixed, particularly with regards to the siting of employment. TransLink cannot significantly change these patterns by offering major expansions of service in low density areas but must rely on the region and its municipalities to do so using the more the effective and focused tools in their arsenals.
http://www.translinkcommission.org/CommissReport2010TenYearPlan.pdf
…..
A side note wrt turnstiles – IMO i think that we will be (pleasantly) surprised about their effects. IIRC the last publically available fare evation report came out before it became policy for drivers not to actively enforce fare evasion on buses.
WRT gateway, I think a major positive (big-picture) effect will be the effect of tolling on the PMB. I would like to see the effect of traffic flow on the freeway, but also interested on other effects (GEB use, patullo use).
9 mezzanine // Oct 6, 2011 at 9:00 am
@boohoo #5, i know you were responding to bobby, but transit has benefit for drivers – the more people that take transit or bikes means less cars and traffic for those more dependent on a vehicle.
10 spartikus // Oct 6, 2011 at 9:32 am
I’m not sure if Canadian cities have the ability to levy such a thing (Provinces surely do), but the French charge a Transport Tax against the payroll of companies with more than 9 workers. It’s a much more stable source of funding.
Whatever else you may say about France, they do have spiffy trains and great local transit.
Theoretically, both property and gas taxes are regressive – they’re not based on one’s ability to pay and have more bite the less income one has. I don’t lose sleep over either. If you own a house, you’re probably okay. And while some will hate the characterization, a gas tax can be thought of as a sin tax. You’re trying to change behaviour – not simply for environmental reasons but because you are rationing a limited resource – and the public is being supplied with an alternative in return for the tax.
However, I like the idea of the “versement transport”.
11 Roger Kemble // Oct 6, 2011 at 10:00 am
Richard @ # 7
You are in Mexico City were you say “ . . . the consequences of not investing enough in transit are pretty dire. ”
You godda be kiddin! How long have you been there? ¿Es usted un turista? How can you possibly make that judgment?
I lived in Mexico City for two years: 1997-8: I was last there, in my favourite hangout Hotel Isabel, Centro 2008.
El Monstruo especially DF is the largest conurbation in the world for God’s sake: probably 28M+. No one knows for sure because campesinos, dispossessed of the land by NAFTA, keep streaming in.
That’s why you trip over ambulates wherever you go, especially in Centro, selling everything from tacos to TAG Heuers!
Yes, there’s Metro: it’s being expanded all the time. But the multi-layered DF-wide TX system, Taxqueña á Indios Verdes interweaves taxis, green and white peseros and bicyclettas all the way from Chicoloapan á Satellite.
TX in DF isn’t prefect but if you have to wait on the curb for more than two minutes you’re in Burquitlam not La Ciudad. Not an easy mistake.
12 brilliant // Oct 6, 2011 at 12:10 pm
Lord, how the Left loves them some more taxes!
13 mezzanine // Oct 6, 2011 at 12:38 pm
@12,
[shrugs]
Taxes are what we pay for civilized society.‘ — Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court Justice
I like this one:
The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing.
Jean-Baptiste Colbert, Minister of Finance of France
Would you rather not upgrade transit infrastructure and save money?
14 Dan Cooper // Oct 6, 2011 at 1:13 pm
spartikus writes, “…the French charge a Transport Tax against the payroll of companies with more than 9 workers.”
Portland Metro has a similar program benefitting its regional transit, or did last I knew.
I’m confused by – from the original story:
a) “If the number of riders [on all "additional services," including both "the Evergreen Line and other improvements"] is lower, he estimates the plan could be as much as $53-million short on revenue.”
In other words, there may not be enough riders.
b) “And the plan ultimately doesn’t keep up with population growth over the 10 years.”
In other words, there will be too many riders. Eh what?
My own view is perhaps similar to Richard’s above. Building transit infrastructure in a serious way now, and continuing to do so, will benefit us not just over ten years. Eventually, unless regional population stops growing and/or we come up with a way to move people without using either transit or fossil fuels (both possible, I suppose, but not something we can count on), we are going to need that infrastructure eventually. And it will be much easier and cheaper to build now than later.
15 IanS // Oct 6, 2011 at 1:14 pm
I have no objection to funding transit through increased gas prices or through an increase in property taxes. Personally, I like the idea of tying specific taxes to specific goals. IMO, this would lead to a much more rational consideration of taxation generally.
16 Bill // Oct 6, 2011 at 1:50 pm
Bobby Bees #2
“I would love to actually see the motoring public pay for their fair share”
You make it seem that motorists are a small minority that are subsidized by the non-motoring public when in fact motorists pay all the same taxes so are in effect “subsidizing” themselves. I would suggest that it is a very small minority that never gets into a car who might have a legitimate issue except that they probably don’t pay a lot of taxes either.
Compare that to Translink which receives $700 million per year in taxation revenues paid in the most part by those same motorists, most of which will never see the inside of a bus.
So who is really subsidizing who?
17 MB // Oct 6, 2011 at 1:58 pm
@ brilliant 12″ Lord, how the Left loves them some more taxes!”
I worked out that my total contribution via increased fuel + property taxes over a year will be $98. That’s 27 cents a day, or 12% the cost of my afternoon Americano.
Yeah, like I’ll go bankrupt, brilliant.
18 Michael Geller // Oct 6, 2011 at 1:59 pm
If Fabula readers had been with me over the past few days at the Walk21 conference that looked at the health benefits of more walkable cities and improved public transit, I predict you would hold your nose and support the transit expenditures, even though they do appear to violate the pledge made two years ago, not to increase property taxes.
Today at a related conference, we are looking at the benefits of transit improvements and walking in terms of reduced health costs, based on studies carried out around the world. While I am not convinced of the accuracy of the numbers, I am swayed by the basic premise that getting people out of cars saves health dollars for people not yet at their end of life.
Personally, I support more ‘user pay’ approaches to the funding of transit, including additional road and bridge tolls, gas taxes, and more efficient collection of fares. I don’t like adding costs to property tax, but most things in life aren’t perfect, and the proposals going before the Mayors tomorrow fit this description.
I do hope the measures pass.
19 MB // Oct 6, 2011 at 2:17 pm
@ bobby bees 2+3: “Operating a private automobile has to be one of the most heavily subsidized endeavours.”
Thanks for elucidating the many ways this statement is true.
I would add that the society we have built on a foundation of car and oil dependency for more than half a century is now very susceptible to even modest variations in fuel supply and prices. The supply chains are very long (lettuce from California, expensive oil from tar sands and offshore, etc.) with many weak links.
People like brilliant may say, So what? That’s the globalized economy.
Well, that’s the problem. Electric-based transportation grids (e.g. urban transit, electrified freight rail) will prove ultimately impervious to the economic fallout of price spikes in petroleum, and would lend credence to public efforts to make our cities and surrounding agriculture more efficient at the local level.
Roger #6 said, “This ins’t about TX.” I would agree in the sense it’s really about how we make human habitation and derive a livihood.
But the advent (and idoicy, I might add) of the now absolutely massive presense of personalized transportation and an entire worldwide economy run on primarily a finite resource makes urban TX important.
We have to rebuild. That can be an voluntary act now, or it will be involuntary in future as the resource declines precipitously and the wheels come off the growth-based economy.
No, brilliant, I’m not a Doomer. I’m actualy quite optimistic because there are viable solutions out there, but the economy of the 21st Century will not resemble the last century at all.
20 Baran // Oct 6, 2011 at 2:56 pm
I am with MB #12. I won’t go bankrupt paying $100 more per year for a measure that will have such long-lasting positive impacts. I’ll skip an americano once a week.
I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the word “tax” and its negative connotations in our thinking. I’m sure many of you heard of the new centre-left prime minister elected in Denmark. She won a campaign based on the premise of increasing taxes and public spending. That’s just mind-boggling. They think of paying taxes as a way of contributing to a slew of benefits that they’ll collectively enjoy over their life-time. Paying taxes to us is synonymous to being robbed.
21 boohoo // Oct 6, 2011 at 2:57 pm
brilliant,
have an answer for my question? or just snide insults?
I too was at the walk21 conference–it’s somewhat depressing how entrenched we are in car culture given the abundant evidence that supports ped/cycle/transit/other. on the other hand it’s a fantastic opportunity IF we have politicians who are willing to look beyond their short term….
22 boohoo // Oct 6, 2011 at 3:01 pm
I also second the notion that 2 cents is negligible in the big picture. I would bet most people don’t notice if the local esso is $1.39 or $1.37. I can think of few things that are a better investment than transit.
23 MB // Oct 6, 2011 at 3:44 pm
I miscalculated.
I used 3 cents instead of 2, and mistakingly multiplied the expenditure over two weeks by 50 . In fact, it’s 2 cents/ litre x 25 litres/week x 50 weeks (I don’t drive every day) + $23 in increased property tax.
My tax increase to support a noticeable improvement in transit will be $48/year, or 13 cents a day.
I suppose I could sacrifice one Americano every 17 days to avoid personal bankruptcy.
24 Bobbie Bees // Oct 6, 2011 at 4:10 pm
@Bill #16
You said “Compare that to Translink which receives $700 million per year in taxation revenues paid in the most part by those same motorists, most of which will never see the inside of a bus. ”
You do realize, please tell me you do, that Translink is building the new Port Mann Bridge, that Translink built and is operating the Golden Ears Bridge?
From Wiki on Translink “TransLink owns and maintains the Major Road Network, which comprises most major regional arteries not owned by the provincial government. It includes 2,200 lane-km (1,367 lane-mi) of roadways and the Knight Street Bridge, Pattullo Bridge, Westham Island Bridge, and Golden Ears Bridge. TransLink coordinates and funds major capital projects on the Major Road Network. For minor projects, TransLink contributes up to half of the costs of municipal capital projects, up to the maximum funding allocated to each municipality.”
So what have we learnt, is Translink just responsible for buses and Skytrain? Nope.
Translink and the gas tax it collects as well as the regional transit levy it collects go to ALL things transportation related. Including the billions it is pouring into the Port Mann bridge project. The same project that John Doyle is having some very serious concerns about.
And that’s the funny thing, isn’t it?
Billions being frittered away on the Port Mann Bridge and no one cares. True costs of the Golden Ears Bridge, unknown yet again.
And everyone is okay with that.
Translink talks about spending some money on a Skytrain expansion and all of a sudden the whole world is coming to an end.
25 brilliant // Oct 6, 2011 at 4:14 pm
@boohoo and MB et al
Except that’s a $100 drip on top of all the existing gas tax, carbon tax etc. The HST results should have been a wake up call to your kind, but it appears you keep plodding along believing the taxpaying motorist is and endless set of teats just waiting to be milked.
Here’s a newsflash to those lamenting the cost of roads: Vancouver’s road network was in place before the rise of the private auto. It will need maintenance even if there were no cars.
I saw my first Nissan Leaf on the road last week. What will all the car haters do when electrics and hydrogen powered private vehicles replace oil powered ones? The basis of your “end is nigh” hysteria will be destroyed. Perhaps then you’ll move on to a cow purge to rid the world of methane gas, though you might look closer to home to reduce gaseous emissions.
26 Baran // Oct 6, 2011 at 4:37 pm
@brilliant #25
Emissions are only one of the negative impacts of cities that rely on car as the primary mode of transportation. Even if you take the emissions out of the equation b/c of the technological advancements, there will still be: the heat island effect (resulting from 30-35% of the area of our cities paved), and the negative health effects (rising levels of inactivity, obesity, diabetes etc) – just to name a couple.
You are “brilliant”, so I’m sure you are resourceful enough to educate yourself.
27 spartikus // Oct 6, 2011 at 4:39 pm
appears you keep plodding along believing the taxpaying motorist is and endless set of teats just waiting to be milked.
Meanwhile, gas taxes for Canadians continues to be at the lower end of the scale in the industrialized world.
28 Bill // Oct 6, 2011 at 4:41 pm
@Bobbie Bees #24
Take a look at the Translink Annual Report for 2010 and you will find that about 5% of their operating budget goes to maintain the major road network so the majority of $700 million in taxation is to support transit.
But my point is not that we should not be supporting transportation alternatives, just that it is not productive to haul out the subsidy argument to justify transit spending. As well, based on the stories coming out of BC Ferries and BC Hydro, I think it would be productive for a similar review of Translink – another unaccountable public enterprise.
29 boohoo // Oct 6, 2011 at 5:17 pm
“What will all the car haters do when electrics and hydrogen powered private vehicles replace oil powered ones? The basis of your “end is nigh” hysteria will be destroyed.”
A: ‘Car haters’ is a stupid generalization based on nothing.
B: You clearly don’t understand the argument and have no intention of exploring it. Why are you here?
30 Bobbie Bees // Oct 6, 2011 at 6:19 pm
@Bill 28-
Just took a look at Translink’s 2010 Report.
Now I know why the Auditor General John Doyle is upset at Translink’s Accounting procedures.
No where in that document does Translink account for the costs of Golden Ears Bridge or the Port Mann Bridge. So, unless some kind soul is building the bridges for free, there are some serious accounting issues.
But more interesting are some of the real numbers.
The largest source of income for Translink are passengers.
Translink’s revenue breaks down as follows:
Transit riders = 32%
Fuel tax = 24%
Property Tax = 21%
Transit fares = $413,050,000.00
Motor Fuel tax = $323,012,000.00
Property tax = $271,760,000.00
On the expense side:
Transit operations 60% (151,000,000 km of ‘travelled distance’)
Amortization of capital assets = 11%
Interest = 12%
Main & Funding for
Major Road Network = 9% (2,200 Km of road and some existing bridges)
So again, based on a ‘share of the pie’ scenario based on ‘distance travelled’ With only 2,200 km of roads eating up 9% of the budget as opposed to 151,000,000 km eating up 60% of the budget, which of these two modes is a better more economical use of Translink dollars.
As the Golden Ears Bridge and Port Mann Bridge are both P3s the costs associated with building and maintaining them won’t show up as direct line items, and this is what John Doyle is upset about.
The Golden Ears Bridge carried
8,699,000 vehicles.
And cost $808,000,000.00
And generated $29,000,000.00 in tolls.
Which excluding interest paid should only take 27 years for Translink to pay off. Again, this debt is not included in Translink’s financial reports. At least not as a separate item as it should be.
31 gman // Oct 6, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Geller, when is the last time you walked anywhere and when is the last time you were on a bus,just curious.
32 Paul T. // Oct 6, 2011 at 11:55 pm
@ boohoo #29
“A: ‘Car haters’ is a stupid generalization based on nothing.
B: You clearly don’t understand the argument and have no intention of exploring it. Why are you here?”
Boo – calling some posters here “car haters” is no more stupid than calling some posters “bike haters” because they were opposed to how Gregor et al brought in the separated bike lanes.
Your level of negativity is approaching new levels. Driving a wedge between each other is not a good idea.
33 Silly Season // Oct 7, 2011 at 12:18 am
Bobbie Bees,
Translink is not building the Port Mann.
That is Gov. of BC project.
34 Bobbie Bees // Oct 7, 2011 at 12:25 am
Sorry Silly Season, Translink is responsible for the Port Mann Bridge. They’re the ones funding it.
35 D. M. Johnston // Oct 7, 2011 at 7:35 am
The Port Mann Bridge is a provincial responsibility, the Puttallo Bridge is a TransLink responsibility.
As for the Canada Line, at best it has attracted 5,000 new customers to transit, but many of these boardings maybe attributed to multiple use of U-Passes. Only boardings are counted on the Canada Line, not people and as one person can use the metro many times a day, he or she is counted boarding many times a day.
The problem with TransLink is simple and real transit experts will agree that the now dated SkyTrain mini-metro system is the cause.
For over 20 years, we have failed to follow what works in transit, instead desperately trying to make the SkyTrain model work. It isn’t and ever higher taxes (subsidies) are needed to keep the system operating.
In essence, we are trying to fit a “square” transit policy into a “round” hole.
The sad fact of this is that this was predicted 30 years ago when the first SkyTrain line was built.
36 boohoo // Oct 7, 2011 at 7:39 am
Paul,
I have never called anyone ‘bike haters’. Go find where I said that please. Or is this just another baseless accusation with no follow up? I expect it to be so.
37 boohoo // Oct 7, 2011 at 7:43 am
Port Mann bridge is a Provincial project, not Translink.
Translink is responsible for:
-The shiny new and pointless Golden Ears bridge.
-Knight Street bridge
-Pattulo bridge
and a bunch of smaller road connections.
Port Mann, Alex Fraser, etc.. are provincial.
38 mezzanine // Oct 7, 2011 at 8:45 am
I wouldn’t think the Golden Ears Bridge is pointless.
-it provides new access to Highway 1 from the Pitt Meadows intermodal yard, where it didn’t exist before.
-it re-introduced the idea of tolled roads back to greater vancouver, with relatively little fuss.
anyhoo, we’ll see how the vote goes down today…
39 Agustin // Oct 7, 2011 at 8:50 am
@ Dan Cooper, #14:
Good question!
40 Rico // Oct 7, 2011 at 9:04 am
Dan Cooper @ 14
For the record I am in favour of improved transit spending…hopefully resulting in improved transit but to clarify your question it depends on where the shortfall/increase in riders are as different services have different costs per rider/trip/km….so if the shortfall is on the Evergreen line (realatively low operating costs) and the extra new riders are on buses in Lagley (realatively high operating costs) it will result in a loss of net revenue.
41 Bill // Oct 7, 2011 at 9:07 am
@Bobbie Bees #30
“With only 2,200 km of roads eating up 9% of the budget as opposed to 151,000,000 km eating up 60% of the budget, which of these two modes is a better more economical use of Translink dollars.”
You are not even comparing apples to oranges here, more like apples to pork chops. Travelled distance relates the number of people moved over the distance travelled so a comparable number for the road system would be the total distance travelled by anyone going by car over the road network. Clearly this dwarfs the 2,200 km you are comparing to.
A small point, but of the 9% you quote as the portion of the budget devoted to the MRN, half is related to capital contributions for the Canada Line and the amount strictly related to the MRN is about 5%.
Bobby, your agenda is clearly more about being anti-car than it is about how to move people about Metro Vancouver in the most cost effective way. It’s too bad because it only creates wedges that will make it more difficult to make real progress.
42 Roger Kemble // Oct 7, 2011 at 9:46 am
The Evergreen Line + Provincial debt . . . click on my name above for the BC Auditor General’s take on finances. Cut to the chase: we cannot afford your phuccin’ Evergreen!
Like the bicycle bunch, ingrown, self-centered the TX crowd take over the conversation and run it into the ground. Give it a rest. Your shiny trinket ain’t gonna happen!
I don’t give a damn about your infantile obsession: shiny trinkets don’t do it. I don’t want your seven mayors a-stumbling. The Evergreen Line is unnecessary: less complicated systems are available. I don’t want those liars in Victoria dumping the bill at me!
Mexico City air quality . . .
Richard @ #7 ¡el turista feo! IMECA today . . .
http://www.calidadaire.df.gob.mx/calidadaire/index.php
. . . in my time 100 was unacceptable: 200 the schools closed. I experienced the former: never the latter. Richard I thinq you are being bullshitted.
La Ciudad has come along way since I was there.
43 Everyman // Oct 7, 2011 at 9:58 am
I tend to agree with Richmond’s Malcolm Brodie: the 2 cent tax is just another band-aid until Tranlink lurches to its next funding crisis.
44 Tessa // Oct 7, 2011 at 10:37 am
@Everyman: Richmond’s mayor sang a very different tune when we were looking for funds for the Canada Line, if I remember correctly.
45 mezzanine // Oct 7, 2011 at 11:34 am
@ Tessa:
+1
46 MB // Oct 7, 2011 at 12:45 pm
@ brilliant 25: “Here’s a newsflash to those lamenting the cost of roads: Vancouver’s road network was in place before the rise of the private auto. It will need maintenance even if there were no cars…..I saw my first Nissan Leaf on the road last week. What will all the car haters do when electrics and hydrogen powered private vehicles replace oil powered ones?”
Vancouver’s “roads” were originally mud tracks with embedded streetcar rails beyond 16th Ave The roads beyond CPR land grant were fragmented or didn’t exist until well into the 20th Century.
Are you also including the region? This is, after all, a post about funding bits of a regional transit system. If so, then you forgot that they’re still paving paradise up the Valley.
Building roads is a fundemental LAND USE decision that has far-reaching ramifications. The city of Vancouver has a land area of 114 km2. The Urban Landscape Task Force report (mid 90′s) determined that 30% of the land base of the city consists of public roads. That’s 34.2 square kilometres, or about 8,500 acres.
Cities as a rule do not value the land roads sit on except when land is acquired for roads. This is changing, and land in Vancouver is now very expensive, yet 30% of it sits in a low value use
covered by asphalt. Yes, arterials are important, but perhaps the majority of the surface area of residential side roads is dead space for car storage.
A city bus can displace about 80 single-occupant Leafs, and take up far less road space to move orders-of-magnitude more people. Investment in transit has the capability to free up road space by affording a viable alternative to the land-hungry and very expensive car-related road infrastructure.
An admirable goal, in my view, would be to take back 3% of the road space every year and devote it to better uses, like housing, transit, or parkland. Copenhagen did this very thing and after several decades they built the pedestrian street system called the Stroget on 40 acres of downtown land.
If Vancouver could set a long-term goal to reclaim a modest 10% of the land area currently devoted to cars/roads, it would have about 3 1/2 square km (850 acres) of land freed up without demolishing any structures or filling in the ocean.
That’s equivalent to about 9,400 additional single-family homes on standard lots, or about $9.4 billion in current residential market value averaged at $1 million a lot. It’s many, many times more in value considering multi-family. And if devoted to new park land, it’s equivalent to 85% of the size of Stanley Park.
I haven’t touched the road/car/oil industry subsidy. Books have already been written on that.
We can conclude:
1. the opportunity costs of roads, if added to its current huge drain on public budgets results in a staggering value lost, most of it covered by taxpayers
2. there are far better uses for land than dead asphalt.
47 MB // Oct 7, 2011 at 12:57 pm
@ brilliant 25, have you thought about the new electrical utility infrastructure to support the mass replacement of our 1.5 million gas burning cars with electric Leafs?
And unless there is a drastic reduction in the numbers of cars — and they actually build a couple of additional Site C dams to power them — the massive public infrastructure to keep them going will remain, as will the horrendous public cost and personal tragedy of car accidents.
But of course you don’t want to talk about the car subsidy.
48 Rico // Oct 7, 2011 at 1:18 pm
The mayors voted in favour.
49 brilliant // Oct 7, 2011 at 1:18 pm
@MB
Anxiously awaiting your contorted logic explaining away Manhattan’s pre-auto street grid. It really must be so galling for the eco-fascists to find the majority treat your views with such bemusement. And so frustrating to see citizens of the developing world run headlong screaming from your bikes etc into the arms of the evil auto as soon as they are economically able to do so. Tata Nanos for all!
50 boohoo // Oct 7, 2011 at 1:22 pm
brilliant,
Again you ignore my question and throw out stupidity like out ‘eco-fascists’ and ‘evil auto’.
Are you 12? Or what is it?
51 Rico // Oct 7, 2011 at 1:47 pm
@ Brilliant 47
People have needed methods of transporting goods and themselves since prehistoric times. So even in Medieval towns there are roads, the difference is since the auto the amount of space dedicated to roads/parking has increased drastically and that space is often (not always) hostile to people not in cars. Think of it this way, ignoring roads, what do you think the land used just for parking lots in Vancouver is worth or could be used for? What about the parking along the roads or some of the road lanes? I am not actually proposing anything as we still need our car infrastucture but it is important to know what the full cost of something is.
52 spartikus // Oct 7, 2011 at 1:56 pm
Boohoo, MB, et al
DNFTT
(Though love #44)
53 Everyman // Oct 7, 2011 at 2:08 pm
@Tessa 42 That was a different funding model though, wasn’t it? P3, or is Evergreen a P3 as well?
I’m sure others are more expert in transit matters but from what I have read, Translink’s structure seems doomed to fail, with the province calling the shots, but the mayors having to come up with the funding mechanism.
54 MB // Oct 7, 2011 at 2:25 pm
“Eco-fascist…” That’s brilliant, brilliant. It’s even more than one syllable.
But you haven’t addressed the issues, I’ve said my piece, and I’m not engaging further.
55 Baran // Oct 7, 2011 at 2:43 pm
@ MB,
Good points.
For some of us, the hardest thing to do is to consider a logical argument, which is why they flip and resort to terms like “eco-fascist” and “auto hater”.
56 Dan Cooper // Oct 7, 2011 at 2:45 pm
@Rico // Oct 7, 2011 at 9:04 am:
Thank you for the ideas. If this is what M. Crilly meant (that there will be not enough people using the trains and too many using the buses) then it seems one solution would be to get more buses and less trains…except that increased buses might cost more in the long run, thus increasing the shortfall…unless of course even more money was raised through taxes (unpopular) or fare increases (which depress ridership). Seems there are no easy answers, unsurprisingly.
57 IanS // Oct 7, 2011 at 2:57 pm
@MB #44,
I don’t necessarily disagree with all of your points, but I would like to take on this point, for the sake of discussion if nothing else.
You write:
“If Vancouver could set a long-term goal to reclaim a modest 10% of the land area currently devoted to cars/roads, it would have about 3 1/2 square km (850 acres) of land freed up without demolishing any structures or filling in the ocean.
That’s equivalent to about 9,400 additional single-family homes on standard lots, or about $9.4 billion in current residential market value averaged at $1 million a lot. It’s many, many times more in value considering multi-family. And if devoted to new park land, it’s equivalent to 85% of the size of Stanley Park.”
That strikes me as the kind of argument which works well on paper, but not so well in real life, as the location and configuration of roads does not necessarily lend itself to the kind of development you’re describing.
I assume you’re not literally about removing 10% of every road (what could be built on that?), but rather, 10% of capacity, through removal of certain roads. However, even with that, you’d still likely be unable to build anything like the kind of development you describe. You can’t take all of the “reclaimed” road space and join it together into lots large enough for such development.
Even if you could rejig density limitations and such, you’d still have to provide some way for people to get to the new residential structures.
In the result, while your math may work out in the abstract, I really don’t see it working out in real life.
58 spartikus // Oct 7, 2011 at 3:16 pm
Maybe not roads, but perhaps lanes. Laneway housing is already getting a big push. What if you fully removed the lane and replaced it with housing and footpaths.
59 mezzanine // Oct 7, 2011 at 3:37 pm
Bravo, mayor’s council.
And wait, what is the latest word from Derek Corrigan? The NDP-affiliated, socialist Derek Corrrigan?
But there’s a lot of people in my community and people around the Lower Mainland saying ‘I cannot take more taxes for TransLink.’ And you find people like that get out and vote.”
[1]
wait, I though you were a tax-loving socialist. You sound like a member of the tea-party.
“You cannot go on being treated like sheep,” he told other Metro mayors. “We have to have our own Boston tea party.”
[2]
Thank you, mayor corrigan. i didn’t realise how improving transit is impinging our freedom. truly, you are the next gandhi.
60 MB // Oct 7, 2011 at 3:38 pm
@ Ian S 55, thanks for an intelligent rebuttal.
My illustration was to point to the waste of land of such a vast road system. It’s not necessarily overall road capacity/traffic, but land area I was referring to, keeping in mind that most residential road allowances are 20m (66 ft) wide, yet the actual road (curb-to-curb) is less than that.
Some work was done already by Vancouver Planning on allowing one additional residential lot to be placed at the end of a block, therein the road at the end will have a narrow one-way lane, perhaps with street parking only on one side, rather than a wider two-way street.
Incrementally taking a small slice off the total land area devoted to roads (2% per annum?) for housing, transit, bike lanes, pocket parks, etc., won’t hardly be felt, but the aggregate spread city-wide could become a significant acreage over time (e.g. 10%, or 850 acres over a decade).
My other point was just the awesome value of that land, and the poor, inefficient use it currently has if it’s left as dead space for car storage. Its real value is not currently accounted for. It’s literally tens of billions. It could be considered as a land bank.
61 mezzanine // Oct 7, 2011 at 3:39 pm
1] http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/aldergrovestar/news/131072098.html#0_undefined,0_
2]
http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/cloverdalereporter/news/131346338.html#0_undefined,0_
62 Ron // Oct 7, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Of course the other option is to close roads (presumably north-south roads that are side frontage) and build houses there – or better yet – consolidate thoseareas with adjacent lots, demolish the single family houses and build higher density multi-family housing so more people can live closer to downtown and don’t need to commute long distances.
But of course that’ll upset the NIMBYs.
63 brilliant // Oct 7, 2011 at 4:59 pm
@sparty 50
Yeah thats the standard fallback, you dont agree with me, so you’re a troll. Oh yeah, and to those who innocently exclaimed “we’re not car haters” you must have missed BobbieBees “4 wheeled succubus” classic a few threads back. But you’re not car haters…
64 Bobbie Bees // Oct 7, 2011 at 6:11 pm
Brilliant, brilliant.
I don’t hate cars. But i am more then mature enough to realize that automobiles have quite a few externalities that the car driving public likes to ignore.
I equate car driving with cigarette smoking. Just as when i used to drive, when i used to smoked i refused to admit the damage that i was doing.
I’ve driven since i got my first car when i was 15. Didn’t even have my driver’s license but i bought a used 1977 vw rabbit so i could get a membership at the base autoclub on CFB Downsview. This was so i could learn automotive mechanics. Changed out the engine in that car from a 1.1 litre to a 1.6 litre fuel injected. Got rid of the 3speed auto and slipped in a four speed. Put disc brakes on the rear. Learnt how to do tin bashing and brazing. Even before i turned 16 i was making cash doing brakes and clutches.
So no, in a word, i don’t hate cars, what i do hate is car culture. The idea that driving a 4000 lbs car 4 blocks to pick up ding-dongs from the local 7-11 is normal is what i really hate about car culture. But hey, that’s just me.
65 boohoo // Oct 7, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Oh so brilliant you take one person’s response and assume they are thinking/speaking on behalf of everyone else? I see. That makes a lot of sense. Keep up the good work.
66 Everyman // Oct 7, 2011 at 8:01 pm
Looking at the Evergeen Line site, it seems it isn’t a P3, so I still feel comparing Canada Line construction to the Evegreen Line isn’t apples to apples, and that Brodie’s concern is justified.
And without being unkind to those in PoMo and PoCo, there’s really no demand driver to get ridership counter to rush hour flows, whereas the Canada Line has the airport extension to do that. Some would also argue that Richmond’s “Chinatown” along the line is a destination in itself, whereas there is no such lure in the Tri-cities.
67 ThinkOutsideABox // Oct 7, 2011 at 8:16 pm
Bobbie Bees 5:
I don’t live downtown and I primarily drive to work…
Bobbie Bees 62:
Just as when i used to drive…
Typo? What to believe…
68 ThinkOutsideABox // Oct 7, 2011 at 8:25 pm
Everyman, 64:
Some would also argue that Richmond’s “Chinatown” along the line is a destination in itself, whereas there is no such lure in the Tri-cities.
Blasphemy, bite your tongue. I will sometimes make the trek from Van to Rehanah’s Roti in Port Moody since, unbelievably, that is the closest place one can get to enjoy an authentic Trinidadian roti.
No problem finding them in downtown Toronto, or Ethiopian here on Broadway. But a mystery why real roti can’t be found till miles outside Vancouver.
69 Bobbie Bees // Oct 7, 2011 at 8:36 pm
TOAB?!?!!?
Did you misplace your spectacles ?
Post #5 is from ‘boohoo’ not from me
70 ThinkOutsideABox // Oct 7, 2011 at 8:42 pm
Whoops, sorry Bobbie Bees / boohoo. Not enough time and reading much too fast.
71 rat patrol // Oct 7, 2011 at 9:22 pm
This will bring a tear to your eye & ROFL http://alexgtsakumis.com/2011/10/05/exclusive-the-npa-campaign-on-life-support-anton-on-both-sides-of-every-issue-klassen-back-biting-running-mates-traditional-supporters-staying-home-with-their-wallets/
72 David // Oct 8, 2011 at 12:15 am
Interesting idea, removing some of the roadspace. I used to live here, within the CPR land grant, sidewalks dated 1912, at the dawn of the automobile era, streets that are so narrow that there is only one lane of travel, no back alleys. If the street was to disappear (as it did at least twice during sewer line and water line replacement between ’87 and ’05) , residents parked on the adjacent N/S streets and walked.. though that pissed off some of the residents of the N/S streets… http://g.co/maps/ewjns
73 IanS // Oct 8, 2011 at 6:55 am
@MB #58:
Thanks. You too.
You write:
“Some work was done already by Vancouver Planning on allowing one additional residential lot to be placed at the end of a block, therein the road at the end will have a narrow one-way lane, perhaps with street parking only on one side, rather than a wider two-way street.”
That makes sense and I think it’s something that would work for development going forward. I’ve worked with developer clients who have engaged in all sorts of wrist twisting with the local authorities, trying to squeeze an extra lot or two out of a development through reconfiguring the roads. In my experience, it’s been the authority which requires the roads and street parking capacity. If the authority is willing to let the developer add a few extra lots, I’m sure they’d be happy about it. More profit.
So, to the extent you’re talking new development going forward, I think that would work. I’m just not so sure that reclaimed road space would have the same effect.
74 Craigs // Oct 11, 2011 at 9:01 am
@Bobbie Bees
Your ‘cars are sooo subsidized’ rant is very enlightening.. It seems that the only use for roads and highways is to allow selfish, unhealthy car drivers to go where they please. I am guessing, then, that your food is all grown where your front lawn used to be. Good luck with that.
On the other hand, if you dont own a car and you dont want to pay for roads, then it only makes sense that you should be charged a special levy for food that is NOT grown on your front lawn’s former geography but needs to be transported over.. gasp.. roads. Car drivers, of course, since they are already being levied should be exempt. Unfortunately for you, if you need an ambulance, you will need to be charged the FULL COST of the roads you will use but have avoided paying for, unless you want to wait for a bus while your heart attack progresses. I am also in favour of your being charged for using the sidewalks and for biking on the roads that I have payed for over the last 40 years of taxation. Things dont come free ya know?
75 mezzanine // Oct 11, 2011 at 2:54 pm
@Craigs,
I know you were responding to bobby bees, but I would perhaps say that the single-occupant vehicle is highly wasteful and something that should be avoided.
I would agree with things like the GEB to improve the efficiency of goods movement, noting that tolls discourage private vehicle use.
Driving he Hwy1, I often see ambulances using the HOV lane to good effect to bypass all the other traffic moving much more slowly.
76 keith♠ // Oct 12, 2011 at 1:58 pm
If the Province were to allocate just one per cent of the sales tax to transit, there would be at least $300 million of revenue available, and it would increase with the future growth of Metro Vancouver’s population.
The revenue from one per cent of the sales tax would go to all BC communities, based on their population.
Something to consider when the Province returns to the PST.
77 Bobbie Bees // Oct 23, 2011 at 3:01 pm
@Craigs #74, first, nowhere in any of my posting have I said that I don’t want to pay for the roads. However, I want you car drivers to realize that you’re not the only ones paying for these roads and that they’re not for your use only. You are going to have to get used to the idea of losing some road space for other things such as dedicated bicycle lanes and transit.
You’re also going to have to stop screaming and crying about the ‘subsidies’ that Translink receives to operate the public transit system when in actual fact a lot of the money Translink receives goes towards building and maintaining the road infrastructure used by the private automobile.
Next, that’s a very poor and desperate argument for maintaining the status quo by trying to lump in goods distribution with the private automobile. I’d be really amazed to find any of the stores in the west end relying on the private automobile for distribution of goods. Can you imagine how silly that would look if Safeway, No Frills et al had their goods delivered by single occupant cars? No, that’s why distribution is done by semi trailer. And just imagine how much less fuel these semi-trailers would use if they weren’t stuck in traffic all day. traffic caused by single occupant vehicles.
Craig, face it, humanity had a good run with the private automobile. But instead of being wise we went all stupid. We developed housing stratigies that made it sensible to drive 2 hours back and forth each day between home and work. Driving four blocks to go shopping is the norm now. Don’t believe me, check on Google maps and see just how many West End residents are within a four block radius of either Safeway, the No Frills, the Super valu or the IGA. Yet the parking lots on these places are full to the brim every day.
Charging pedestrians for using the sidewalk is quite laughable, considering that the roads used to be the dominion of the pedestrian until the private automobile showed up on the scene. Then the pedestrians were pushed off the road and on to the sidewalks so that they wouldn’t interfere with the progress of the automobile.
Leave a Comment