Falcon would consider Auto levy

[Yellow Fever]

Vehicle levy possible: Falcon

By Jeff Nagel - Peace Arch News

Published: October 25, 2008 10:00 AM Transportation minister Kevin Falcon won’t impose region-wide road or bridge tolling to finance TransLink’s expansion, but says he may support a vehicle levy.

Those options top TransLink’s wishlist of new revenue sources, in addition to expected increases to fuel and property taxes, fares and new profits from real estate development.

A TransLink report obtained by Black Press estimates an annual vehicle fee that averaged $100 per vehicle would raise $140 million per year.

It suggests the levy could be sweetened by giving those who pay it a universal transit pass that would act as “a value proposition.”

Falcon said that concept makes sense because it offers a payback to motorists who must pay the fee and could encourage more people to try transit.

“Drivers would be given an opportunity to utilize the dramatically improved transit system,” he said.

“You have to give people something more than just saying we’re going to ding you dollars for our transportation system, thank you very much.”

Falcon predicted the offer of a free annual transit pass would help win public acceptance, and said he would be “open to supporting” a levy on that basis.

TransLink plans to launch public consultations in the months ahead on a number of potential ways to generate an extra $300 to $500 million per year to carry out aggressive transit upgrades, on which the province’s climate change goals depend.

The authority has been chronically underfunded in part because a past TransLink attempt to collect a $75 vehicle levy in 2000 enraged the public and was quashed by the then-NDP government.

Falcon predicts things will be different this time.

He said the old vehicle levy was “just a cash grab to fund an organization that I don’t think had a clear and compelling vision of what they were going to deliver in terms of benefits.”

The new-and-improved TransLink, he said, has a professional board, is well run and has a clear vision that includes three major new SkyTrain lines or extensions and a doubling of the current bus fleet to vastly improve service.

The annual vehicle fee might be a flat $100 or it could vary based on how far people drive each year or the fuel efficiency of their vehicle, the TransLink report suggests.

It also says road-user fees in the form of electronic tolls could pull in significant revenue, influence transportation behaviour and “reduce congestion to free up road space for high-priority users.”

But Falcon rules out that measure for the foreseeable future.

“That’s not going to be on the table,” he said. “We are not going to have regional or congestion tolling or whatever you want to call it until such time as there is a first-rate public transit system in place.”

TransLink is also eyeing the Property Transfer Tax, which hands Victoria a slice of money off real estate transactions in the province.

The real estate tax has ballooned to the point it rakes in $1 billion a year (although that is expected to slide along with the real estate slowdown) – $375 million of that from within Metro Vancouver.

Falcon said TransLink would have to pursue accessing those funds with finance minister Colin Hansen, who he predicted would “take a dim view” of the idea.

Beyond that, he said, the region and its taxpayers will have to pay their share and not bank on a bailout from Victoria.

“The region is obviously going to have to do their part,” he said. “You don’t get something for nothing.”

Any tax hikes or new revenue streams need approval from the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation and Falcon said those mayors will have to decide whether the improvements TransLink plans are worth the money.

“Ultimately the mayors will decide how ambitious they want to be and what kind of transit service they want to have,” he said.

Some mayors have called TransLink insolvent, arguing more money from provincial or federal sources is needed.

Many mayors also say they have been set up by Falcon as a scapegoat for unpopular new fees if they’re approved or anything else that goes wrong.

Falcon said the region will benefit tremendously from the province’s new $14-billion Provincial Transit Plan.

“Leadership means being honest with the public and saying there’s a cost associated with it,” he said.

“If they don’t support it they need to say to the public, ‘I don’t support it and I don’t want to have the population pay for those increased services.’

“And that’s a legitimate position to take. But they’ll have to defend it. I will be a strong advocate saying we need to do this.”

[dleung]

From reading the toronto forums, it is as if their province is always in a fight with Ottawa for funding of various infrastructure projects. It seems like in BC it's not an issue... is Translink in a better financial situation relatively?

[ssiguy2]

I TOTALY disagree with auto levies. It makes no recognition how far you drive and how polluting you are.
Always the best solution is simply to raise gas taxes..........the larger the car, the longer you commute, the bigger the emmisions the more you pay and vise-versa. It's easy and fair.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by ssiguy2

I TOTALY disagree with auto levies. It makes no recognition how far you drive and how polluting you are.
Always the best solution is simply to raise gas taxes..........the larger the car, the longer you commute, the bigger the emmisions the more you pay and vise-versa. It's easy and fair.

Fact is, Translink needs to find $500-million a year in revenues within two years in order to go through with its infrastructure building plan.....raising gas taxes, introducing an auto levy, raising property taxes, raising fares, etc. is all needed in order to fill in that funding hole.

[van-island]

Maybe it's time to reconsider what is bankrupting TransLink:

Skytrain.

Go past 49th Avenue station on the Canada Line and look at the huge ducting fans on top of the station. In addition to the actual construction of the line itself, which would destroy any region our size financially, think how much it will cost to run all that other infrastructure 24/7 for the life of the line.

Now compare with street-level light rail (which we had almost everywhere up until 1958), which is not only around 1/10th of the cost to build, but it also doesn't need all that other secondary infrastructure that requires such high ongoing costs. We need to build transit systems that are within our financial grasp, both to build and to maintain long-term.

It's time to make do with what money we have. Getting rid of half the "planners" at TransLink would be another great move.

This is just one example, but the point is that TransLink's main financial problem is SkyTrain, and it has been for a while now.

[jlousa]

You do know that Skytrain is revenue positive right? It brings in more in revenue then it costs to operate. The Expo line has been like that for years, and since 2007 even the Millenium line has been revenue positive.

[van-island]

Please.

A system that has no way of counting how many people board or alight from it cannot claim to operate "at a profit" with any sort of legitimacy.

And then throw in long-term debt servicing costs related to Skytrain, and you're off in never never land. These have most likely been combined into general TransLink debt, so I doubt even they could tell you with any accuracy how much they still owe on the system, and how much debt servicing costs for Skytrain specifically are.

I remember those news items about Skytrain being profitable - I don't think they were any more than very general assumptions made from overall revenue estimates and were first and foremost a public relations story.

[Daguy]

Originally Posted by van-island

Maybe it's time to reconsider what is bankrupting TransLink:

Skytrain.

Go past 49th Avenue station on the Canada Line and look at the huge ducting fans on top of the station. In addition to the actual construction of the line itself, which would destroy any region our size financially, think how much it will cost to run all that other infrastructure 24/7 for the life of the line.

Now compare with street-level light rail (which we had almost everywhere up until 1958), which is not only around 1/10th of the cost to build, but it also doesn't need all that other secondary infrastructure that requires such high ongoing costs. We need to build transit systems that are within our financial grasp, both to build and to maintain long-term.

It's time to make do with what money we have. Getting rid of half the "planners" at TransLink would be another great move.

This is just one example, but the point is that TransLink's main financial problem is SkyTrain, and it has been for a while now.

Light rail may be cheaper, but in Vancouver I can't see how it would encourage more people to leave their cars. In Calgary for example grade separating the majority of the system was quite straight forward as much more available space was available while retaining a largely at-grade system.

In Metro Vancouver the average commute time is already about an hour. Look at why the Evergreen Line was switched back to Skytrain: the travel times would have been rediculous as LRT. LRT in Vancouver will certainly not be grade separated. Time is money, and also this isn't just about profit, but getting people out of their cars to reduce congestion and carbon emissions.

Also I really believe that the system has failed to generate ridership like in Calgary due to lack of comprehensive coverage. This is going to change quickly, with the Canada Line opening next year and the Evergreen Line by 2014. Also improvements to bus frequency over the coming years play an even larger role imo, as the buses are the feeders to the Skytrain. For example, last year I was going to Boulevard Casino weekly, and one of the major reasons I didn't take skytrain was that the buses to the casino came about once an hour at night. If that was increased to even every 30 minutes I would have been more inclined to take the Skytrain to Braid Station, as I pretty much use Skytrain as often as possible unless it is very inconvient.

[DKaz]

Before we get into the argument that we could've gotten an extensive system had we gone with LRT in the first place, I estimate that LRT is only 20% cheaper than Skytrain. So for the extra 20-40% we get a system that has a 20% higher average and maximum operating speed, is not subject to traffic rules when operating in mixed traffic (the LRT in Edmonton running along 111 St. will have a speed limit of 60km/h!!!), and will not tie up traffic when crossing roads. True we might have an extra 10km of train lines right now but if it took 50-60 minutes to get from King George to Waterfront, I don't think it'd do quite as well.

[DKaz]

Wait a minute, those who own a vehicle and pay a vehicle levy get a free transit pass? Sucks if you don't own a car then like almost half the transit users.

[van-island]

Daguy, separating the ROW (it doesn't have to be elevated) in Metro Vancouver is not difficult, but it does require massive political cojones because doing so will force cars to wait for passing trains and drivers will cry and bitch and moan if they have to wait.

However, many systems do so successfully, and neighbourhoods are better off for it, as the numbers of people walking and riding the train increase, and use of the urban blight causer known as the car decreases.

This is the practice all over Europe and Japan. If implemented on say the Arbutus Line, it would be in the form of gates dropping whenever a car came, forcing traffic to wait as long as necessary.

Look at Marine Drive Station for the Canada Line, where elevating the line has given the car six lanes underneath the line to move freely. Is this a place where people want to be? Even if there were shops and restaurants along that stretch, who would actually want to spend time there as six lanes of traffic roar by nonstop?

Skytrain is all about keeping the cars moving; it's not about faster travel times, nor making great urban places. What encourages people to leave their cars are these quality urban spaces. Skytrain is very poor at promoting these types of places (Joyce is touted as a success story - ha!) while on-street light rail, in my experience in Europe and Japan, attracts people out of their cars, simple because it attracts quality public space. For a lot less, I might add.

So again, separated ROW are possible, even here in Vancouver. But it means saying, "This is a place for people, not cars. If you choose to drive, don't expect to be given priority."

[ssiguy2]

I agree with the ext of the MLine as SkyTrain as one line should be the same tech to avoid transfers. That sa

[ssiguy2]

Sorry,

Anyway the MLine should have been LRT in the first place. Much cheaper to build, cheap to maintain, fast, reliable, and has the flex of elevated/tunneled, and at-grade that SkyTrain doesn't. That is why the Broadway/UBC ext is going to cost a small fortune........half the route, Alma to UBC, is going to have to be tunnelled and then elevated like the norm. If it was LRT it could be tunneled to alma and then at grade and save themselves $800-$1,000 million, but then was a cool billion between friends?.

Canada Line should NEVER have been a tunnel. ROW thru downtown and then tunnel from Broadway to KingEd and then at grade. Even Translink said that it would save nearly ANOTHER $800,000,000. Now due to Translinks/Van city/Prov we are stuck with expensive systems that Translink can't afford to run or expand without $500,000,000 deficits which means everything will go up , especially transit fares. Only Translink would seer that as an aid to raising Vancouver's poor transit ridership levels.

As Cal/Edm/Tor/Mon/Ott and most european and American cities see the cost advantages of LRT, Vancouver goes the other way. It has tried this before and all it did was coninue with its poor transit ridership and high debt loads.

[DKaz]

Forgetting the fact that the Cambie NIMBYers did not want anything to ruin the aesthetics of Cambie... so it was tunneled or nothing. The cheapest bid that kept the Cambie residents happy ringed in at $1.9 billion.

The 30 minute travel time from Richmond to Vancouver also kept LRT from winning the bid, plus the fact that running it at grade on Cambie would've destroyed Cambie Boulevard and therefore we would've had to tunnel LRT anyway.

Sorry ssiguy2, your Canada Line arguments are out to lunch. LRT would make sense along Arbutus and in Surrey where you can design LRTs to run at Skytrain average speeds, and I agree that M-Line should've been LRT in the first place but we can thank Glen Clark for that. Regardless, what's done is done. Why don't we make the best of things rather than whine?

[matthewcs]

This is a technical question, so it's quite possibly in the wrong forum:

Why can LRT's not be built elevated like the skytrain? My understanding of the skytrain's cost is its linear propulsion system, rather than the physical infastructure.

Just wondering.

[deasine]

I stand affirm that LRT isn't the solution for Vancouver to Richmond. ssiguy always had an issue with SkyTrain & the fact that the platforms of the Canada Line aren't long enough... whatever we are done with that. No more of repeating what you said was wrong in the past.

Who said LRTs can't be built elevated? Just look down the border, a lot of the LRT is HIGH above ground - it is especially noticeable if you drive down I-5.

[DKaz]

Yah the LIM system is pretty pricey but it's extremely efficient so overall operating costs are lower. The Canada Line uses standard propulsion motors, third rail, and heavy rail vehicles like Toronto and New York. Overhead cables are also an option but the tunnels would have to be bigger.

A lot of Seattle's LRT is elevated or tunnelled so it's costed them an absolute fortune to build. A lot of it has to do with Seattle's existing density and numerous hills. Trains have a maximum grade of 6%-ish.

[Quimby]

Why not give municipalities the right to tax cars as property?
Each municipality takes it roads and transit budgets and applies them to the total value of vehicles in the municipality to get a rate per $1,000 of value.
This is done in many states to the south, some include boats,campers, even appliances in their property taxes.

Using GVRD, what is the budget for roads and transit? Answer =B

What is the estimated value of vehicles in GVRD? Answer = V

(V/B)/1000= tax rate per 1000s

I would guess it is no more then $50 per $1000. This would also reduced property taxes on homes/businesses by removing a large portion of the budget from that calculation. It also buts the cost of roads on the drivers.

[dleung]

Exactly, make driving prohibitively expensive, and use the money for transit. Btw, LRT is only cheap in it's most basic form, when they're built like a bus lane, which offers no advantage over driving. Want grade separation? dedicated right of way? vehicles that run faster than theme park trams? You start approaching Skytrain costs (but not the efficiency), while skytrain is relatively cheap compared to subways in other cities.

[Quimby]

Originally Posted by dleung

Exactly, make driving prohibitively expensive, and use the money for transit. Btw, LRT is only cheap in it's most basic form, when they're built like a bus lane, which offers no advantage over driving. Want grade separation? dedicated right of way? vehicles that run faster than theme park trams? You start approaching Skytrain costs (but not the efficiency), while skytrain is relatively cheap compared to subways in other cities.

It wouldn't even be that expensive.
Translink's budget for 2007 was $925 million. Using that figure for a low end figure, and assuming 1.5 million vehicles in GVRD (probably low) with an average value of $10,000 ( low) and you get a total value of $15 billion.

$925M/$15B =0.06167 x 1000 = $61.67 per $1,000 of value.
So a small new car valued at $20,000 would cost an extra $1,233 per year

It is probably less then this because I am sure that there is more then 1.5 million vehicles in GVRD.