Posted Jan 18, 2010, 10:53 PM
|
|
Registered User
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 41,814
|
|
Another article - more pressure on Broadway & Commercial - but with a more practical tone overall - i.e. "Surrey Central is still a work in progress - as opposed to an inflamatory tone...
Quote:
How to finance TransLink
By Michael Goldberg, Special to the Sun
January 18, 2010
Finances once again plague Trans-Link. Despite more than $7 billion invested in public transit, Trans-Link has little ability to pay for capital or operating expenses and earn a return for British Columbians. The TransLink board is forced to reduce desired service levels and expansion plans to meet this financial stress.
Relatively simple and proven solutions abound in dozens of cities around the world. The tools to implement these solutions unfortunately are not within TransLink's limited powers, resting largely with the province. For TransLink to prosper it needs greater powers to meet its responsibilities and expectations.
In successful transit systems, transit is planned and operated as part of an integrated urban transportation system. Transportation and land-use planning and development are closely integrated and often within the same agency. Given this integration, transit-transportation agencies usually have broad powers to set transit fees and road tolls to balance the real costs borne by automobile and transit users. Many have significant powers over land use and urban development adjacent to stations, which provides: the ability to share in the increased land values that result from higher accessibility and land values near stations; large pools of riders who live, work and shop in transit-linked dense development; and strong rental income for transit operators by leasing station property to retail and service businesses. Finally, most have powers to borrow for capital needs.
TransLink has none of these powers and cannot appropriate the associated financial benefits that they bring. It exists in an environment with very limited supportive zoning and development planning around stations by municipalities (especially Vancouver). Ridership and revenue fall well below what they can be, resulting in financial stress.
Let's explore the benefits to transit financing and service levels if Trans-Link were given the following two key powers: to set transit fees and road tolls to balance the real costs borne by automobile and transit users; and to set land use and zoning adjacent to stations. To understand the importance of these, let's see what happens because TransLink does not have these powers.
The inability to set transit fees and road tolls means transit riders pay virtually the full cost of the transit services they use, but automobile users pay much less, especially considering the congestion and pollution costs they impose and the subsidies they receive from free streets and roads. Transit thus operates at a considerable cost disadvantage and the ability to switch automobile users to more environmentally sound and land-use conserving transit is severely hampered. The playing field is not level; it's tilted against transit in an era of increasing concern about sprawl, congestion and greenhouse gases. Conclusion: TransLink needs the ability to set tolls on roads, particularly tolls that vary with peak demand, to help manage automobile and highway use and put transit on an even cost footing.
Next consider the inability of Trans-Link to set land use and zoning adjacent to stations. Most transit stations, especially those in Vancouver, are surrounded by low-density land uses, producing low ridership levels and tax revenues. There are good examples of station-area density in Burnaby: Metrotown and Patterson are notable but still densify less than half of the optimum station impact area. Emerging station-area development in Surrey City Centre, New Westminster's core and Richmond City Centre with the Canada Line are still works in progress and unable as yet to have a positive impact for TransLink.
Turning to the worst examples of station area development, Vancouver tops the list: Commercial and Broadway is the worst, Oakridge close behind, and the supposedly "densified" Cambie and Broadway is also ludicrously underdeveloped despite exceptional transit access and ridership potential.
The opportunity costs of not having higher densities are high: less flexible land uses and lower ridership. Without a larger customer base, a financially unsustainable TransLink results, as does continued sprawl development, decreased housing affordability, inefficient urban form, congestion and pollution -- all creating a region less conducive to attracting businesses and talent for the future, leading to decreased global competitiveness from high internal transportation and real property costs.
Potential benefits from granting TransLink needed powers are equally high, including: an added tax base through higher density; compact, efficient urban form and low servicing costs; added toll revenues while shifting auto users to transit; greatly increased ridership and fare box revenue; and a more economically and ecologically sustainable region.
We have not seized the opportunities TransLink created, while simultaneously imperilling its finances. We need to equip TransLink with the powers to succeed and do it quickly given long planning and development lags in transportation and property development.
The future can and should be rosy. The needed changes exist in hundreds of cities globally.
There is nothing scary that we have to do -- we have already densified successfully and have lots of successful models to borrow.
Michael Goldberg is at the Sauder School of Business at the University of British Columbia.
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
|
|
Prev
Linear Mode
