Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[DKaz]

Financial investment companies who have to work around the Toronto and New York Stock Exchange's hours for example. 9:30am to 4:00pm EST = 6am to 2pm days here. The earliest West Coast Express doesn't arrive in Vancouver until 6:40am.

West Coast Express and Evergreen Line will complement each other.

[SpongeG]

yah thats true never thought of working hours the traditional ones are dead

i still think the evergreen is a waste compared to getting the broadway extension in

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/hope+TransLink+funding/4801866/story.html

Well, now that BC Transit has come back with a billion dollar plan for light rail in Victoria the government needs to spend some money to keep voters happy for the next election. Building light rail on the Island will steal some of the NDP's anti-Metro rhetoric's thunder.

Using money from the Carbon tax to get construction started on the Evergreen line and Victoria LRT will definitely win some votes, even if due to the revenue neutral nature of the carbon tax, the money comes from cuts to other programs.

Light rail moving ahead in the Capital Region could be the savior that gets Evergreen built. With a major transit project finally taking shape outside Vancouver, it will be hard for the province to ignore transit needs. And once you spend a billion on Victoria, $400 million in Vancouver is an easy and justifiable call.

[Zassk]

I think the Victoria LRT going ahead will also help with public acceptance of an LRT for Surrey.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

yah thats true never thought of working hours the traditional ones are dead

i still think the evergreen is a waste compared to getting the broadway extension in

I agree with you that if all lines were at an equal stage of development right now, the extension along Broadway would be my first choice, quickly followed by the Evergreen Line and then the Surrey extension/s.

But, given the current situation (such as the political and community support for the Evergreen Line vs. the NIMBY attitude of the Broadway community with the Cambie street fiasco memories still fresh, the decades of promises for the Evergreen Line, and simply how far along the financial commitment, environmental certification and design is of the Evergreen Line) it only makes sense to build the Evergreen Line first / ASAP.

Now, what I would have loooooooved is to have the Evergreen Line project to also include the first phase of the Broadway extension to the C-Line.

[paradigm4]

Originally Posted by Zassk

I think the Victoria LRT going ahead will also help with public acceptance of an LRT for Surrey.

Agreed. Most locals don't know what LRT is or how exactly it would fit into a community or transit system. This could be the beachhead Metro Van needs to build pubic acceptance for LRT as a secondary transit network.

[mezzanine]

july/august?

In a statement, Clark said she's ready to consider using the carbon tax to support regional initiatives such as public transit.

Such a move must ensure only carbon tax revenue from the Lower Mainland goes to TransLink, she said, so northern B.C. residents don't pay for SkyTrain extensions.
...
Negotiations with the province have since resumed in the search for new sources of cash, potentially through expanded tolls, road pricing or imposition of an annual vehicle levy.
....
He hopes to make "significant progress" with provincial officials by July.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/richmond_southdelta/southdeltaleader/news/122254613.html

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/business/hope+TransLink+funding/4801866/story.html

I saw the other Carbon tax article in the Sun Saturday:

"However, the carbon tax turned out to be revenue negative, rather than revenue neutral, meaning the government took in less money than it needed to cover the tax cuts. According to the last provincial budget, the reduction in provincial revenue through the tax measures in 2009-10 exceeded the $542 million in carbon tax revenue by $187 million. In 2010-11, it took in $122 million less than the carbon tax revenue of $740 million and the forecast for 2012-13 is that it will take in $242 million less than the $1.2 billion carbon tax revenue.

Rather than deliver money for government to spend on transit, or anything else for that matter, the carbon tax has blown a fiscal hole in the budget."

http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Funding+transit+with+carbon+Ponzi+scheme/4821766/story.html

Seems the Carbon Tax - even after being increased every year - has never been 'revenue neutral', and the BC Government is learning the same harsh lessons learned by other governments around the world: lowering business and personal taxes to offset the Carbon Tax means less net revenue is coming in.

Now with the Carbon Tax actually being "Revenue Negative", can someone explain how to use the Carbon Tax to pay for transit instead of covering some of the losses from`lowered business and personal taxes? I smell new user fees, raised taxes, and a new "Translink Surcharge" (they won't actually call it that - they'll find a warm & fuzzy name for it) showing up on your Hydro bills, ICBC renewals and other payment notices from BC Gov't agencies.

I can see the Spin Doctors are already working overtime on this one ...

[racc]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Rather than deliver money for government to spend on transit, or anything else for that matter, the carbon tax has blown a fiscal hole in the budget."

Get serious. It is pretty obvious that Carbon Tax has not "blown a fiscal hole in the budget." In fact, it is impossible for any source of revenue to blow a hole in a budget. It is the tax cuts that were brought in at the same time as Carbon Tax that blew the budget.

Kinda like getting a paycheque blowing it all in one night on partying and saying the paycheque is the reason why you are broke.

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I can see the Spin Doctors are already working overtime on this one ...

After posts like this, it looks like you might have a future as one yourself.

[Prometheus]

Originally Posted by racc

Get serious. It is pretty obvious that Carbon Tax has not "blown a fiscal hole in the budget." In fact, it is impossible for any source of revenue to blow a hole in a budget. It is the tax cuts that were brought in at the same time as Carbon Tax that blew the budget.

Kinda like getting a paycheque blowing it all in one night on partying and saying the paycheque is the reason why you are broke.

You just underscored the fact that only spending blows budgets, not tax cuts.

The act of making less one year does not blow my budget. Failing to adjust my spending to a level that my new paycheque allows is what blows my budget.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by racc

Get serious. It is pretty obvious that Carbon Tax has not "blown a fiscal hole in the budget." In fact, it is impossible for any source of revenue to blow a hole in a budget. It is the tax cuts that were brought in at the same time as Carbon Tax that blew the budget.

Kinda like getting a paycheque blowing it all in one night on partying and saying the paycheque is the reason why you are broke.

After posts like this, it looks like you might have a future as one yourself.

I think you are missing the point of the article.

The problem is that the government claimed that tax revenues would remain the same when they implemented the Carbon tax while also reducing income tax and other taxes. This has not been the case, the Carbon tax has not been able to fill the gap of the taxes that were cut. That is the problem.

If the plan was to properly fund transit with the Carbon Tax then no cuts should have been done on the other taxes.

So using the Carbon Tax now for transit will hurt may other services / sectors due to this remaining funding gap.

[Millennium2002]

Off topic:
In other words, that tax should be scrapped. (The HST on the other hand shouldn't move an inch.) Frankly the current provincial government has really messed us up by jumping around and experimenting with all sorts of taxes. Now the public is (perhaps illogically) rebelling against it... and at a time where extra cash would be beneficial.

Back on topic:
Frankly it'll be a miracle if this starts up by the end of the year... too many debates on growth, density, priorities, funding, etc etc. I appreciate the democratic process at work but sometimes there's a point where you have to say... "this MUST be done"! = \

[crazyjoeda]

What I don't understand is why did the government bring in the carbon tax and then later exempt gas from the full HST?

Green transportation such as bicycles were exempt from PST but now the full HST is applied while fuel gets an exemption. It's illogical, gas should not be exempt from the provincial share of HST.

[WarrenC12]

I think it was just too much to swallow, particularly for Metro Vancouver area drivers, who already have a Translink levy on gas. Another 7% would have people marching to Victoria with torches and pitchforks.

allan_kuan, why do you think the tax should be scrapped?

I'm in favor of sales taxes over income taxes. "Sin taxes" like additional tax on booze, cigarettes and polluting energy are even better, IMHO.

For the record, I am a drinker but not a smoker.

[Millennium2002]

Well my idea was just following the logic that the carbon tax was actually revenue-negative... =S In which case we're probably missing some funds that could have been invested in Evergreen Line (as an example of all the projects that are incomplete).

As for income tax vs sales tax... meh I don't know what to say. I'm favour of the former since it seems socially fair as a progressive tax compared to sales tax which in some circles is considered regressive or proportional depending on the thinking. Also in some ways it could be called a "quiet" tax that few people ever seem to complain about compared to say the HST or GST (although the furor over the HST is probably due more to the BC government hiding and being vague about it than anything else).

Taxes on "restricted" products like alcohol and tobacco seem like good ideas too, although I guess I have to keep in mind also that too high taxes = good place for black market. In fact, even more off topic... is it just me or has there been an increase in smoking due to the influx of mainland Chinese immigrants?

Anyway, all of this reminds me and makes me wonder... will Metro Vancouver ever get off its feet soon, add funding to TransLink, and start construction like what they're doing in Los Angeles of all places?

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

What I don't understand is why did the government bring in the carbon tax and then later exempt gas from the full HST?

Green transportation such as bicycles were exempt from PST but now the full HST is applied while fuel gets an exemption. It's illogical, gas should not be exempt from the provincial share of HST.

Apples to Oranges. Unfortunately the PST portion exemption on fuel (you pay 5% instead of full 12% on fuel) is only ever compared to Bicycles by people against the HST. That's not actually fair. One is a consumed commodity, the other is an object.

So really you should compare buying a car to buying a bike. In both case you pay full HST. The BC government in the past put forward a PST exemption for bicycles as part of its climate action initiative. HST is Federal so is not privy to those initiatives which is why bikes fell off the list (they aren't seen as a necessity by the Federal government).

While I can see your argument from an environmental perspective I don't see the argument of comparing fuel taxes to buying a bike. The comparision should be fuel exemptions to food exemptions because:

fuel powers cars
food powers you which powers bikes

And by that you will notice that essential foods ARE NOT just PST portion exempt but full HST exempt.

Now for a pure reality argument, the only reason fuel is PST portion exempt is because it can affect the economy in ways bicycles can't. If you were to exempt or not exempt bicycles, it won't hit the consumer's bottom line. Why? Because quite frankly people and industry don't care about bicycles specifically.

Now on the flip side, if you were to suddenly increase taxation on fuel to 12% instead of 5%, that would affect everyone. Why? Because you suddenly push up all fuel prices which are used for goods movement (remember not just cars use fuel, planes, trucks, ships, etc. use fuel) which in turn will drive up the cost of goods. As shipping prices go up so does your bottom line. I think you'd also find that bicycles would indirectly also go up in price since they aren't produced in Canada and do get shipped here.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect if fuel tax went from 5% to 12% that you would see a 5-7% increase in goods prices as a result of increased shipping charges. That pretty much would not only negate your "savings" but now it wouldn't just be bikes that went up in price, it would be everything INCLUDING food which are HST exempt fully already and which are ongoing costs unlike buying a bike. All those fruits grown in the Okanagan would go up. All the Bananas from Mexico would go up. All the products that use grain from the praries would go up. _everything_.

So your little one time $120 payment savings on a $1000 bike would cost the entire economy hundreds of millions of dollars.

I guess what I'm trying to say to people that argue the fuel exemption compared to bicycle purchase non exemption, STOP BEING SO DAMNED SELF CENTERED.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by jhausner

Apples to Oranges. Unfortunately the PST portion exemption on fuel (you pay 5% instead of full 12% on fuel) is only ever compared to Bicycles by people against the HST. That's not actually fair. One is a consumed commodity, the other is an object.

So really you should compare buying a car to buying a bike. In both case you pay full HST. The BC government in the past put forward a PST exemption for bicycles as part of its climate action initiative. HST is Federal so is not privy to those initiatives which is why bikes fell off the list (they aren't seen as a necessity by the Federal government).

While I can see your argument from an environmental perspective I don't see the argument of comparing fuel taxes to buying a bike. The comparison should be fuel exemptions to food exemptions because:

fuel powers cars
food powers you which powers bikes

And by that you will notice that essential foods ARE NOT just PST portion exempt but full HST exempt.

Now for a pure reality argument, the only reason fuel is PST portion exempt is because it can affect the economy in ways bicycles can't. If you were to exempt or not exempt bicycles, it won't hit the consumer's bottom line. Why? Because quite frankly people and industry don't care about bicycles specifically.

Now on the flip side, if you were to suddenly increase taxation on fuel to 12% instead of 5%, that would affect everyone. Why? Because you suddenly push up all fuel prices which are used for goods movement (remember not just cars use fuel, planes, trucks, ships, etc. use fuel) which in turn will drive up the cost of goods. As shipping prices go up so does your bottom line. I think you'd also find that bicycles would indirectly also go up in price since they aren't produced in Canada and do get shipped here.

It wouldn't be unreasonable to expect if fuel tax went from 5% to 12% that you would see a 5-7% increase in goods prices as a result of increased shipping charges. That pretty much would not only negate your "savings" but now it wouldn't just be bikes that went up in price, it would be everything INCLUDING food which are HST exempt fully already and which are ongoing costs unlike buying a bike. All those fruits grown in the Okanagan would go up. All the Bananas from Mexico would go up. All the products that use grain from the praries would go up. _everything_.

So your little one time $120 payment savings on a $1000 bike would cost the entire economy hundreds of millions of dollars.

I guess what I'm trying to say to people that argue the fuel exemption compared to bicycle purchase non exemption, STOP BEING SO DAMNED SELF CENTERED.

I certainly hope you aren't saying that there's a 1:1 relationship between fuel required to ship and the price of the item?

In order to increase the price of a shipped box of apples by 5% (because of an additional 7% tax in fuel), it would mean that out of the $7.50 price of the apples, $5.00 is petroleum required to grow and ship 'em. I'd love to see what the breakdown for the actual costs of growing and selling food actually is.

Even if 20% of the price of a box of apples goes toward buying petroleum to transport it from the interior, the increase to the good is 7% of 20%... or in this example: $0.11, increasing the price of apples 1.4% to $7.61 / box.

If fuel accounts for less than %20 of the cost, this would obviously be less.

In addition:

Federal Excise tax - 10.00 cents/litre
Local Transit tax - 15.00 cents/litre
Transport Financing Authority tax - 6.75 cents/litre
Carbon tax - 4.45 cents/litre
Provincial Motor Fuel Tax - 1.75 cents/litre

Total of these taxes is 39.85 cents/litre

The full 12% HST wouldn't be double taxed (as far as I know) and would end up being about a 5% increase overall on existing fuel prices (7% on the untaxed subtotal).

I guess what I'm trying to say is that although the cost of fuel would increase, people would adjust and it wouldn't affect transportation and food cost as much as we think.

In fact, as prices of fuel increase other options become more and more attractive.

[GMasterAres]

No I'm not. I grant you it isn't a 1 to 1 and you can break down all kinds of formulas if you want.

The following isn't directly targetted at your point twoNeurons btw, I don't want you to get the wrong idea. I can tell from your post above that you and I are actually on similar wave lengths and you were simply calling to debate the points I made.

As a side note: Fuel is already double taxed just for your records. HST@5% is applied on the price of fuel + all our provincial taxes such as the fuel surcharge, carbon tax, and translink. That doesn't really matter though at the end because when you're comparing 5% to 12% both would be applied on the same amount so ultimately it would still only increase fuel by 7% overall.

On today's taxation matrix for Metro Vancouver I'll save you the math, gas at the pump would go up by around 9 cents a litre if the HST went up to 12% on gas. Fuel for ships, planes, etc., is no exactly the same as how we get taxed for cars (example I don't believe there is a Translink charge on it) but it would still up every litre of gas by 7% meaning cost of fuel goes up by 7%.

Our gas taxes are fixed so you can in essence ignore them.

Anyway...

What my point was is that it would have an increase and that increase would be commulative over time since you pay it over and over vs Mr. Bicycle who has to pay a bit extra tax ONCE.

Let's say for example your groceries you buy every week go up by 2% because of fuel. The average family household (family with 2 kids) will go through around $150-$200 per week in groceries.

We'll take $150 and say that is now $600 per month in groceries roughly. Up that by 2% and you're now paying $612 on groceries. That may seem like a small number but remember it is over time. So in 1 year that is $150 x 52 weeks which is $7800 a year. Increase that by 2% and you're at $156 more now per year that this family has to pay in groceries.

Now I bring us back to Mr. Bicycle complaining about paying full HST on his or her bike. Say they buy a $1,000 bike, a very nice bike indeed, not the best but not the worst. @ 12% HST they are paying $1120 so $120 in tax.

Now let's give this guy a PST portion exemption so his price for his bike drops to 5% HST. Now they pay $1050 so a savings of $70.

So for this guy to save $70 on the purchase of a bike, a 1 time savings I will point out since his bike will probably last at least 5 years minimum, every single family in metro Vancouver will have to pay $156 more per year in groceries.

Thus why I'm saying it is just a selfish non-big picture notion. It would be GREAT to pay no taxes on anything anywhere and get every service you could imagine but the real world doesn't work that way. The unfortunate issue is that BC did exempt bikes at one point of PST so people buying them got used to this fact. Now they're sad that it is gone.

Oh well.

Even if fuel tax increase bumped up prices by only 1% (which I think is extremely reasonable to expect), the family buying groceries in 1 year would pay an extra $78 which is still $8 more than the savings of Mr. Bicycle. In 2 years they pay double. In 3 triple. Multiply that by 100,000 families.

You now have a far greater economic impact than making Mr. Bicycle who is a vast minority unhappy.

Not to mention we have to remember, Mr. Bicycle is ALSO buying groceries. So Mr Bicycle in a year has basically undone any silly PST savings from buying his bicycle.

People seem to just never look at the big picture when it comes to these things. They listen to the headlines on the radio or read them in the news paper or listen to a random person spouting off a "THE RECKONING IS COMING" style slogan and form an entire opinion on a subject that completely laughs in the face of reality.

[crazyjoeda]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I think it was just too much to swallow, particularly for Metro Vancouver area drivers, who already have a Translink levy on gas. Another 7% would have people marching to Victoria with torches and pitchforks.

allan_kuan, why do you think the tax should be scrapped?

I'm in favor of sales taxes over income taxes. "Sin taxes" like additional tax on booze, cigarettes and polluting energy are even better, IMHO.

For the record, I am a drinker but not a smoker.

Fuel for cars is polluting energy so applying the provincial portion of the HST is appropriate. Gas isn't that expensive now, in fact driving is more affordable today than if has been in the past. Even if it were $2 a liter people will still drive, but they would probably drive smarter and choose more efficient vehicles.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

Fuel for cars is polluting energy so applying the provincial portion of the HST is appropriate. Gas isn't that expensive now, in fact driving is more affordable today than if has been in the past. Even if it were $2 a liter people will still drive, but they would probably drive smarter and choose more efficient vehicles.

I didn't say it wasn't appropriate, I said it was political suicide. Looks bad enough as it is. The HST is going to get shot down in the referendum anyway, and we'll be in a worse pile of —, economically and financially.

I hope whatever changes Clark has in mind will help it to pass, but I'm doubtful.