Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

I will begrudgingly support this gas tax to get the Evergreen Line moving.

I just angers me that they have decided upon a flat tax that hits the lower income / working poor harder than the wealthy, unlike the proposed property tax which hits the wealthy more than the lower income.

While I feel what you are saying, in that the fuel tax can adversely affect the people who can't afford to get by, it is offset by the fact that property taxes in the Lower Mainland are some of the lowest in Canada.

For Pinion, he should count his blessings that he is in CNV instead of on the Island. In Nanaimo a house with a assessed value of $250,000 pays over $2000 in tax, in CVN, that bill is about $1200. In Toronto you would pay $2000. 2 cents a litre seems small compared to property taxes they have elsewhere.

But, IMO, this is better than the vehicle levy (at this time). At least for the working poor, if the cost of fuel is too much for a long daily commute, they can switch to transit and still not be punished if they have a car they use on weekends to take their kids to Soccer Practice. A vehicle levy is a swift kick in the balls to the poor compared to a fuel tax of 2 cents. The fuel tax is a consumption tax that reflects how much someone uses the infrastructure and how much they pollute. While it will be hard on some of the poor, it is still more "fair" than other options. It will also be offset by the increased access to transit that the line will bring, making it more affordable to live in the Tri-cities, and making roads less busy for the rest of us elsewhere.


P.S. Won't this tax be applied to Translinks basic expansion plan and not just the Evergreen line? So isn't it possible that the tax will also fund projects like the Surrey B line and third Seabus as is outlined in the upgrade from status-quo?

P.P.S Thansk Mezzanine, it looks like it does.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Well, i sure remember when i made a lot less money the only cars I could afford were old inefficient models, and i needed to use them for work.

Buying a new compact efficient car, that was a dream!!!!

There's still always old compacts. Up until 2008 a lot of people considered Geo Metros and the like throwaways.

[giallo]

Great news!

[Millennium2002]

Reading the News 1130 comments makes me appalled... everyone else is ranting on and on about it... like... "transit users should pay more!" (no) or "tax the cities / suburbs more" (no) or the worst... "scrap the project!" (hell no). A few comments from the "usual suspects" even suggested "change the technology!". =_=" (sigh) Can people actually get a grasp of things instead of thinking that everything is deserved without paying? Or are the income taxes just that invisible? ><"

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

For Pinion, he should count his blessings that he is in CNV instead of on the Island. In Nanaimo a house with a assessed value of $250,000 pays over $2000 in tax, in CVN, that bill is about $1200. In Toronto you would pay $2000.

Not a fair comparison, because the amount you pay in property tax is governed by the mill rate, which is a function of the average property values and the municipal budget. Mill rates vary dramatically from municipality to municipality, so you can't make property tax comparisons based solely on property values.

While I don't know exactly what the property values are like I'm willing to bet that $250,000 is a lot closer to the value of a typical Nanaimo property than it is a North Van property. If the typical Nanaimo property is $250K and the typical North Van property is $500K, then given your figures the North Vancouverite will actually be paying more property tax.

[geoff's two cents]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

the working poor

Originally Posted by BCPhil

they have a car they use on weekends to take their kids to Soccer Practice

Damn. If this is poor, I'm. . . utterly destitute?

Agreed of course that the gas tax makes more sense than a vehicle levy. It's not a long-term funding solution, but it's a start.

[mezzanine]

from TL's website. One more round of consultation (again? ) then we start bulding and the gas tax comes on in april 2012.

Moving Forward received strong public and stakeholder endorsement, but lacked an approved funding formula needed to support it. With the announcement earlier today that the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation and the provincial government have agreed on a way to provide $70 million in additional annual revenue, TransLink will bring back the plan for a final round of public comment over the next two weeks.

In addition to gathering comments via its web site, TransLink will hold a region-wide ‘webinar’ – an internet-based audio/video program providing full details of the Moving Forward plan – scheduled for 7 pm on Tuesday, July 19th. The webinar will include e-mail and phone-in feedback to the TransLink planners, who will moderate the session and report the results back to the Board of Directors and the Mayors’ Council.

http://www.translink.ca/en/About-TransLi...k-to-Move-Forward-with-improvements.aspx

[NucksFanInVan]

I'd really love to see a comparison of Canadian ( / North American / World) cities based on what percentage of property taxes go to funding transit. I seem to recall an article - possibly the Georgia Strait? - from about 8 years ago that compared Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, and Montreal. IIRC, we were not only the lowest, but the lowest by a fair margin (as % of revenue).

Anyone have any more recent info or data on this? That would go a long way to explaining why our fares and gas taxes are significantly higher, but we still lose money.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Not a fair comparison, because the amount you pay in property tax is governed by the mill rate, which is a function of the average property values and the municipal budget. Mill rates vary dramatically from municipality to municipality, so you can't make property tax comparisons based solely on property values.

While I don't know exactly what the property values are like I'm willing to bet that $250,000 is a lot closer to the value of a typical Nanaimo property than it is a North Van property. If the typical Nanaimo property is $250K and the typical North Van property is $500K, then given your figures the North Vancouverite will actually be paying more property tax.

But this isn't a typical scenario, it is a specific one. Most people buy what they can afford, not what they ultimately need. If you can afford a $500,000 condo in North Vancouver, then you should be able to afford a $500,000 house in Nanaimo. If you could, wouldn't you? If you don't because you don't need a house that size, then I don't see how that logically translates backwards to be willing to pay more for the privileged of living on the North Shore when you could just as easily live further away at less cost. If he is making extraordinary budget sacrifices to live a lifestyle he can barely afford, then there is more relative things to complain about than the tax burden he pays to sustain his lifestyle.

So I think it is a fair comparison in that he is willing to pay whatever he pays now to live on the North Shore, when he could be living somewhere else with the same budget on shelter, therefore comparing the actual tax dollar value for similar priced homes is valid. His tax burden living on the North Shore is less than if he had the same budget living elsewhere in the province or country (and CNV brags about having some of the lowest taxes in the GVRD).

But if you do want to base the comparison on percentages, then its percentages of income. If spending is constant across all fields (I spend 40% of my income on housing, and 20% on travel and so on...) then the effect of the mill rate is noticeable as a % of income (4.1% in Vancouver or almost 12% in Port Alberni). Higher mill rates mean a higher portion of income goes towards city taxes, so in other communities, your tax burden is higher as a portion of your income.

He is complaining about a 2 cents a liter tax, when the mill rate in the GVRD is about half of what it is in rural communities BC, where they have NO services like transit.

[queetz@home]

Pinion's opinions, as well as those in News 1130 is annoying tbh. I especially get fried when, say someone claims he lives in Vancouver and say they don't want to pay for transit improvements in the suburbs....well if it weren't for the surburbs (and Coquitlam in particular because of Kingsbury), there won't be a Canada Line or the trolley buses that mostly the city of Vancouver enjoys.

But wrt to the Evergreen, anyone whose been following this for a long time can't help but feel cynical, and the responses of some are quite justified. While this is probably the most progress this line has ever made ever since Stephen Harper's visit in the Burnaby skytrain yard, you have to see that there are two factors that can kill this momentum

1) Side effects of a lost HST referendum

2) The very possibility of the Provincial Elections in the Fall

Plus there could also be unforseen factors between now and when Lekstrom introduces the gas tax increase in the Legislature. So it will be a very anxious six months. We're almost in the finish line....but as the saying goes....don't count your chicks until their hatch. Or as a lot of NE sector residents and politicians would say....its never sure until the digging starts...

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

from TL's website. One more round of consultation (again? ) then we start bulding and the gas tax comes on in april 2012.



http://www.translink.ca/en/About-TransLi...k-to-Move-Forward-with-improvements.aspx

ugh, again??? We all know all the comments this time around will be the same anti tax, anti other region bull 🞵🞵🞵🞵 we are seeing on the news websites.

This to me seems like a very non needed round of public discussions.

If they were smart they would grab this deal and run. I want the Evergreen Line along with the long promised Expo station upgrades and rapid buses south of the river. Not to mention the extra funds for road repairs and cycling developments.

[whatnext]

Originally Posted by mezzanine

great news! more suprising is the lack of acrimony in today's announcement. I'm glad my predictions are wrong, for now.

http://www.bclocalnews.com/tri_city_maple_ridge/mapleridgenews/news/125100909.html

I trust you mean acrimony between the mayors? I would suspect each mayor will be getting a boatload of acrimony from their residents (and in an election year).

Why not just earmark all the carbon tax revenue for transit projects?

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by whatnext

I trust you mean acrimony between the mayors? I would suspect each mayor will be getting a boatload of acrimony from their residents (and in an election year).

correct re: applying to the mayor's council. The fact that some people wil complain about any tax changes is a given.

It seems that the mayors and victoria are on the same page, finally.

For example, i expected Derek "hate wizard" Corrigan suggesting to cut all supplemental funding 'to send victoria a message'.

Burnaby mayor Derek Corrigan believes the possible development of rapid transit along Broadway has blinkered Vancouver politicians to the funding constraints facing a regional transit authority he calls “bankrupt”.
...
He added that he favours a position of “no supplement”, which is the base-plan option. This would require “drastic cuts”, according to TransLink documents. (The remaining option, called “Funding Stabilization”, requires an additional $130 million a year above current levels.)

http://www.straight.com/article-260401/transit-gambit-condemned

or that we cut peter's bus service in surrey to pay for paul's evergreen line.

Burnaby Mayor Derek Corrigan, however, warned TransLink's plans are unaffordable and argued scarce funding should be used to sustain service to areas with strong existing ridership rather than areas with low transit use if cuts are required.

"There are significant subisides going into many of the South of Fraser routes that are questionable in terms of business efficiency," he said.

http://www.mikeclay.ca/printed.asp?active_page_id=1362

but he didn't. now let's start digging before mayors start fighting.

[Metro-One]

I would love to slap Corrigan, he perfectly displays the entire problem with his attitude

[Mac Write]

So much for the $450M we need to make transit attractive and keep up with demand.

[Zassk]

Does this mean the vaunted Murray-Clark connector finally has funding, and we can stop hearing about it every time another project is up for discussion?

[Pinion]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Surrey residents paid for that third Seabus just as much as you did.

There is no third seabus - not in use, at least. That is my point.

I am all for the Evergreen line. Don't get me wrong. But North Vancouver's been around for 100+ years and it feels like it'll be another 100 before anything's done here. I remember not that long ago when Port Coquitlam was nothing but empty land (my uncle bought one of the first houses in one of those terrible massive sprawl developments). When is it our turn to get decent infrastructure? Seems like tri-cities and other far away suburbs are jumping the queue.

Again, it's not some regional rivalry, it's just bemusement at not only getting passed up for transit improvement but having to pay more in gas for my tiny car that I never wanted to buy in the first place and can barely afford as-is.

[Metro-One]

Hate to say it but a lot of your problem lies with the local attitude of north shore residents and their politicians. I am willing to bet any major transit project there would meet fierce opposition. While in contrast, tri-cities have been lobbying and working hard to get mass transit, so IMO, they deserve it.

[usog]

Originally Posted by Pinion

Again, it's not some regional rivalry, it's just bemusement at not only getting passed up for transit improvement but having to pay more in gas for my tiny car that I never wanted to buy in the first place and can barely afford as-is.

Hello from Surrey, I think we've been screwed over more than you guys kthx. Dunno, nothing to do but wait for your turn in line like us.

[Millennium2002]

I guess there's a bit of resentment for being better established vs densifying quickly, like what they've done in the Tri-Cities.

I have sympathy for those who are stuck in the midst of it all on the north shore, but at the same time there are those that live amongst you who are staunchly opposed to new developments that could add transit users and therefore improve the case for say a third SeaBus or the like.

In the end, as much as TransLink can be seen as a government-supplied and subsidized social and mobility service, it's also a business that has to minimize expenditures while at the same time maximize the number of customers and revenue to pay off most of its debts, if not all of it. If this means going to other suburbs and building lines elsewhere in areas that have more potential, TransLink will do that.

You can argue firstly that North Vancouver already has a lot of developments. This is true to an extent... Lonsdale Quay is brimming with low-rises and so is uptown. However, to the west and east, not much seems to have been done by the nearby district. Perhaps if they diverted their attention to building higher (substantially in the district, just a little more in the city), we might see extra crowds on SeaBus that will finally show TransLink that a permanent third one is needed. That's just me, though... perhaps TransLink has other criteria that I've forgotten to mention.

You can argue about moving towards a fully-subsidized model such that the north shore finally gets its third SeaBus without substantial new developments, but I think we're all pretty aware of how politically suicidal and antagonizing that will be to a population already riled up about the HST. The gas tax and its use on more pressing regional priorities seems like a lesser pain to deal with in comparison.