Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion - Page 473

DKaz · #**9441** Posted **Mar 23, 2012, 3:26 PM**

Still, death threats over $75 a year. I just filled up my car this morning for that much! The average person spends $7,500 a year on gas, insurance, maintenance, depreciation, interest payments. $75 = 1%.

st7860 · #**9442** Posted **Mar 23, 2012, 3:35 PM**

the vehicle levy is just like the HST. it makes people mad because its so visible.

if property taxes and income taxes were raised, the average person wouldn't get so upset.

sure on an economic standpoint, the HST is 'better' as its a consumption tax but well.. look what happens.

usog · #**9443** Posted **Mar 23, 2012, 5:37 PM**

Our premier is just pandering to populist trends as she seems to do a lot lately, this can't be good for the province.

Metro-One · #**9444** Posted **Mar 23, 2012, 5:50 PM**

Just like our mayor, good politicians are so hard to ind in BC, it is amazing anything gets done at all really.

st7860 · #**9445** Posted **Mar 23, 2012, 5:52 PM**

Speaking of transit. I was on the 41 UBC bus around 8pm on Saturday, and the load was near to crush level until the bus reached the Canada Line station at Oakridge.

I would expect something like that to happen to the 135 Burrard/SFU route since thats known as the party bus, but the #41 ???

Translink made a big show about telling everyone the 99B will have expanded evening service - then what about the daytime? - supposedly there just isnt enough room on the road to run more buses during peak hours on broadway.

The broadway extension for the skytrain could be paid for partially by selling condos along the route.

(the Marine Gateway project beside the canada line sold out in 4 hours last weekend!)

s211 · #**9446** Posted **Mar 23, 2012, 6:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by st7860

The broadway extension for the skytrain could be paid for partially by selling condos along the route.

(the Marine Gateway project beside the canada line sold out in 4 hours last weekend!)

I'd be interested to see how you think Translink will be able to claim a pound of flesh from market housing on land it doesn't own.

st7860 · #**9447** Posted **Mar 23, 2012, 6:47 PM**

if the city of vancouver could be convinced to do some rezoning along with some clever incentives then maybe...

red-paladin · #**9448** Posted **Mar 23, 2012, 7:59 PM**

We could raise property taxes based on how many garages the house has, like parking spots in malls, etc are taxed! Would be a tax on the rich and people that use multiple vehicles!

twoNeurons · #**9449** Posted **Mar 23, 2012, 8:20 PM**

The city designates a percentage of land that has to be used for public use when new projects are built... parks, amenities, etc.

Along the Broadway corridor, specify that any rezoning around rapid transit stations get put into a different property tax segment. An additional percentage to areas within walking distance of a major transit corridor (designated by a B-Line stop or Rapid Transit station)

Alternatively, instead of just rezoned properties, it could get applied to any dwelling around a major transit stop... which would lighten the load somewhat.

twoNeurons · #**9450** Posted **Mar 23, 2012, 8:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by red-paladin

We could raise property taxes based on how many garages the house has, like parking spots in malls, etc are taxed! Would be a tax on the rich and people that use multiple vehicles!

There are implications with this kind of taxation.

racc · #**9451** Posted **Mar 23, 2012, 8:24 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

There are implications with this kind of taxation.

Seriously, people would brick over their cars or garages? Next time, figure out a logical argument.

jlousa · #**9452** Posted **Mar 23, 2012, 8:33 PM**

I've spoken to the city about this in the past, create a transit density system. You have exisiting zoning of say 3FSR along the route but allow a developer to purchase up to an additional 1FSR from Translink at the same rate as the hertiage density bank ~$65psf. Most developers would gladly pay for the additional density.
The issue is why would the city give Translink that density? In the current system the city sells it (so to speak) to the developer in the form of CACs.
I still think the system could work, if a city wants a project but Translink can't afford it, then offer them a carrot and skip the line, let cities compete against each other.

cornholio · #**9453** Posted **Mar 24, 2012, 2:49 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

The city designates a percentage of land that has to be used for public use when new projects are built... parks, amenities, etc.

Along the Broadway corridor, specify that any rezoning around rapid transit stations get put into a different property tax segment. An additional percentage to areas within walking distance of a major transit corridor (designated by a B-Line stop or Rapid Transit station)

Alternatively, instead of just rezoned properties, it could get applied to any dwelling around a major transit stop... which would lighten the load somewhat.

Is that not counter productive to what trans-link is trying to accomplish. Obviously raising costs disproportionally on properties near transit stations will reduce their value and the incentive to rezone and develop them. In other words the properties will be less desirable to redevelop. It would make more sense to raise rezoning costs on properties away from transit stations and lower them near transit stations. Having said that I know that would be a impossible sell for obvious reasons but just saying.

I really like Jlousas idea in many ways, any way you can create competition between cities you give mayors a reason and more importantly a excuse to rezone land near transit and help translink financially. Cities since their responsible for zoning really should play a bigger roll in directly funding transit, right now not only do they have little incentive to help translik they often wouldn't be able to sell it to the public even if they wanted to.

As far as funding goes property taxes is where the biggest share should come from, its fair and efficient and the costs filter down to all segments of society based on how much they can afford to pay. A vehicle levy is idiotic and I will fight tooth and nail to make sure it doesnt happen, it is unfair and makes little logical sense.

st7860 · #**9454** Posted **Mar 26, 2012, 7:19 PM**

If translink went with something like a $100 year increase in property taxes there wouldn't have been such a big fuss.

http://www.theprovince.com/travel/Street...tor+vehicle+levy+fund/6356861/story.html

queetz@home · #**9455** Posted **Mar 26, 2012, 9:40 PM**

I posted this in the Evergreen Line thread but there is some relevance here...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...ansion-plans-in-jeopardy/article2381002/

Quote:

Regional mayors say they will explore the possibility of cancelling all new transit improvements, except the Evergreen Line, if the province puts them in a position of paying for the changes through property taxes.

Those would include two new rapid buses, one on Highway 1 from Langley and Surrey, another on King George Boulevard in Surrey going out to White Rock, and 415,000 additional hours of service in the whole system by 2014.

Quote:

“It is something we need to look into as another option if we do not have any other viable options. I am sure some of the mayors will want to know the answer,” said City of Langley Mayor Peter Fassbender, vice-chair of the TransLink mayors’ council.

whatnext · #**9456** Posted **Mar 28, 2012, 6:23 AM**

Its hard to take Translink's cash grabs seriously, when the news tonight reports they have $28 million in unpaid fines over two year, and no means to collect them! The same Translink that fought faregates for years as "unnecessary".

racc · #**9457** Posted **Mar 28, 2012, 6:52 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

Its hard to take Translink's cash grabs seriously, when the news tonight reports they have $28 million in unpaid fines over two year, and no means to collect them! The same Translink that fought faregates for years as "unnecessary".

And the problem is again, the Provincial government not helping collect the fines. They didn't implement the fare gates because the cost to build and operate them is much greater than the cost of fare evasion.

Great rhetoric again though. Keep up the good work!

Millennium2002 · #**9458** Posted **Mar 28, 2012, 7:16 AM**

The fact that the city of Vancouver and the region as a whole can't seem to think forward like it used to many years back is something that I take with great shame.

If this train of thought of fighting against transit continues, in a decade or two we'll have turned into a half Los Angeles with new wider highways and roads running all over the place + suburbia covering the entirety of what remains of the North Shore and Fraser Valley's parks and farmland before we even begin to get back on track towards the Broadway Line...

Sounds pessimistic? Perhaps. But with all the contempt and disapproval against TransLink for nothing other than inheriting and trying to correct the mess from before... I think it's likely to happen.

GeeCee · #**9459** Posted **Mar 28, 2012, 1:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by whatnext

Its hard to take Translink's cash grabs seriously, when the news tonight reports they have $28 million in unpaid fines over two year, and no means to collect them! The same Translink that fought faregates for years as "unnecessary".

Even if they had collected those fines, they wouldn't have kept them. Those fines go to the province's general revenue fund. Not a hell of a lot of incentive for Translink to chase em down.

st7860 · #**9460** Posted **Mar 28, 2012, 1:51 PM**

the thing is people in Metro Vancouver like having 20 separate police forces, 20 municipalities etc etc. its a very unusual kettle of fish.