Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner
That has nothing to do with it. Firstly Tokyo and Osaka have major transit systems light years beyond the scale of ours that turn a profit, upwards of 30% so it isn't impossible though they make most of their profit (or make up the losses) via real estate which has nothing to do with the transit portion. But that's beside the point.
The point is that the funding model is the problem. I've been saying it forever now it seems. We need to subsidize it's that simple because nobody in North America knows how to run a transit system near break even. The funding problem though is that Translink (and the Province) uses revenues that are unsustainable.
A large almost 50% chunk of money used to pay for Transit expenses comes from car related revenues like the gas and parking tax. So you have a system encouraging people not to drive but when more people start taking transit or avoiding the taxes, the revenue drops and you lose a big chunk of money.
That's the issue. And that's why we were in the situation where the Mayor's had to talk about a temporary property tax to meet funding shortfall. Because a huge chunk of future revenue was assuming a certain level of money coming from gas tax and when the actual number came in, because of how many people now gas up in Abbotsford or the US, the number was WAY lower and they went "Holy — uh oh!"
So that's the issue. I don't think anyone is under the illusion that we will need to subsidize transit. I think people are just a little ticked off that they can't figure out a SMART way to fund transit.
It's kind of like saying we'll fund the ministry of environment from the revenue generate by the oil, gas, and mining sectors. The ministry is constantly trying to limit and reduce oil, gas, and mining and if they do meeting their target mandate, they ultimately would shoot themselves in the foot funding wise. We get that with transit.
They are mandated to get more cars off the road but for every car they take off the road they lose a huge amount of revenue and more demand and less money. It is completely bass ackwards and is the Province's fault.
Ultimately I have no issue as a Surrey resident who last went to UBC 15 years ago and go along the Broadway corridor maybe 4 times a year, paying my part to fund transit in that area. I have no issue paying it once though. I don't want to pay it 5 times to a transit user's 1 time. Equal funding source is my book. I actually think property tax or a sales tax is the ultimate answer, but I just know right now as a car driver I feel sucked dry every which way. Not to mention so many more people are calling for increased taxation to car drivers just for our own infrastructure.
So transit user pays transit fair. Ok that goes towards Transit.
Car user (me) pays gas, registration, and parking taxes. That goes to Transit.
Now people want Car user (me) to also pay more tolls and possible road usage taxes. That goes to my own infrastructure.
The guise is that I shouldn't drive my car and should take transit. So I say fine I won't drive my car and I park it and jump on transit. Now what am I contributing? A hell of a lot less and Transit loses more money because there is 1 less car on the road. See the problem? Unsustainable and from my perspective as a car user, I think "why do I have to pay for everything!"
|
That's why property taxes are the best solution. The income from property, not only stays constant no mater what service people use, but actually increases over time. It will at the very least increase in pace with inflation which should keep services levels constant. And at the best of times, it will increase faster than inflation, as increases in property values usually reflect the improvement in infrastructure and the economy.
It is also a progressive tax. People who pay less in tax are people with lower cheaper assets. Yes, the average increase might be something like $40, but that is for the average home. Most poor people own a much cheaper home than the average price, thus would pay way less than that in increased property taxes.
Most people think they are at least average, if not better but really aren't. Therefore they think they are going to pay MORE than the average increase. I wish the media would really report the property tax how it is structured, by the $100,000 of assesed value. Then everyone in the region (especially SOF) would know, oh, my place is worth $300,000, so I only pay like $15 of increases.
Consumption taxes are regressive. They harm the lower classes far more than the upper classes, thus they should only be used to actually control the consumption, not to pay for regular services. An $85 car levy is a flat increase the exact same on every one. It doesn't matter if your car is worth $250,000 (more than my home), we all pay the same increase. I don't see how any of the mayors think that is fair for their poorer constituents at all, especially low income families that live far from transit with multiple cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner
And to add to the above, I don't agree with the Mayor's either on their argument against property tax usage. They constantly say "The little guy doesn't want to pay more in property tax! More money!" The fact is we pay it anyway. If I don't pay for transit in my property tax, I'll pay some other tax, toll, fee, levy, at the end of the day.
I would personally rather pay 1 source for everything and be done with it. I'd much rather that be a sales tax or a property tax and then they can get rid of all the other little piddly taxes and levies.
I have no issue with my yearly property tax going up $150 a year if the transit gas tax, parking tax, and other fees/levies that subsidize transit go away.
Then it would make sense to me. Then I would be paying a certain portion and contributing to our transit, and ultimately a transit user would be paying MORE which makes sense because they use the service. They pay the same "base" as me a non-transit user, then pay for use in buying passes.
Makes absolute sense and now I feel better. Those that use should pay. Same in the reverse. If I'm paying a fuel tax to drive my car, 100% of that tax should go towards road infrastructure. Nothing should go to transit. I mean think about it. Even busses pay the fuel tax and they should, they use the roads I do. And we need to in many spots build extra infrastructure for them (HOV/Bus Only lanes) so they should absolutely contribute in some way towards our road infrastructure.
Also if I want to cross a new bridge, I have no issue paying a toll as long as that toll goes 100% towards that piece of infrastructure. It makes sense. We need to break the funding link between road infrastructure and transit infrastructure. We need a government with balls to do that. And I think that starts with the fact Translink should have nothing to do with roads. They should focus on transit. And we should have another agency or the Province itself (MoT) deal with roads. This sharing is what has caused the issue and is what has caused Translink and the Province to be able to be unaccountable.
|
I actually think it is good that Tranlink overseas major roads and transit. I think they actually don't have enough say in the road network actually. That gives Translink a singular motive: to move people and goods around the region in the most effective way possible.
If you take Regional roads away from Translink, then what do you do, give them back to cities? Then you have cities like Delta and New Westminster acting against the good of the region, cutting back road capacity to suit their own self serving interests, meanwhile causing gridlock everywhere. You have a city like Vancouver against any kind of road upgrade, and even thinking of removing major amounts of capacity, solely based on their moral objective without thinking of how it will (and does) impact the region.
And what about improving bus capacity? With translink responsible for the roads, they can properly study the situations and improve bus stops, or and bus lanes where needed and even add bus signal priority at intersections. They should be responsible for more roads.
Then they can use the gas tax explicitly for the roads. As people switch from driving to transit (as the transit infrastructure increase over time reaching more and more people) making the gas tax revenues go down, naturally road infrastructure does not need to be as extensive (and is less used so needs less maintenance and less expansion).
Meanwhile, increased property taxes, taxes that go up with increased land value, value that goes up with expansion of transit services (typically places closer to rapid transit are more valuable than places further away), that money goes to paying for increasing operating costs.
But I do think that the province and federal governments should pay for large pieces of infrastructure. They do take a huge portion of taxes collected, they should be expected to pay for stuff.
We don't don't need large infrastructure very frequently. The temporary increases and large fluctuation that causes in annual budgets just can't be sustained by local resources (unless the province and feds took less from us in the first place). Meanwhile, larger governments have more places to spend money on an annual basis. This year they might be building Evergreen and Gateway, but over the years they have improved highways all over the province, built hospitals, and improved schools.
Prev
Linear Mode
