Expo Line - Surrey Langley Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Are you saying it's better to spend a lot of money on LRT so that capacity can stay similar while frequency decreases? Because as we've seen with the documents people have posted, LRT never recovers cost so it doesn't help Translink save money. But you're also decreasing service for the consumer. And as a transit customer I'd much rather take a bus that comes every 7 minutes than a train that comes every 15.

No, I was saying that to be affordable, LRT would have to operate less frequently than buses currently do. Which is why I think it is bad for Surrey, and deceptive on the part of Surrey city's council to label it as frequent. To keep the same kind of frequency, you have to buy as many trains as you have buses, and trains cost 10 times more than buses.

To make LRT economical you need full trains at the busy end of the line. And when the line becomes popular instead of increasing frequency, many LRT systems just make the trains longer. Hence they have the same number of employees as before, but each employee is twice as efficient with a train double the length as before.

Skytrain is economical because as it approaches the terminus the trains become full. Even if they spend a long time empty in the suburbs, the trains need to be there in the schedule because by the time the train reaches downtown, it is packed. Same with trains leaving downtown. You need as many trains as there are now because they leave downtown full. And it costs the same to operate 1 four car train as 2 two car trains. So you can maintain higher frequencies by using shorter trains at less busy times.

LRT in Surrey will only be full if it leaves every 15 minutes or more. I don't think that is what people in Surrey are signing up for when they hear rapid transit.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

No, I was saying that to be affordable, LRT would have to operate less frequently than buses currently do. Which is why I think it is bad for Surrey, and deceptive on the part of Surrey city's council to label it as frequent. To keep the same kind of frequency, you have to buy as many trains as you have buses, and trains cost 10 times more than buses.

To make LRT economical you need full trains at the busy end of the line. And when the line becomes popular instead of increasing frequency, many LRT systems just make the trains longer. Hence they have the same number of employees as before, but each employee is twice as efficient with a train double the length as before.

Skytrain is economical because as it approaches the terminus the trains become full. Even if they spend a long time empty in the suburbs, the trains need to be there in the schedule because by the time the train reaches downtown, it is packed. Same with trains leaving downtown. You need as many trains as there are now because they leave downtown full. And it costs the same to operate 1 four car train as 2 two car trains. So you can maintain higher frequencies by using shorter trains at less busy times.

LRT in Surrey will only be full if it leaves every 15 minutes or more. I don't think that is what people in Surrey are signing up for when they hear rapid transit.

Okay, sorry I misunderstood you, I agree with what you're saying. Especially your last point, which I think says more about Surrey's ability to support any type of rapid transit given its density and habits at this time.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Yeah, the impression given is that 7b+ in capital projects over 10 years is just not going to happen. Even if the referendum is approved... well just get Todd Stone quotes:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/brit...ike-could-be-affordable/article22000302/

Thank you, I hadn't seen or heard anything about this. Sales tax is personally my favourite alternative at the moment. I'm not sure how this relates to the province being against LRT however? Seems like they just want to see this money last 15 years as opposed to 10.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

Sales tax is personally my favourite alternative at the moment.

I'm leaning toward it too. A 0.5% tax seems to me to be most likely to "slip in under the radar" for most people's pocketbooks. It also has the advantage of (a) being independent of declining car use, and (b) being a new revenue source - which means that in the future it and the other existing levies can be hiked by a lower percentage to raise a given same amount of additional funds, which again is less likely to meet with resistance.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I'm leaning toward it too. A 0.5% tax seems to me to be most likely to "slip in under the radar" for most people's pocketbooks. It also has the advantage of (a) being independent of declining car use, and (b) being a new revenue source - which means that in the future it and the other existing levies can be hiked by a lower percentage to raise a given same amount of additional funds, which again is less likely to meet with resistance.

Yeah, I like that it's the least obvious too, and realistically probably won't affect how much money you're spending all that much. However your last point raises a concern I've had for a while: will whatever new funding source we get be enough to continue expanding after the current plan? Or are we going to have to have another referendum after this is all built out? Because while I'll support basically any referendum question right now, I don't know if it's fair to continue to bring in new taxes every time we want to build something. I'd prefer (if this is even possible) a funding source that will continue to be effective if not forever, than at least a very long time.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I'm leaning toward it too. A 0.5% tax seems to me to be most likely to "slip in under the radar" for most people's pocketbooks. It also has the advantage of (a) being independent of declining car use, and (b) being a new revenue source - which means that in the future it and the other existing levies can be hiked by a lower percentage to raise a given same amount of additional funds, which again is less likely to meet with resistance.

The problem with a sales tax is it is dependant on how well the economy is doing. During a recession it can cause a serious cash flow for Translink. This was evident in the US in a number of cities that had to slash transit service during the last recession. Of course it has the advantage is having a boost in income when the economy is doing good.

I just feel implementing a sales tax is like putting a band aid over a cut that won't stop bleeding. Sure it will slow the bleeding down but the wound is still there.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by cabotp

The problem with a sales tax is it is dependant on how well the economy is doing. During a recession it can cause a serious cash flow for Translink.

If it were me doing the budgeting I'd plan on getting enough revenue during the boom times to build up a "stability" fund to draw on in the lean years. But people in power never seem to think so sensibly, despite their fancy degrees and the amount of remuneration they receive.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

If it were me doing the budgeting I'd plan on getting enough revenue during the boom times to build up a "stability" fund to draw on in the lean years. But people in power never seem to think so sensibly, despite their fancy degrees and the amount of remuneration they receive.

Alberta has the Heritage Fund. It stood at $12.6 Billion in 1987 and $14.2 in 2011 and is now $17.4 Billion. It should be way larger but they kept dipping into it during good times. By comparison Alaska's Permanent Fund sits at $51.2 Billion and is far better run.

If the golden child called LNG takes off, and Christy is true to her word regarding the BC Prosperity Fund, it needs to be run properly and legally mandated how funds are to be drawn down (i.e. only interest can be withdrawn). If it isn't legally set up than the fund will be subject to the whims of any current government. Just like in Alberta especially during the 90s.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by cabotp

The problem with a sales tax is it is dependant on how well the economy is doing. During a recession it can cause a serious cash flow for Translink. This was evident in the US in a number of cities that had to slash transit service during the last recession. Of course it has the advantage is having a boost in income when the economy is doing good.

I just feel implementing a sales tax is like putting a band aid over a cut that won't stop bleeding. Sure it will slow the bleeding down but the wound is still there.

(source Translink 2014 http://www.translink.ca/~/media/document...%20and%20capital%20budget%20summary.ashx )

Gas revenue is going down, which would also mean any carbon tax would as well.

Property Tax depends on Property values constantly going up unless it's a flat levy... in which case then it's a regressive tax and even more to complain about. If property values crash, then so goes that revenue source.

They could squeeze the BC Hydro levy some more. I pay 1.81$ on that and it's almost a joke.

Like I really don't want to support a sales tax unless there is a perfect guarantee that it will not go into general revenue and only go into transit. But good luck with that.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Kisai

Like I really don't want to support a sales tax unless there is a perfect guarantee that it will not go into general revenue and only go into transit. But good luck with that.

A regional sales tax would appear as a separate line item on a receipt - it's not something that would be part of general provincial revenue any more than GST is.

[SOSS]

The problem I have with any regional method of tax (property, sales, gas etc) is that so many people outside the region use the transportation network within the region and get a free ride. I'm okay with the Albertan's who come down here to spend money and get a free ticket over the Port Mann but increases any regional taxation will encourage yet more urban sprawl in neighbouring communities.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by SOSS

The problem I have with any regional method of tax (property, sales, gas etc) is that so many people outside the region use the transportation network within the region and get a free ride.

No system is perfect. No matter how the money is collected, people who pay aren't going to get a personal benefit and some people who don't are going to get a "free" ride. A regional tax is no worse in that regard than the alternatives, IMHO.

[WarrenC12]

Income taxes would be the easiest way to collect the money. The whole thing is a shell game.

According to the 2014 BC Budget, the government is "investing" $3.4B over the next 3 years in capital projects for transportation:



But those are specifically:



So, over $1B a year over the next three years (no referendum required), and Todd Stone things $300M/yr is a reasonable max for Metro Vancouver?

Government revenues are in the order of $46B/yr... there's plenty of money, just no willpower.

[GMasterAres]

Only options for funding that are sustainable are (1) a sales tax or (2) property tax increase. Vehicle levy may be sustainable too unless auto use doesn't keep pace with population increase.

In transit oriented neighborhoods you have people not buying or owning cars so effectively they get service they don't pay for. Also by generations getting licenses later and later and car sales/use not keeping pace with population increase, your overall funding source starts to reduce over time.

Gas tax is stupid with our proximity to the US border. Increase the tax more and you'll drive even more people to cross the border to fill up. Nexus enrollment is already through the roof in recent years mainly for cross-border shopping/gas run purposes.

It's like aircare. You'd be amazed how many people register their vehicles outside of Metro-Van so that they don't have to aircare their vehicles.

Finally, road pricing is also dumb because you'd have to spend a large amount of capital implementing mechanisms to charge and collect such money whereas sales tax is easy, the tax collector is already employed.

Also any costs associated with an additional sales tax is passed onto the consumer by vendors and wouldn't be incurred by the Province directly.

I am all for either property tax or a specific sales tax for transit. Hell I'd love to do away entirely with the PST and change our taxing to be specific taxes. So like 0.5% tax for transit, 2.5% tax for healthcare, 1.5% tax for education, etc. etc. Forget this general revenue BS that's what income tax is for.

[GMasterAres]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

No system is perfect. No matter how the money is collected, people who pay aren't going to get a personal benefit and some people who don't are going to get a "free" ride. A regional tax is no worse in that regard than the alternatives, IMHO.

That wouldn't be the case with a sales tax. If the person is in metro-Vancouver able to use the transit, they will be buying things here and thus be paying the sales tax.

That way if you're in Kelowna and not using transit in Metro-Vancouver, you won't be paying for our transit.

Property tax is similar but has more of that "free" ride though most property tax earnings come from commercial and industrial businesses who ultimately pass along their property tax costs to the consumer. So you indirectly still pay.

It's like shipping. When gas tax increases, trucks pay more in fuel, they increase shipping costs to the retail businesses, and those retail businesses ultimately up their retail prices.

So you pay twice with fuel tax. One for your own vehicle, two for the costs of goods sold increase at the retail locations. Same with property tax increases. With a sales-tax you pay only once, when you purchase items, because the business makes no money from tax they simply collect and submit.

From an economics perspective, sales tax is to me the best option overall. But we know how the HST went in BC, so regardless of economics, it will be interesting to see the general consensus.

[logicbomb]

The mood around here is frustration (where I am). Apparently the request for federal funding for this project along with a few other Surrey wide projects have been shot down.

Even if the referendum passes; there will not be nearly enough funds to get this project off the ground.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

So, over $1B a year over the next three years (no referendum required), and Todd Stone things $300M/yr is a reasonable max for Metro Vancouver?

Just to be clear, the $1B is the capital required to construct the projects, the $300M is to cover operating expenses. There's a significant qualitative difference between the two.

But the real reason that the Liberals are requiring a referendum is to duck responsibility for a tax increase after having been burned by the HST. They really don't get that much if not most of the HST backlash was because of the two-faced way they implemented it.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Just to be clear, the $1B is the capital required to construct the projects, the $300M is to cover operating expenses. There's a significant qualitative difference between the two.

But the real reason that the Liberals are requiring a referendum is to duck responsibility for a tax increase after having been burned by the HST. They really don't get that much if not most of the HST backlash was because of the two-faced way they implemented it.

$300M/yr is meant to include capital to build these projects isn't it? With "some help" from higher levels of government, of course.

[Hmoob]

As my first comment on the forums, I'm going to see if I can really step in it. Apologies in advance to anyone I offend.

I'm a proponent of transit oriented development and dense urban development. So from that perspective...

Metro Vancouver is better served if Surrey develops LRT, especially towards Langley. If Surrey develops LRT, it will push back by decades the possibility of future skytrain. Surrey and Langley will be stuck with slow, loud, and poorly integrated service, reinforcing the attitude that it's less desireable than living north of the Fraser. It will discourage development and slow encroachment into the ALR. If we don't build LRT now, we increase the chance that skytrain could be approved and put more pressure on the ALR.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

$300M/yr is meant to include capital to build these projects isn't it? With "some help" from higher levels of government, of course.

Yes, the $300M/yr is capital and operating costs. The difference between the $300M and the $1B is that the $1B is just capital, which is just a one-time cost. By contrast, $300M/year gives you $3B over 10 years. And of course the expectation is that senior levels of government will chip in for the lion's share of the capital costs.

You can find a cost breakdown of what the $300M/yr is to be used for starting on page 23 of this document.