Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[ssiguy]

An extension of the McCanada Line is a waste of money and even a suburban type rail system connecting from Bridgeport to Lad/Twas is also a no-go. These, in order to be economical, would be trains of at least 3 or 4 carriages so once they get to Bridgeport, where do the passengers go?

The Canada Line is not built to have a 200 or 300 people getting on a station all at once. Hell two busy buses dropping off at the same time already takes all the seats.

There can NEVER be an extension of the Canada Line, it simply wasn't built with anything but minimum standards in mind.

[Large Cat]

If they extend all the platforms they could maybe run it to Steveston on development dollars, if South Richmond residents allow it. I do hope this happens someday.

It will never go to the ferry.

[Express691]

Originally Posted by Bdawe

As for the Compass Card, they should definitely install it at ferry terminals, particularly the commuter-heavy Horseshoe Bay terminal.

There are already machines installed there.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

An extension of the McCanada Line is a waste of money ..........
There can NEVER be an extension of the Canada Line, it simply wasn't built with anything but minimum standards in mind.

So true. They rushed to get it operational for 2010, but "forgot" to make the platforms a normal length!

[waves]

Changing topics slightly:

Surrey needs to avoid LRT at all costs.

http://skytrainforsurrey.org/

In Translink's 2013 research for mass transit options for Surrey, the different options and statistics for over 10 different alternatives were researched. http://www.translink.ca/-/media/Document...dy_%20Alternatives_Analysis_Findings.pdf

LRT and RRT were evaluated at the same cost of $2.2 billion, but with RRT improving travel time to just 22 min. With LRT, the travel time was evaluated to be equivalent to BRT (which only cost $0.9 billion).

Just recently though, the Surrey councilor's hired a third party to write a report on solely focused on the benefits of LRT. http://www.surrey.ca/files/Economic_Benefits_of_Surrey_LRT.pdf

Surrey city planners have even spoken out against the LRT plan as the wrong choice for Surrey. Nearly every public opinion poll I have seen so far have shown that Metro Vancouver residents support RRT technology and not LRT. Even previous LRT supporters such as Surrey transit advocate Paul Hillsdon support RRT in surrey. http://www.surreyleader.com/news/195701621.html

It seems like the Surrey Board of Trade is the only organization interested in LRT and they have their hands in the pockets of the Surrey Councilor's. They support LRT because they think:

- RRT will look bad in the middle of the street (Anita Huberman)
- RRT will decrease travel time
- RRT will decrease the number of people visiting Surrey

The statement below by Surrey Coun. Barinder Rasode pretty much sums this up:

"Light rail passengers riding at street level would be more likely to stop and shop at Surrey business, than an overhead Skytrain whisking residents to other cities. It's about economic investment in our own city. We don't want mass rapid transit running right out of the city every time. We don't want people to just be transported straight out to Langley." http://www.surreyleader.com/news/195701621.html

I have two points:

First Point - How it looks is more of a matter of personal opinion than a deciding factor for a transportation option.

Second Point - How does Langley feel about this decision? Langley senior manager of transportation engineering Paul Cordeiro certain doesn't support it. http://www.langleytimes.com/news/299061851.html

The decision to impede connectivity of Metro Vancouver for the personal gain of business owners in Surrey is totally inappropriate. It is for this exact reason that the Mayor's Council was taken away from governing Translink in the first place; because they are all too concerned with their own municipal interests. Translink was the only organization that seemed to be concerned with the regional interests of Metro Vancouver by making regional decisions with strong research, data and fiscal accountability (go read their fiscal reports if you don't believe this) and I feel shame that it has been dismantled so much that decisions are being made by the popular politics of the day rather than the best regional choice.

[twoNeurons]

Transit funding.

You know how we have this huge funding gap in BC about paying for transportation projects? Am I the only one that thinks it's weird how Vancouver has the lowest ( by far ) property taxes in the country?


Estimated residential property taxes per $1,000 of assessment:
Vancouver: $3.68
Calgary: $6.10
Edmonton: $8.01
Halifax: $12.11
Montreal: $8.27
Ottawa: $13.69
Saskatoon: $12.58
Toronto: $7.23
Winnipeg: $12.13
source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on...ng-home-business-owners/article20795900/

Why are the mayors SO against raising Property taxes to fund transit? Most of the money would come from the densest neighbourhoods, which are best served by transit. It would also be a pretty fair tax and equally paid by both residents and supposed foreign investors.

According to the 2016 budget Vancouver is below average ( $3109 / SFH ) compared to the Greater Vancouver region ( $3376 / SFH ). Usually you'd expect property taxes to be highest in the central city.

Vancouver expects to bring in $720,480,000 in 2016. a 14% increase in property tax would add an average of $435 / SFH per year and bring in $101 Million in extra revenue yearly.

Assuming the UBC line costs about $4 Billion, Vancouver would pay off its portion in 13 years or so... likely just a few years after it finishes construction. If they increased property taxes by 20% they'd be able to fund the UBC Line AND increased bus service. 20% sounds like a lot, but it still would put our property taxes just barely over North Vancouver and New Westminster and we'd still be WAY off what they're paying in other jurisdictions around the country.

Am I missing something?

[officedweller]

Yeah - wrt mill rate, that's probably because of the high real estate prices.

The low mill rate multiplied by the high assessment values would probably yield the same amount of revenue as the other cities (except maybe Toronto).

Municipal taxes are calculated in reverse.
The City formulates its budget, then sets the mill rate to raise the amount of revenue it wants.
Assuming that Vancouver's operating budget is similar to other cities, the mill rate (per $1000 of assessed value) would be lower than other cities.

Also, remember that GVRD taxes are in addition to each municipality's taxes.

For the SFH figures, I'm not sure what qualifies as a single family home - would that include condos? If so, that could skew the average downwards versus houses on lots.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Transit funding.

You know how we have this huge funding gap in BC about paying for transportation projects? Am I the only one that thinks it's weird how Vancouver has the lowest ( by far ) property taxes in the country?


Estimated residential property taxes per $1,000 of assessment:
Vancouver: $3.68
Calgary: $6.10
Edmonton: $8.01
Halifax: $12.11
Montreal: $8.27
Ottawa: $13.69
Saskatoon: $12.58
Toronto: $7.23
Winnipeg: $12.13
source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on...ng-home-business-owners/article20795900/

Why are the mayors SO against raising Property taxes to fund transit? Most of the money would come from the densest neighbourhoods, which are best served by transit. It would also be a pretty fair tax and equally paid by both residents and supposed foreign investors.

According to the 2016 budget Vancouver is below average ( $3109 / SFH ) compared to the Greater Vancouver region ( $3376 / SFH ). Usually you'd expect property taxes to be highest in the central city.

Vancouver expects to bring in $720,480,000 in 2016. a 10% increase in property tax would add an average of $338 / SFH per year and bring in $101 Million in extra revenue yearly.

Assuming the UBC line costs about $4 Billion, Vancouver would pay off its portion in 13 years or so... likely just a few years after it finishes construction. If they increased property taxes by 20% they'd be able to fund the UBC Line AND increased bus service. 20% sounds like a lot, but it still would put our property taxes just barely over North Vancouver and New Westminster and we'd still be WAY off what they're paying in other jurisdictions around the country.

Am I missing something?

I tend to agree. I think that there is undoubtedly tax room to fund at least a fair portion of the local 1/3rd share of major project capital funding. However, I think that the main issue the mayors have is that they have been promised on multiple occasions by the Province that they can pursue new avenues for funding to address increasing capital requirements associated with rapid transit expansion, mid-life equipment refurbishment and electrical upgrades, bus and SeaBus fleet renewal, station upgrades, and other capital-intensive programs. Furthermore, the revenue derived from gas taxes have been falling due, in large part, to more efficient vehicles and (believe it or not) vehicle kilometres travelled not increasing as quickly as originally forecast, and even declining in some geographic areas.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by officedweller

For the SFH figures, I'm not sure what qualifies as a single family home - would that include condos? If so, that could skew the average downwards versus houses on lots.

The report didn't specify, but a $1M house costs about $3677 according to one calculator.... so it would appear that it's not including condos.

[WarrenC12]

Here's a tax breakdown example if anybody's interested, line items and mill rates for Vancouver last year.

Provincial School Tax: 1.37943
TransLink 0.33182
BC Assessment 0.06196
Regional District 0.05725
Municipal Finance Auth 0.0002
City of Vancouver Levy 1.84728

This was a condo, total 3.67% last year. I think it's pretty much the same across any residential property.

Seems like you can't win these arguments. People complain about taxes being too high, you talk about mill rate, and of course it's because Vancouver has outrageous housing prices.

Just doing the math, Translink is roughly 10% of the total tax bill.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

You know how we have this huge funding gap in BC about paying for transportation projects? Am I the only one that thinks it's weird how Vancouver has the lowest ( by far ) property taxes in the country?...
Am I missing something?

Yes. You should be comparing the amount paid per household, not the amount paid per dollar of assessed value. Properties in the city proper are worth much more than those of the other cities, so of course the amount per assessed value is less.

You comparison is a perfect example of the phrase "lies, damn lies, and statistics".

[officedweller]

Lots of cool historical transit plan maps here:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/afiler/albums/72157622677286308/with/4050413169/


https://www.flickr.com/photos/afiler/4050413169/in/album-72157622677286308/

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Yes. You should be comparing the amount paid per household, not the amount paid per dollar of assessed value. Properties in the city proper are worth much more than those of the other cities, so of course the amount per assessed value is less.

You comparison is a perfect example of the phrase "lies, damn lies, and statistics".

I disagree.

Properties in Toronto have DOUBLE the property tax ( per assessed value ) and houses in Toronto aren't far off houses in Vancouver. They're pretty comparable. Vancouver properties are certainly not DOUBLE. Essentially, if a Vancouver resident pays ~0.4% of their assessed value per year a Toronto resident pays ~0.8% of their assessed value. While Vancouver properties may be assessed at a higher value than Toronto, they are NOT double.

Why is there such a resistance to raise property taxes to help pay for transportation infrastructure? In addition to paying for infrastructure, increasing the carrying costs of a house has the potential to slightly cool the real estate market as well. It also means that the few millionaires from overseas who buy expensive properties pay for transportation improvements, whether they live here or not.

Isn't the media complaining about millionaires making Vancouver unaffordable? If true, then property tax would mean absentee landlords of super expensive properties would be paying more into the system as well.

A consumption tax ( increasing the PST ) affects consumers who spend in the region.

A property tax on a fixed asset ( house ) to pay for fixed infrastructure ( subway ) to serve fixed asset ( house ) makes sense, no?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

i think the PST was a better idea because it allows for so much extra revenue potential. Vancouver is very much a tourist destination. they always brag about the billions tourists spend. imagine all the money that 0.5% will give you on billions spent by people who don't live here. all those tourists could have paid for the infrastructure for us! haha.

necessary items are already PST exempt and there is a rebate that some will get which also helps with that.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

i think the PST was a better idea because it allows for so much extra revenue potential. Vancouver is very much a tourist destination. they always brag about the billions tourists spend. imagine all the money that 0.5% will give you on billions spent by people who don't live here. all those tourists could have paid for the infrastructure for us! haha.

necessary items are already PST exempt and there is a rebate that some will get which also helps with that.

PST revenue also increases with economic activity, which should directly lead to the increased demand for transit services. Road/bridge tolls would do the same.

AFAIK the Translink portion of the property tax is a set amount of collection for the region, and so increasing this portion will always be visible as a "tax hike", vs. the PST option which just grows with the overall economy.

The worst choices are gas and carbon taxes, as they actually decrease with increased transit use.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I disagree.

Properties in Toronto have DOUBLE the property tax ( per assessed value ) and houses in Toronto aren't far off houses in Vancouver. They're pretty comparable. Vancouver properties are certainly not DOUBLE. Essentially, if a Vancouver resident pays ~0.4% of their assessed value per year a Toronto resident pays ~0.8% of their assessed value. While Vancouver properties may be assessed at a higher value than Toronto, they are NOT double.

Why is there such a resistance to raise property taxes to help pay for transportation infrastructure? In addition to paying for infrastructure, increasing the carrying costs of a house has the potential to slightly cool the real estate market as well. It also means that the few millionaires from overseas who buy expensive properties pay for transportation improvements, whether they live here or not.

Isn't the media complaining about millionaires making Vancouver unaffordable? If true, then property tax would mean absentee landlords of super expensive properties would be paying more into the system as well.

A consumption tax ( increasing the PST ) affects consumers who spend in the region.

A property tax on a fixed asset ( house ) to pay for fixed infrastructure ( subway ) to serve fixed asset ( house ) makes sense, no?

The quickest way to deflate the property values in metro Vancouver would be to increase the property taxes on vacant property and unoccupied property to punitive levels so that properties aren't being used as a store of value for absentee owners. Absentee owners aren't paying PST on anything.

In the same line of thinking, the properties closest to rapid transit should have that additional cost in their property taxes, discouraging absentee owners from buying up these properties as "luxury" stores of wealth. Those who live near transit but choose to drive would see that penalty.

[WBC]

Originally Posted by Kisai

The quickest way to deflate the property values in metro Vancouver would be to increase the property taxes on vacant property and unoccupied property to punitive levels so that properties aren't being used as a store of value for absentee owners. Absentee owners aren't paying PST on anything.

In the same line of thinking, the properties closest to rapid transit should have that additional cost in their property taxes, discouraging absentee owners from buying up these properties as "luxury" stores of wealth. Those who live near transit but choose to drive would see that penalty.

That is too hard to enforce. The easiest way to do it (and this is already done by some US states) is to shift the provincial tax from being income based to be property based. That also address the issue of declaring foreign income - don't care what you make outside of Canada or if you kid owns the house - you pay the tax on property - end of story.

This would also have a side effect to encourage people to work and would decrease provincial income taxes.

[Caliplanner1]

Originally Posted by WBC

That is too hard to enforce. The easiest way to do it (and this is already done by some US states) is to shift the provincial tax from being income based to be property based. That also address the issue of declaring foreign income - don't care what you make outside of Canada or if you kid owns the house - you pay the tax on property - end of story.

This would also have a side effect to encourage people to work and would decrease provincial income taxes.

Or just do what the U.S. does....make it illegal and punishable not to declare your true foreign income which becomes taxable if excessive/significant (say over a million dollars). That will bring some sanity to the foreign "locals" who infuse massive amounts of foreign garnered cash towards fueling domestic inflation in Canada.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner1

Or just do what the U.S. does....make it illegal and punishable not to declare your true foreign income which becomes taxable if excessive/significant (say over a million dollars). That will bring some sanity to the foreign "locals" who infuse massive amounts of foreign garnered cash towards fueling domestic inflation in Canada.

I am pretty sure you are supposed to otherwise there wouldn't be a place to enter it on income tax forms.

[ssiguy]

Another easy option is to increase the nominal $5000 fee to tear down a house to $50,000 or more. That would only effect the very wealthy and all foreign investors as I don't know anyone in Vancouver who can buy a $3 million shack, tear it down and then build a palace.

Portland has done this and now tearing down a house is a $25,000 fee.