Time for Vancouver to Tear Down Its Viaducts?

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

I never said it would be a proportional to the BC Assessment rate, did I? I knew someone like yourself would come in to "prove me wrong". Since you are so good at doing the calculations, let me ask you a simple question: "what is the total percentage increase of property taxes across the board for the last 20 years then?"

Would it also be much more than the 2% increase mentioned by CanSpice? As you must have read the previous comments, the point of the argument here is that CoV cannot claim they are justified to implement the 8.2% increase in property taxes, as they had already received a windfall from the past 2 decades. Conclusion: CoV's desperation for cash is meant for something else, ie. tearing down viaducts.

The budget is fully public. I don't know why anybody takes the time to try to educate you when you don't pay any attention or attempt to learn anything.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Vin

The City should be flush with cash from the last 2 decades of property tax increases when assessed property value surged upwards of 150% or even more (both residential and commercial).

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

That's not how property taxes work. Cities establish their budget and set a mill rate to raise this. Appreciating property value doesn't automatically mean a proportionately increasing property tax bill.

Originally Posted by Vin

I never said it would be a proportional to the BC Assessment rate, did I?

Yeah, you did. You said "assessed property values surged 150%" and seemed to claim that this would be a bonanza for city finances. In fact property values have nothing to do with how much money the city earns in property taxes. The city sets a budget first, and then property owners pay based on the relative value of their properties to each other.

You can argue about the rates at which the city is expanding its budget, but it's got precious little to do with property values. The closest relationship I can figure is that the city might be able to wrest more from developer fees and CACs if said developers are able to make more money due to increased property values. That's not where most of the city budget comes from, though.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

These remarks are very pertinent to Transit Fantasies, yes, but equally pertinent, IMO to the entire Viaduct Removal issue, because this extrapolates outward to include all of downtown.
Since the entire issue of transportation, and people-moving, by car or transit, in and out of downtown is implicated here. Is not the concept of rrt under Georgia germane to this? IMO, yes.

Or what about - in another thread, Complete Streets, where the concepts overlap somewhat - the idea by someone to "double deck" Georgia with underground road and rrt?
My fear is that "underbuilding," although perhaps considered environmentally friendly now, may catch up to the city in several decades, as it continues to grow and expand.

There will be more building in the downtown peninsula, more LGB commuter traffic, more traffic (pph) in and ouit of downtown from all directions by all means, road and transit.
As such, is it not incumbent on planners to not only enhance the city street-level experience and environment, but also plan for other infastructure to take up the slack?

Planning now and building in the immediate, for road and rrt capacity in and out of the nexus of downtown, is, IMO, a huge responsibility requiring vision and foresight.
It involves handling the traffic that will be displaced by viaduct removal, yes, but also and equally importantly, the entire flow map of central Vancouver in/outbound traffic.
The transit Fantasy thread is for that, if you prefer, but an issue that if not pressing, urgent and critical now, will become so in the future. Thank you for time.

I'd add that there's no point in adding that much more capacity to Georgia when the LGB isn't going to expand or be improved in any meaningful capacity. There needs to be a 3rd crossing to connect to the other side in some way.
http://www.6717000.com/admin/uploads/article/moreimages/970.jpg

The Main Street one is probably my fave.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Yeah, you did. You said "assessed property values surged 150%" and seemed to claim that this would be a bonanza for city finances. In fact property values have nothing to do with how much money the city earns in property taxes. The city sets a budget first, and then property owners pay based on the relative value of their properties to each other.

You can argue about the rates at which the city is expanding its budget, but it's got precious little to do with property values. The closest relationship I can figure is that the city might be able to wrest more from developer fees and CACs if said developers are able to make more money due to increased property values. That's not where most of the city budget comes from, though.

Just so gullible. So you think the City does not set a budget based on BC Property Assessment? Then explain this:

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/elizabeth-murphy-b-c-taxes-need-a-second-look

How is it that we are the most expensive City when it comes to property taxes?
If taxes are not collected based on property value, then Vancouver west side should have the same base tax as everyone else. Is there something I am missing here?

It also says that developmnent fees amount to only 10% of revenue collected.

[Vin]

I wonder what the City wants to do now to divert traffic from Pacific Boulevard once the viaducts are torn down. Prior Street is already a gone case now that it is going to be calmed down to a two-lane arterial. Is the City actually looking into this? Looks like there is currently no solution at hand. This is going to be a very costly decision for the City. Perhaps the final price tag would be in the upwards of a billion dollars.

With so many uncertainties, that also means developments around north falsecreek neighbourhood around the Expo lands would not be happening for the next decade. This is getting ridiculous.

If they were to plan around the area developing with the viaducts intact, we should be getting completed buildings and nice construction sites going on over there right now.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

Just so gullible. So you think the City does not set a budget based on BC Property Assessment? Then explain this:

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/elizabeth-murphy-b-c-taxes-need-a-second-look

How is it that we are the most expensive City when it comes to property taxes?
If taxes are not collected based on property value, then Vancouver west side should have the same base tax as everyone else. Is there something I am missing here?

It also says that developmnent fees amount to only 10% of revenue collected.

To quote Luke Skywalker: Amazing, every word of what you just said is wrong.

Elizabeth Murphy is a noted west side NIMBY, funny you would use her words.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

To quote Luke Skywalker: Amazing, every word of what you just said is wrong.

Elizabeth Murphy is a noted west side NIMBY, funny you would use her words.

At least she provides facts and numbers: you don't. You are only good at quoting hearsays. Being a NIMBY has nothing to do with what she talked about regarding property taxes, so stop with your red herring attempt.

Again, try explaining why Toronto and Vancouver have Canada's most expensive property taxes. Is it because maintaining the exact same sewer pipe here costs a lot more than, say, in Winnipeg?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Just so gullible. So you think the City does not set a budget based on BC Property Assessment?

They don't. They set the taxes you have to pay based on BC Assessment. They set the budget based on the things they need and would like to spend money on

Originally Posted by Vin

How is it that we are the most expensive City when it comes to property taxes?

Because Montreal, and Toronto, and Calgary are all amalgamated from smaller municipalities into one big municipality. To compare Vancouver you would have to generate some sort of average across the core of the region - not just the City of Vancouver. You'll notice that Toronto Central and the City of Vancouver pay almost identical taxes according to that that Sun article

Originally Posted by Vin

If taxes are not collected based on property value, then Vancouver west side should have the same base tax as everyone else. Is there something I am missing here?

I guess what you're missing is that people pay a premium to live on the west side (where Elizabeth Murphy's friends are, desperately trying to stop any new development along the Broadway SkyTrain, in case it reduces their property values). Westside houses benchmark price is $2.9m; Eastside is $1.4m. Westside houses are probably a bit bigger - but not twice as big. Westside apartments average $750,000, Eastside $550,000. [where the numbers are from].

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Vin

At least she provides facts and numbers: you don't. You are only good at quoting hearsays. Being a NIMBY has nothing to do with what she talked about regarding property taxes, so stop with your red herring attempt.

Again, try explaining why Toronto and Vancouver have Canada's most expensive property taxes. Is it because maintaining the exact same sewer pipe here costs a lot more than, say, in Winnipeg?

Here's a real comparison. Property taxes on $1M properties in cities across Canada:

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/best...operty-taxes_ca_5cd55eb8e4b07bc729777ace

Here's something for you:

Low property taxes may be part of the reason why Vancouver's housing market has been so attractive to foreign buyers and investors.

Here's another gem:

Sherry Cooper, chief economist at Dominion Lending Centres and the former chief economist at Bank of Montreal, noted that the "annual cost of owning a home in Vancouver ... is roughly half that of Toronto, a third that of Seattle and almost a fifth that of San Francisco."

[moosejaw]

Vancouver is a very dense city with a very small footprint. Compared to other cities such as Calgary, Ottawa (which is massive) and Toronto (which is six times the area) Its no surprise that Vancouver has lower property taxes than those cities.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by Vin

Just so gullible. So you think the City does not set a budget based on BC Property Assessment? Then explain this:

https://vancouversun.com/opinion/op-ed/elizabeth-murphy-b-c-taxes-need-a-second-look

How is it that we are the most expensive City when it comes to property taxes?
If taxes are not collected based on property value, then Vancouver west side should have the same base tax as everyone else. Is there something I am missing here?

It also says that developmnent fees amount to only 10% of revenue collected.

The city sets a budget for a the year. Lets say $1B (this is just a number from my head). Then the city looks at the assessemet value of all properties in the city. Based on that assessement value they determine what each property must pay.

So if in the second year the budget is still $1B but everyone's property went up by 10%. It doesn't mean there would be a 10% increase in the money collect. Everyone would still pay the same amount of property taxes.

If your property happened to go up by 15% and everyone else 10%. Then you would pay more property tax.

There are only two reasons a owner would need to pay a higher property tax. 1. The budget was increased. Which is what has happened. 2. The owner's assessed value has increased a higher percentage than other properties in the neighbourhood.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by cabotp

The city sets a budget for a the year. Lets say $1B (this is just a number from my head). Then the city looks at the assessemet value of all properties in the city. Based on that assessement value they determine what each property must pay.

So if in the second year the budget is still $1B but everyone's property went up by 10%. It doesn't mean there would be a 10% increase in the money collect. Everyone would still pay the same amount of property taxes.

If your property happened to go up by 15% and everyone else 10%. Then you would pay more property tax.

There are only two reasons a owner would need to pay a higher property tax. 1. The budget was increased. Which is what has happened. 2. The owner's assessed value has increased a higher percentage than other properties in the neighbourhood.

The big trend driving property tax changes over the last few years has been changes in the relative prices of various asset classes - i.e. single family homes, condos, rental building, commercial and industrial properties.

Perhaps another effect is that new construction affects the relative proportions of different asset classes. If Kennedy Stewarts dreams come true and the new rental incentives support the construction of 50,000 new rental units, you can count on the residents of those units paying below average property taxes, but consuming an average amount of city services. That means tax rates have to go up, even if the budget per person stays the same because the average assessed property value per person has gone down. As we gradually densify the city, single family homes will become scarcer and the cost premium for these homes is only going to increase.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by fredinno

I'd add that there's no point in adding that much more capacity to Georgia when the LGB isn't going to expand or be improved in any meaningful capacity. There needs to be a 3rd crossing to connect to the other side in some way.
http://www.6717000.com/admin/uploads/article/moreimages/970.jpg

The Main Street one is probably my fave.

I totally agree! I only mentioned Georgia, because I was thinking of a new double-decker LGB, a bit like the Bay Bridge in SF, though most people are anathemma to a third crossing.
But, yes, I am totally for a third crossing - the Main St option is a good choice -but /a// too expensive /b// goes counter to the transit-people-bike mindset governing now.
I think there might be someone who agrees, bit IMHO cars are going to be around for decades to come and more capacity is needed, voilà. Transit rrt capacity in the tunnel is vital IMO.
and, despite the 'environmentalists', and other who'll scream NO! ... the developing, densifying metro area needs more transit and road infrastructure, despite contrary claims.
If it can be funded, a third crossing, with a rrt rail tunnel, 6+ vehicle lanes, linked up, and well connected with infeed roads, tunnels or ramps, well landscaped entrances, is a must....

*also, upon second look, it appear the 1994 proposal had just that - 6 lanes of vehicle traffic, and rail capacity in the centre.// no, at closer look 4 traffic lanes total. IMO 6 is better.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by Vin

I wonder what the City wants to do now to divert traffic from Pacific Boulevard once the viaducts are torn down. Prior Street is already a gone case now that it is going to be calmed down to a two-lane arterial. Is the City actually looking into this? Looks like there is currently no solution at hand. This is going to be a very costly decision for the City. Perhaps the final price tag would be in the upwards of a billion dollars.

With so many uncertainties, that also means developments around north falsecreek neighbourhood around the Expo lands would not be happening for the next decade. This is getting ridiculous.

Have you read the last 10 pages of this thread?
There's a queuing system that makes all the traffic use the Pac Blvd choke-point at different times.

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

To quote Luke Skywalker: Amazing, every word of what you just said is wrong.

Finally, someone found a good use for the Last Jedi!

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I totally agree! I only mentioned Georgia, because I was thinking of a new double-decker LGB, a bit like the Bay Bridge in SF, though most people are anathemma to a third crossing.
But, yes, I am totally for a third crossing - the Main St option is a good choice -but /a// too expensive /b// goes counter to the transit-people-bike mindset governing now.
I think there might be someone who agrees, bit IMHO cars are going to be around for decades to come and more capacity is needed, voilà. Transit rrt capacity in the tunnel is vital IMO.
and, despite the 'environmentalists', and other who'll scream NO! ... the developing, densifying metro area needs more transit and road infrastructure, despite contrary claims.
If it can be funded, a third crossing, with a rrt rail tunnel, 6+ vehicle lanes, linked up, and well connected with infeed roads, tunnels or ramps, well landscaped entrances, is a must....

*also, upon second look, it appear the 1994 proposal had just that - 6 lanes of vehicle traffic, and rail capacity in the centre.// no, at closer look 4 traffic lanes total. IMO 6 is better.

A new LGB isn't feasible due to it being a historical monument. We're riding that thing to the grave.

There was a preliminary study of a Main Street Tunnel back in 1995: I can't find the 2002 proposal- but the 1995 one is shorter and a bit of an analogue. The Main St crossing would cost about $1.5B in modern day-money, with the lane number not stated, but implied to be 4-6 lanes, with 2 HOV.
https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/tape15/PQDD_0019/MQ37484.pdf

Note however, that adding a new crossing would close the Lions Gate. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/lions-gate-bridge-close-vehicle-traffic-2030-government-agreement

HarbourLink/Broncton Point isn't even feasible anymore due to the redevelopment of Coal Harbour- the area was parking lots still in '94-'95.

The Main Street idea is perhaps feasible if you package SkyTrain onto the tunnel, which is going to be inevitable and expensive no matter where you put it. Though it would skip Lonsdale... so probably not.

Main Street could also be extended down to Shell Road in Richmond eventually as a supplement to the Oak Street Bridge. Increasing traffic may also improve sales in the Little Punjabi District.


A dual level on LGB is iffy because the issue is just as much the Bridge as the Taylor Way approach.

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by scottN

The big trend driving property tax changes over the last few years has been changes in the relative prices of various asset classes - i.e. single family homes, condos, rental building, commercial and industrial properties.

Perhaps another effect is that new construction affects the relative proportions of different asset classes. If Kennedy Stewarts dreams come true and the new rental incentives support the construction of 50,000 new rental units, you can count on the residents of those units paying below average property taxes, but consuming an average amount of city services. That means tax rates have to go up, even if the budget per person stays the same because the average assessed property value per person has gone down. As we gradually densify the city, single family homes will become scarcer and the cost premium for these homes is only going to increase.

Basically nothing is free.

[CanSpice]

Originally Posted by Vin

The City should be flush with cash from the last 2 decades of property tax increases when assessed property value surged upwards of 150% or even more (both residential and commercial). I wonder where all that extra money goes to.....

Nice try buddy.

You are wrong. I wrote a little blog post explaining how property taxes work, it uses a very simple example that dumbs it down to a level that hopefully you can follow along with. Here's the takeaway quote:

What matters is the difference between a specific property’s value and the total value of all of the property in the city. And that’s why you can’t look at a news report about property taxes going up and think “oh great my property taxes are going up”, and it’s also why you can’t look at a news report about property values going up and think “oh great my property taxes are going up”, because the “property taxes” (the amount of money the city needs to take in via taxation) can go up AND your property value can go up BUT the actual taxes you pay can go down.

A couple of years ago the assessed value of my property went up, the mill rate in New Westminster went up, but the actual amount of money I had to pay to the city for property taxes went down.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Finally, someone found a good use for the Last Jedi!

Hey, Luke's last battle was solid and you know it. It's everything before and after it that was disappointing.

Originally Posted by fredinno

There was a preliminary study of a Main Street Tunnel back in 1995: I can't find the 2002 proposal- but the 1995 one is shorter and a bit of an analogue. The Main St crossing would cost about $1.5B in modern day-money, with the lane number not stated, but implied to be 4-6 lanes, with 2 HOV.
https://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/obj/s4/f2/dsk2/tape15/PQDD_0019/MQ37484.pdf

Note however, that adding a new crossing would close the Lions Gate. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/lions-gate-bridge-close-vehicle-traffic-2030-government-agreement

HarbourLink/Broncton Point isn't even feasible anymore due to the redevelopment of Coal Harbour- the area was parking lots still in '94-'95.

The Main Street idea is perhaps feasible if you package SkyTrain onto the tunnel, which is going to be inevitable and expensive no matter where you put it. Though it would skip Lonsdale... so probably not.

Main Street could also be extended down to Shell Road in Richmond eventually as a supplement to the Oak Street Bridge. Increasing traffic may also improve sales in the Little Punjabi District.


A dual level on LGB is iffy because the issue is just as much the Bridge as the Taylor Way approach.

Yeah, any SkyTrain crossing that doesn't hit Lonsdale is going to be a bust.

A third road crossing sounds like a decent idea until you realize that the problem with the North Shore is more to do with the merging than the bridges; Taylor Way is a bottleneck for a bottleneck, yes, but the access points for the Ironworkers Memorial are equally clogged despite twice the bridge & interchange capacity. If you're worried about traffic flow after the viaducts are gone, you should be much more worried about Ctrl-V'ing all the Lions Gate traffic to Main and closing the bridge; same backup, but now in the near-middle of the city instead of Stanley Park.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Hey, Luke's last battle was solid and you know it. It's everything before and after it that was disappointing.



Yeah, any SkyTrain crossing that doesn't hit Lonsdale is going to be a bust.

A third road crossing sounds like a decent idea until you realize that the problem with the North Shore is more to do with the merging than the bridges; Taylor Way is a bottleneck for a bottleneck, yes, but the access points for the Ironworkers Memorial are equally clogged despite twice the bridge & interchange capacity. If you're worried about traffic flow after the viaducts are gone, you should be much more worried about Ctrl-V'ing all the Lions Gate traffic to Main and closing the bridge; same backup, but now in the near-middle of the city instead of Stanley Park.

Haters gonna hate, I liked TLJ better than ROTJ.

Any third crossing should be rapid transit IMO.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Haters gonna hate, I liked TLJ better than ROTJ.

Any third crossing should be rapid transit IMO.

I know the Ewoks sucked, but I'm not sure how they make the story worse than one that's 90% red herring; it's like the writers forgot that they had to make Episode 9.

Agreed. Move the most amount of people for the least relative amount of money.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

there is nothing new about any of these ideas. i have a bunch of engineering plans from the 1960s & 70s for a 3rd crossing, and they talk about 6-8 lanes + rapid transit designed for 10,000-12,500pphpd.

the only thing that is a hindrance is the cost. it is crazy how cheap these were back then. all the estimates are between 80-150 million...