Metro Vancouver Transportation & Transit Plebiscite

[casper]

Originally Posted by kylemacmac

You're forgetting rollerbaldes and pogo balls...and shoes too. Literally the worst idea I've ever heard. Taxing low-impact transportation will incentivize more people towards vehicle use.

Honestly, PST is the best move here. People that spend more contribute more. Essential items aren't taxed so lower income families are left off better than blanket vehicle levies.

You are correct I did exclude rollerblades and pogo balls.

I should have indicated that bikes and tricycles with a wheel diameter of greater than 350 mm should not be taxed. However unicycles should be taxed and bikes and tricycles regardless of wheel diameter should be taxed if equipped with an electric power source unless the electric power source can be removed for the purpose of invoicing, where one need to determine the appropriate split between peddle power and electric power and adjust the tax accordingly

That would make it consistent with the rules that govern PST on the sale of a bike in BC:
http://www.sbr.gov.bc.ca/documents_l...ns/pst_204.pdf

I know it is not a popular position but I do have a deep dislike for the PST system. That said, the guidelines on how to apply PST on the sale of a bike is actually not bad, only six pages long. The rules that govern when and how to apply PST on the sale of something like software is closer to 17 pages.

[st7860]

Just because the car allowance of everyone qualifying for it a Translink doesn't even add up to 2 million per year does not mean it is a legitimate thing that should continue

Also someone mentioned bus drivers. So what happens if the referendum passes, and translink gets an extra 300 million per year. they will be lining up for an increase too...

[Rico]

Originally Posted by st7860

Just because the car allowance of everyone qualifying for it a Translink doesn't even add up to 2 million per year does not mean it is a legitimate thing that should continue

Also someone mentioned bus drivers. So what happens if the referendum passes, and translink gets an extra 300 million per year. they will be lining up for an increase too...

I am not executive material but have had car/truck allowance in several of my private sector jobs. It is quite common in my field and have assumed it is common in other fields that involve significant travel....

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Rico

I am not executive material but have had car/truck allowance in several of my private sector jobs. It is quite common in my field and have assumed it is common in other fields that involve significant travel....

Car and truck allowance is necessary for jobs that require them to travel. Examples of these non-Executive jobs are outside sales or account managers, construction workers (usually a foreman or supervisor), couriers that use personal vehicles, delivery drivers (i.e. pizza stores) utilities personnel, outside scientific personnel (geologists), and so on. I'm assuming you had a car or truck allowance because your job requires you to go from site to site in a very regular basis, right?

The Translink executives work almost exclusively in New Westminister, with the occassional trip to a city hall or two, which we would hear about it in the news, whether its radio site (i.e. News 1130), a major paper (Vancouver Sun), a news TV station(Global, CTV) or a local paper (Jeff Nagel articles). Do you hear them going to each city hall every single day?

I doubt each and every one of them go either, nor do they go to a specific site if a bus or Skytrain breaks down to oversee the work. The Translink Executive car allowance is nothing more than a taxpayer funded perk that is absolutely NOT needed in their day to day job. They have it because they have no accountability whatsoever.

[LeftCoaster]

They have it because we live in a competitive marketplace and they would HAVE it if they worked in the private sector. Yes it is an 'unnecessary' perk for the job they do, but it is necessary to lure high functioning executives away from the private sector. If you want to strip this out and the 'unnecessary' amount we pay them you are going to get a bargain basement executive who will do an even worse job than the current lot.

You get what you pay for.

[kylemacmac]

Get everyone you know who thinks they'll vote no on the referendum to watch this:

http://mtayloranalysis.wordpress.com...ncouver-video/

Shows clearly how not supporting transit infrastructure and development will cost us far more in the end.

[kylemacmac]

Vancouver Board of Trade CEO addresses the Mayor's Council about transportation referendum - excellent reporter scrum at end - he really covers all bases on critique.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSXuRTRCWEc&feature=youtu.be

[kylemacmac]

We really need to move beyond "do you support the 0.5% PST increase" question.

The real question is:

"An organization of Vancouver region mayors have put together a comprehensive transportation plan that is supported by an unprecedented wide-ranging coalition of business groups, unions, environmental groups and levels of government to ensure smart, progressive investment in our transportation infrastructure . Do you support their plan, yes or no."

[kylemacmac]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

I doubt each and every one of them go either, nor do they go to a specific site if a bus or Skytrain breaks down to oversee the work. The Translink Executive car allowance is nothing more than a taxpayer funded perk that is absolutely NOT needed in their day to day job. They have it because they have no accountability whatsoever.

Who cares, this is minutae that needlessly distorts the referendum question. But if you care so much, you should at least push for them to a) remove those perks or at a minimum b) get them changed to taxi and/or Uber/Lyft rideshare perks to support more effective shared vehicle modes.


_____________________
Download/Read/Share: “Assessing and Reforming Vancouver's Taxi Regulations“ by Benn Proctor

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

The Translink executives work almost exclusively in New Westminister, with the occassional trip to a city hall or two, which we would hear about it in the news, whether its radio site (i.e. News 1130), a major paper (Vancouver Sun), a news TV station(Global, CTV) or a local paper (Jeff Nagel articles). Do you hear them going to each city hall every single day?

Of course not. But do you seriously think they're travelling only to meet the media, and just staying in one area of the country's largest transit service area, all the time?

The TransLink car allowance is a great value to taxpayers. By comparison, City of Surrey Councillors get as much as twice the allowance to roam largely around their own cities.

[Henbo]

Will the 0.5% tax hike raise $7.5 billion by itself, or will it raise approx. $2.5 billion with the province and Feds kicking in another 1/3 each?

[cornholio]

Jlousa and Casper pointing out the flaws of the PST system have possibly nudged me back in to NO vote territory.

As for people saying just compromise...maybe its just me or my background but compromising for the sake of compromising is unacceptable. That's not how things are negotiated, that's how people are taken advantage of. I am a firm believer that every once in a while one must cut off their nose to spite their face to drive home the point that they are serious and are willing and capable to assure mutual destruction if need be. This keeps everyone honest.

The tax for me needs to be progressive, that means tolls without huge rebates for lower income earners are a no chance for me, same with vehicle levies, parking stall taxes, etc. Property taxes, income taxes, and consumption taxes on non essentials (fuel is a essential for many people) are where it is at, with rebates when needed. PST however seems to have some major flaws that we should probably not support.

[bardak]

Originally Posted by kylemacmac

Vancouver Board of Trade CEO addresses the Mayor's Council about transportation referendum - excellent reporter scrum at end - he really covers all bases on critique.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSXuRTRCWEc&feature=youtu.be

This is probably the most convincing argument I've heard. Ian Black is the current head of the Vancouver board of trade and a former BC Liberal minister of Labour. He seams to be really well spoken and willing to try to convince people to make the hard choice. He seems like he would have made a good premier who could actually form a vision and lead unlike our current premier. Hopefully the referendum is successful and he can use this as a jumping off point for a future political career. All we would need after that is a corresponding leader on the other side of the aisle.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

They have it because we live in a competitive marketplace and they would HAVE it if they worked in the private sector. Yes it is an 'unnecessary' perk for the job they do, but it is necessary to lure high functioning executives away from the private sector. If you want to strip this out and the 'unnecessary' amount we pay them you are going to get a bargain basement executive who will do an even worse job than the current lot.

You get what you pay for.

The current lot is not worth the amount of compensation that we give them for. The only decent executive that Translink had was that guy from NYC. But I don't blame him for leaving since the way Translink as the Provincial whipping boy is silly.

Fire them all and post a job at the Help Wanted section....watch all the qualified applicants who simply were not given a chance due to not knowing the right peeps line up and do better jobs....

Originally Posted by Kisai

Not entirely correct.
http://www.insightswest.com/wp-conte...dum_Tables.pdf

It's slightly cherry picked, but here's a summary:

Only 18% had a definite Yes. If you've ever taken these kinds of polls before, they usually go "Definite Yes, Probably Yes, Uncertain, Probably No, Definite No, Abstain" in order, and all poll questions inherently bias towards the order listed.

Also they asked about transit priorities (I'm going to super-summarize this, read the document for details):


Like with the Probably yes thing, there is an inherent bias towards the order it is shown in the poll. So the Surrey LRT, Millennium Line extension, and Improve Safety options were likely the last items on the poll.


That said, polls only take the temperature of the people who had signed up to do polls, and most polls have inherent bias towards getting a specific result due to the positioning of keywords in the questions.

I must have missed this one but its interesting that despite a handful of SSP forumers attempt to sway this poll to favour the Broadway Line above all else, there seems to be enough people out there who are also able and willing to take the time to participate in such polls and give their honest opinion on the matter.

[kylemacmac]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

I must have missed this one but its interesting that despite a handful of SSP forumers attempt to sway this poll to favour the Broadway Line above all else, there seems to be enough people out there who are also able and willing to take the time to participate in such polls and give their honest opinion on the matter.

A public opinion poll subject to keyword polling flaws about a wide range of transportation issues with extremely differing costs and benefits is literally a pointless exercise to begin with and is subject to the currently-established confirmation biases and (mostly) automobile culture positive feedback loops we're so desperately trying to change to make this a better region.

Let's say more people prioritize vehicle-specific improvements as (1) and bike/pedestrian as (8) BUT if the bike/pedestrian improvements can be made for 1/50 the price of the vehicle improvements and if fully implemented will negate the need and urgency of various vehicle-specific improvements....should we go with public opinion's (1) priorities? Or the cost-effective priorities?

On the whole, it's MUCH cheaper in the long run for costs PASSED ON TO THE AVERAGE PERSON to invest in measures that will lead to more walkable/bikeable communities and smart land planning and transit investment are the cornerstones of that way of thinking. So yeah, you can spend billions on new bridges and roads for cars in the name of "easing congestion" but the most cost effective and long term way to ease "congestion" is to build communities and transportation networks that literally never lead to congestion in the first place. But people get stuck in traffic (ie: cause) because driving a car is the best available option and say "why don't we build more lanes?"

The public in general doesn't understand the immense subsidy already given to automobiles and usually thinks we can build our way out of traffic problems via widening roads so I think education is the key.....but in addition to education, I say to hell with public opinion polls because of the inherent biases towards inefficient transportation choices.


_____________________
Download/Read/Share: “Assessing and Reforming Vancouver's Taxi Regulations“ by Benn Proctor

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Fire them all and post a job at the Help Wanted section....watch all the qualified applicants who simply were not given a chance due to not knowing the right peeps line up and do better jobs....

Hmm and here I was thinking running a multi-billion dollar company, with thousands of employees, hundreds of thousands of daily customers and a limited budget would be difficult. You're probably right though, lets just take out a craigslist ad and hire someone for 50k a year. That'll solve it.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Hmm and here I was thinking running a multi-billion dollar company, with thousands of employees, hundreds of thousands of daily customers and a limited budget would be difficult. You're probably right though, lets just take out a craigslist ad and hire someone for 50k a year. That'll solve it.

Sometimes, the best solution is the most simple. And considering what we often see in Craigslist, its not that far fetched. The question is will the powers to be allow it? After all, ultimately, self interest is what is driving these Translink Execs, and why its so difficult to support them in any shape or form, including a "yes" vote in this referendum. We'll see...

[SOSS]

Maybe some thought should be put into setting Translink as a Not-for-Profit organization completely independent of political influence.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by SOSS

Maybe some thought should be put into setting Translink as a Not-for-Profit organization completely independent of political influence.

I doubt that would happen... or even work.

I've been skimming over the budgets of the Municipalities, and I can't even find a line item that specifically mentions Translink with some of them.

Burnaby has "Greater Vancouver Transit Authority" as a line item.
http://www.burnaby.ca/Assets/our+cit...ncial+Plan.pdf

600 Greater Vancouver Transit Authority (4,845,104) (7,517,095) (11,151,218) (5,061,168) (5,186,168)

2010 actual, 2011 actual, 2012 actual, 2012 annual, 2013 annual

Surrey: http://surrey.ca/files/2013to2017Sur...lan%282%29.pdf
Note: thousands

GVTA 4,518 4,518 10,303 10,303 10,303 39,945

Italics = Total for row, not 2018.


Richmond(2006):
Note: thousands
https://www.civicinfo.bc.ca/practice...hmond_2006.pdf

GVTA 11,562 12,074 12,568 20,288 25,954

2002,2003,2004,2005,2006

Interesting that Surrey complains about being under-serviced, when they are paying half of what Richmond is paying... in 2002.

When you start looking at various sources and numbers you start asking if "user-pay" is a better idea, or would ultimately make the region unbearable to live in.

Realistically, the largest line item in Translink's budget is bus drivers, and fares system-wide do not cover this at all. Unless everyone wants to pay 15$ per trip, user-pay doesn't work here.

Meanwhile car drivers don't pay enough, replace the gas tax and property tax entirely with a car levy, and every car would need to pay a minimum of 1000$/year to bring it back into balance. Some peoples cars aren't even worth that much. So user-pay doesn't work here.

If we axed all these revenue sources and instead glued it to the PST, people would buy online, or outside the Metro Vancouver area to avoid it. The PST would need to be a minimum of 2% to make up for the other revenue sources lost.

Maybe we just need to see the reality that we don't actually have the population base required to do operate as much transit as we already have, since ridership isn't increasing on buses.

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by Kisai

I doubt that would happen... or even work.

I've been skimming over the budgets of the Municipalities, and I can't even find a line item that specifically mentions Translink with some of them.

Burnaby has "Greater Vancouver Transit Authority" as a line item.
http://www.burnaby.ca/Assets/our+cit...ncial+Plan.pdf

2010 actual, 2011 actual, 2012 actual, 2012 annual, 2013 annual

Surrey: http://surrey.ca/files/2013to2017Sur...lan%282%29.pdf
Note: thousands

Italics = Total for row, not 2018.


Richmond(2006):
Note: thousands
https://www.civicinfo.bc.ca/practice...hmond_2006.pdf

2002,2003,2004,2005,2006

Interesting that Surrey complains about being under-serviced, when they are paying half of what Richmond is paying... in 2002.

When you start looking at various sources and numbers you start asking if "user-pay" is a better idea, or would ultimately make the region unbearable to live in.

Realistically, the largest line item in Translink's budget is bus drivers, and fares system-wide do not cover this at all. Unless everyone wants to pay 15$ per trip, user-pay doesn't work here.

Meanwhile car drivers don't pay enough, replace the gas tax and property tax entirely with a car levy, and every car would need to pay a minimum of 1000$/year to bring it back into balance. Some peoples cars aren't even worth that much. So user-pay doesn't work here.

If we axed all these revenue sources and instead glued it to the PST, people would buy online, or outside the Metro Vancouver area to avoid it. The PST would need to be a minimum of 2% to make up for the other revenue sources lost.

Maybe we just need to see the reality that we don't actually have the population base required to do operate as much transit as we already have, since ridership isn't increasing on buses.

Distance based-pricing. Compass card will be able to take care of distance base pricing for transit users. Road pricing on all limited access routes (Hwy 1, 17, 91, 99) would take care of distance base pricing for vehicles. You travel, you pay.