Metro Vancouver Transportation & Transit Plebiscite

[go_leafs_go02]

www.news1130.com

Province calls proposed PST hike the ‘Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax’
http://www.news1130.com/2014/12/18/p...provement-tax/

Will be separate from the PST and an altogether new tax.

[Stanford85]

Aaand looks like transportation minister stone in victoria has given his approval to the referendum question. Albeit with some of his adjustments, its now called a "Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax", which will probably appeal to more people who see congestion as a problem. It's also going to be called a plebiscite rather an a referendum, and the wording of the question has been changed to be meet elections bc non-partisan standards.

Transit referendum question approved by government
Justin McElroy, Global News, December 18, 2014
The B.C. government has approved a transit referendum question for next year put forward by Metro Vancouver Mayor’s Council, with some modifications.

The question on the ballot will be:

“Do you support a new 0.5% Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax, to be dedicated to the Mayors’ Transportation and Transit Plan?”

The original question asked voters to increase the Provincial Sales Tax for Metro Vancouver, while the new question asks for a separate tax. It was also called a referendum, rather than a plebiscite, because the question is technically non-binding. In addition, the preamble has been changed to meet Election BC’s criteria, which mandates that referendum questions be non-partisan in nature.

In addition, Transportation Minister Todd Stone confirmed that ballots will be sent out to people beginning on March 16, with people having until May 29 to vote. If passed, the tax would build a new Pattullo Bridge, light-rail lines in Surrey and Langley, an extension of the Millennium Line to Arbutus Street, increase service on all transit lines, and maintain and upgrade the region’s major roads. The new question still needs to be approved by the Mayor’s council.

http://globalnews.ca/news/1734559/tr...by-government/

[s211]

Originally Posted by Stanford85

the wording of the question has been changed to be meet elections bc non-partisan standards.

It's nice to see that got called out.

[Steveston]

... AND it's being called a "Plebiscite" instead of a "Referendum".

[Xerx]

Aren't plebiscites usually non-binding as opposed to referendums?

[red-paladin]

Topic has been changed to 'Metro Vancouver Transportation & Transit Plebiscite'

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by Xerx

Aren't plebiscites usually non-binding as opposed to referendums?

That's correct. Meaning that the Province could introduce the additional tax if 50% support is not met. Also means the reversal, that the Province could refuse to support the increase even if 50% support is met.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by kylemacmac

Bad idea because every single person who switches from vehicle to transit takes themselves out of the funding pool - it's counterintuitive and will lead to less funding with less vehicle use. Transit requires a subsidy. Less fudning = greater financial losses

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.

Except that the fuel tax makes less money than fares. Someone switching from driving to transit is going to end up giving more money to Translink than if they stay driving. Even though a month of gas costs more to the person, Translink would make more money off the fares. If I pay something like $200/month on gas, that's only around $20/month in Translink tax. If I switch to save money and get a 3 zone pass, I save $30/month, but now Tranlink makes $170 (a 750% increase in revenue for Translink from a person who makes the switch).

The gas tax = 24% of Translink's revenue, being paid by 70% of commuters. Transit Revenue = 32% of Tranlink's revenue, being paid for by less than 20% of commuters. Transit users carry a higher load than drivers. So more riders = more money. A LOT MORE MONEY

Fares are a HUGE portion of Tranlink's income, and having people switch from driving to transit will equal more money for Translink through the fare box and less reliance on taxes.

If we use a higher gas tax, that will be a lot of money for transit right away that will increase service, and make it more attractive to use, which will increase ridership, increasing fare recovery (and improving efficiency of what is already spent) while lowering the tax burden on individuals in the long run (as driving goes down and fare recovery goes up).

The gas tax is also a good way of indirectly charging people for the congestion they cause. The longer they spend on the roads, the more they spend on gas, the more they spend on tax. It is like road tolling with zero added overhead, and assholes with gas guzzlers pay extra for the privileged of being a douche.

It will take a long time for the majority of people to switch over to zero emission vehicles. Even Hybrids are a low % of cars on the road after years of availability and sky high pump prices. That is many years of gas tax revenue to help pay for infrastructure upgrades while fare revenue grows. But their use should actually be encouraged. People buying new cars is good for the Canadian Economy (more jobs, thus better tax revenue at the provincial/federal level) and if they buy fuel efficient, green vehicles that is good for the environment, and that should be rewarded.

[WarrenC12]

Referendum will pass, my prediction is 55%. I'm not sure where all of the negativity is coming from on this forum. Don't listen to internet trolls.

[SOSS]

I like the updated question and think it has a better chance of passing as it is now stated.

However most people don't know what a Plebescite is. With that affect the turnout?

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Except that the fuel tax makes less money than fares. Someone switching from driving to transit is going to end up giving more money to Translink than if they stay driving. Even though a month of gas costs more to the person, Translink would make more money off the fares. If I pay something like $200/month on gas, that's only around $20/month in Translink tax. If I switch to save money and get a 3 zone pass, I save $30/month, but now Tranlink makes $170 (a 750% increase in revenue for Translink from a person who makes the switch).

The gas tax = 24% of Translink's revenue, being paid by 70% of commuters. Transit Revenue = 32% of Tranlink's revenue, being paid for by less than 20% of commuters. Transit users carry a higher load than drivers. So more riders = more money. A LOT MORE MONEY

Fares are a HUGE portion of Tranlink's income, and having people switch from driving to transit will equal more money for Translink through the fare box and less reliance on taxes.

If we use a higher gas tax, that will be a lot of money for transit right away that will increase service, and make it more attractive to use, which will increase ridership, increasing fare recovery (and improving efficiency of what is already spent) while lowering the tax burden on individuals in the long run (as driving goes down and fare recovery goes up).

The gas tax is also a good way of indirectly charging people for the congestion they cause. The longer they spend on the roads, the more they spend on gas, the more they spend on tax. It is like road tolling with zero added overhead, and assholes with gas guzzlers pay extra for the privileged of being a douche.

It will take a long time for the majority of people to switch over to zero emission vehicles. Even Hybrids are a low % of cars on the road after years of availability and sky high pump prices. That is many years of gas tax revenue to help pay for infrastructure upgrades while fare revenue grows. But their use should actually be encouraged. People buying new cars is good for the Canadian Economy (more jobs, thus better tax revenue at the provincial/federal level) and if they buy fuel efficient, green vehicles that is good for the environment, and that should be rewarded.

No single revenue source would ever fund everything.

Like, bureaucracy-aside, the revenue sources should match what they fund, in the city/municipality that they operate in.

Mayors Council on Translink's website covers all these areas, and their population density:
City of Vancouver (114.97 km2) - 5,249/km2
City of New Westminster (15.63 km2) - 4,222.2/km2
City of North Vancouver (11.83 km2) - 4,073.8/km2
White Rock (5.13 km2) - 3,773.5/km2
City of Burnaby (90.61 km2)- 2,463.5/km2
City of Langley (10.22 km2) - 2,454.6/km2
City of Port Coquitlam (29.17 km2) - 1,918.3/km2
City of Surrey (316.41 km2) - 1,500/km2
City of Richmond (129.27 km2) - 1,473.50/km2
City of Port Moody (25.89 km2) - 1,273.8/km2
City of Coquitlam (122.30 km2) - 1,034.0/km2
Corporation of Delta (183.70 km2) - 554.4/km2
District of North Vancouver (160.76 km2) - 525.1/km2
Village of Lions Bay (2.53 km2) - 520.2/km2
District of West Vancouver (87.26 km2) - 489.3/km2
Township of Langley (306.93 km2) - 338.2/km2
District of Maple Ridge (266.78 km2)- 285.1/km2
Village of Belcarra (5.50 km2) - 117.1/km2
City of Pitt Meadows (86.51 km2)
Village of Anmore (28.24 km2) - 74.1/km2
Bowen Island (50.14 km2) - 67.9/km2
Tsawwassen First Nation (2.9 km2)
Everywhere else (Electoral Area 'A', which includes UBC, University Endowment Lands, Boywer Island, and a lot of area north of North Vancouver/West Vancouver around the reservoirs @ 815.59 km2.) - 15.9/km2, UEL-553.15/km2

Note that the West Coast Express goes to Mission, which is not part of Translink's area. On the other hand Electoral District A covers a lot of area that has no transit either.

Like if you look at the population density alone, a Yes vote may squeak out a win, but it seems like for that to happen, some voting group needs to hold their nose.

But going back to this:
http://www.insightswest.com/wp-conte...dum_Tables.pdf

The "Yes" votes are going to come from the 18-34 and 35-54 age group who use transit and bike, and normally vote NDP. People who vote Liberal and/or drive are within the margin of error (not sure's) of voting yes.

[Tetsuo]

Originally Posted by Kisai

No single revenue source would ever fund everything.

Like, bureaucracy-aside, the revenue sources should match what they fund, in the city/municipality that they operate in.

Mayors Council on Translink's website covers all these areas, and their population density:
City of Vancouver (114.97 km2) - 5,249/km2
City of New Westminster (15.63 km2) - 4,222.2/km2
City of North Vancouver (11.83 km2) - 4,073.8/km2
White Rock (5.13 km2) - 3,773.5/km2
City of Burnaby (90.61 km2)- 2,463.5/km2
City of Langley (10.22 km2) - 2,454.6/km2
City of Port Coquitlam (29.17 km2) - 1,918.3/km2
City of Surrey (316.41 km2) - 1,500/km2
City of Richmond (129.27 km2) - 1,473.50/km2
City of Port Moody (25.89 km2) - 1,273.8/km2
City of Coquitlam (122.30 km2) - 1,034.0/km2
Corporation of Delta (183.70 km2) - 554.4/km2
District of North Vancouver (160.76 km2) - 525.1/km2
Village of Lions Bay (2.53 km2) - 520.2/km2
District of West Vancouver (87.26 km2) - 489.3/km2
Township of Langley (306.93 km2) - 338.2/km2
District of Maple Ridge (266.78 km2)- 285.1/km2
Village of Belcarra (5.50 km2) - 117.1/km2
City of Pitt Meadows (86.51 km2)
Village of Anmore (28.24 km2) - 74.1/km2
Bowen Island (50.14 km2) - 67.9/km2
Tsawwassen First Nation (2.9 km2)
Everywhere else (Electoral Area 'A', which includes UBC, University Endowment Lands, Boywer Island, and a lot of area north of North Vancouver/West Vancouver around the reservoirs @ 815.59 km2.) - 15.9/km2, UEL-553.15/km2

Note that the West Coast Express goes to Mission, which is not part of Translink's area. On the other hand Electoral District A covers a lot of area that has no transit either.

Like if you look at the population density alone, a Yes vote may squeak out a win, but it seems like for that to happen, some voting group needs to hold their nose.

But going back to this:
http://www.insightswest.com/wp-conte...dum_Tables.pdf

The "Yes" votes are going to come from the 18-34 and 35-54 age group who use transit and bike, and normally vote NDP. People who vote Liberal and/or drive are within the margin of error (not sure's) of voting yes.

IIRC more NDP ridings voted against HST whereas Liberal ridings were rather balanced. I think the more reasonable centrist block (mix of mostly Liberal and NDP) will be the deciding factor and be voting yes

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Kisai

No single revenue source would ever fund everything.

Like, bureaucracy-aside, the revenue sources should match what they fund, in the city/municipality that they operate in.

I'm not saying that fares would be the only revenue source. I was countering the notion that increasing the gas tax would be a net loss for Translink because because people would stop driving. They would start riding transit so over time it would be a huge net gain for Tranlink, and a net savings for all of us on our tax burden.

I just say that with more riders, fares would become the majority of income for translink. Many systems around the world that are heavily ridden recover most of their operating cost from fares.

http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and...d-Outlook.aspx (click on the plan revenues tab).

Fares are already the largest single source of income for Translink, by quite a bit. And with more riders it could cross the 40% mark without much more infrastructure. More people just need to ride, there is unused capacity in many parts of our system.

The problem is, for the very short term at least, ridership might drop on Translink as gas price drops. Some people who have been avoiding high gas prices will go back to their car. That is going to put more pressure on our roads, which should be funded by an increased gas tax (basically a tax on congestion/polluting). As well, transit will see a drop in fare recovery and waste in transit capacity, which could be compensated by higher gas taxes (which could keep some of those people who might make the switch on Transit).

If anything, this referendum is a little unbalanced. It is asking for a new tax to be implemented (something we seem to really hate in BC). They should have asked for a lower %, like 0.25%, in addition to other sources, like a very low vehicle registry levy, and increased gas tax and property tax, and maybe even tolls on other bridges (especially ones that need work done).

If that passed, yes it would drive people away from driving, right into the arms of Translink (where they make more money). The sudden influx of money for the first few years (before people make the switch) would be enough to fund the Broadway and Surrey Rapid Transit. Then fare recovery would get higher and fill in the funding gaps for the future.

At the same time, the increase would be spread over several sources, so low income families that rely on their car (or multiple cars) won't be hammered by a huge vehicle levy. And low income people who actually use transit already and don't have a car won't be hammered by a sales tax increase.

[Metro-One]

Sooo, sorry for the most idiotic question ever. It is Saturday morning here and I just woke up (so my brain is skipping).

0.5% means half a penny for every dollar spent right?

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I'm not saying that fares would be the only revenue source. I was countering the notion that increasing the gas tax would be a net loss for Translink because because people would stop driving. They would start riding transit so over time it would be a huge net gain for Tranlink, and a net savings for all of us on our tax burden.

I just say that with more riders, fares would become the majority of income for translink. Many systems around the world that are heavily ridden recover most of their operating cost from fares.

http://www.translink.ca/en/Plans-and...d-Outlook.aspx (click on the plan revenues tab).

Fares are already the largest single source of income for Translink, by quite a bit. And with more riders it could cross the 40% mark without much more infrastructure. More people just need to ride, there is unused capacity in many parts of our system.

The problem is, for the very short term at least, ridership might drop on Translink as gas price drops. Some people who have been avoiding high gas prices will go back to their car. That is going to put more pressure on our roads, which should be funded by an increased gas tax (basically a tax on congestion/polluting). As well, transit will see a drop in fare recovery and waste in transit capacity, which could be compensated by higher gas taxes (which could keep some of those people who might make the switch on Transit).

If anything, this referendum is a little unbalanced. It is asking for a new tax to be implemented (something we seem to really hate in BC). They should have asked for a lower %, like 0.25%, in addition to other sources, like a very low vehicle registry levy, and increased gas tax and property tax, and maybe even tolls on other bridges (especially ones that need work done).

If that passed, yes it would drive people away from driving, right into the arms of Translink (where they make more money). The sudden influx of money for the first few years (before people make the switch) would be enough to fund the Broadway and Surrey Rapid Transit. Then fare recovery would get higher and fill in the funding gaps for the future.

At the same time, the increase would be spread over several sources, so low income families that rely on their car (or multiple cars) won't be hammered by a huge vehicle levy. And low income people who actually use transit already and don't have a car won't be hammered by a sales tax increase.

I'm not sure about that. One 0.5% tax sounds a lot better than TRANSLINK WANTS TO ADD 3 NEW TAXES!!!1!

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I'm not sure about that. One 0.5% tax sounds a lot better than TRANSLINK WANTS TO ADD 3 NEW TAXES!!!1!

Far less confusing too.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

0.5% means half a penny for every dollar spent right?

Exactly.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I'm not sure about that. One 0.5% tax sounds a lot better than TRANSLINK WANTS TO ADD 3 NEW TAXES!!!1!

It depends. People in BC are cynical, but the majority aren't stupid. People can see that if you have multiple smaller taxes, that you can skirt around some of them to suit your lifestyle to lessen your tax burden. The PST is inescapable. A .5% increase to sales tax seems like a tax grab by an irresponsible, unaccountable bureaucracy to many. There is mention of regular audits (to try to appease the cynics), but no real terms or conditions. It still just "vanishes" into general revenue.

With multiple sources of revenue, each one could be tied to various projects. Increasing gas tax can come with the stipulation that the money is used to improve roads and bridges (IE: the gas tax is expected to generate $x million/year, the annual budget spent on roads/bridges will increase by $x million/year or $x million is going to the Pattullo replacement). Or a vehicle levy could be introduced that will pay for expanding Skytrain, once Translink's portion is paid off the levy is removed. You could even break down the levy for different projects, like $20 for Broadway, $10 for Surrey; or 5cents/liter is for this, 3cents/liter is for that. PST increase could be for expanded B line network. Or any other revenue source to project spending combination you prefer. People like terms and limits. Imagine if your cell phone contract was indefinite.

People just want accountability and know their money is going to good use. The general revenue model is just too troubling for BC cynics. "How do we know it's not going towards bonuses for executives or hiring more pointless middle managers?" is what you are going to hear until the vote. And that cynical message will make people vote no.

If we wanted to be simple, we could just increase the property tax. It can generate the same amount of money as the PST, and be more progressive than the PST, and not go to a vote at all.

I personally don't really mind the PST increase, but remember, this is a province that voted down an HST that would have been simpler to implement and saved all businesses a lot of money thus generating jobs creating a more prosperous province, in exchange for charging us the same level of tax as before, but on a few extra items that used to be PST exempt. The region might end up being split on opinion polls going into the vote, but the NO side is going to be a lot more motivated to send in their ballots, just like last time.

[Pinion]

The majority of people are blithering idiots. I don't know how anyone can spend any time in public and not come to this conclusion. This is why we shouldn't let people vote on things like this.

[WarrenC12]

People are idiots. But we can't tie this funding to an expense than can be avoided easily (like carbon tax, vehicle levy, etc). It needs to be tied directly to the economy. You have 2 choices there: income tax or sales tax.