It’s now up to 250+ comments on the post about the last transit plebiscite. Time to start afresh, folks.
The latest stories on the transit plebiscite.
The launch
The province’s very fast switch to a harmonized tax after the Retail Council said it would go to war over a new, separate third tax
And, in council today, transportation director Jerry Dobrovolny outlined why it would be a disaster for Vancouver if there’s a No vote, how Vancouver would benefit, and what staff are doing to inform and persuade people. Story to come.
Also, I note that the B.C. Hotel and Foodservices Association seems to have swung over to the Yes side (Ian Tostenson didn’t sound so sure when I talked to him last week) even though it will mean a 15.5 per cent tax on alcohol.
134 responses so far ↓
1 brianeleryphillips // Feb 10, 2015 at 6:15 pm
Your reply is sort of an example of what I’m talking about though. You go straight to talking about what the mayors say about the consequences of the vote. I don’t care what they say, I want to talk about what the consequences of the vote actually are! And then you tell me about what some people might think about the vote- it doesn’t tell me if its well grounded or not.
2 Gerald Dobronov // Feb 10, 2015 at 8:33 pm
Why go for Plan B when there’s a Plan A?
3 Jeff Leigh // Feb 10, 2015 at 10:58 pm
Two sites follow to get into the details of what is in the plan.
First, the Mayor’s Council site. Good summary, low on details:
http://mayorscouncil.ca/transportation-investments/
Second, the 2014 detailed report. 124 pages of details. It covers which items are included, and the timing of each. It shows the calculations for relative benefits (how the priorities were selected). It shows the impact on ridership projections.
http://mayorscouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Mayors-Council_Appendices_June-12-2014.pdf
I agree facts are good. What is in the plan is what will be funded. Not everything is planned to be completed in the ten years covered by the proposed tax: the last of the three Surrey LRT lines will be under construction and not completed until year 12. The rest is there.
Funding requirements for the following years are outlined as well.
4 Jeff Leigh // Feb 10, 2015 at 11:01 pm
Not sure what the relevance of Plan B, C, or D is if they are not funded. Plan A is funded.
5 Lysenko's Nemesis // Feb 11, 2015 at 9:45 am
Remember that in the Mayors Plans there is no mention of the fact that two thirds of the required funding is expected to come from the provincial and the federal government – automatically. This is a pipe dream. Even if the referendum is successful the governments change and those governments have their own ideas as to finance infrastructure. In the federal government’s case, they will always take the rest of the country into account too.
Note too that 5 cents per-kilometre road pricing for all vehicles is in the plan. This will add around $1,200.00 per year for those that commute from Coquitlam, Langley or parts of Surrey, etc., into Vancouver. It will also create inflation of all products and prices, sine all commercial vehicles will be paying too. Trucks using the Port will also pay road fees. This could make the Port less competitive and reduce business activity.
6 Jeff Leigh // Feb 11, 2015 at 10:51 am
I believe you are mistaken. The Mayor’s Council plan (detailed appendices, link above) discusses shared funding in great detail.
Also, Appendix D includes a letter from Minister Todd Stone, stating “…the government recognizes that the timing and viability of major projects is dependent on senior government funding. The provincial government is prepared to commit funding one third of major capital projects, provided funding is restricted to major new rapid transit capital and the replacement of the Pattullo Bridge, and that it fits within the provincial capital plan. Furthermore, we will work with local governments and advocate for matching contributions from the Government of Canada.”
So, no commitment yet. But lots of discussion. Any agreement between three levels of government is going to take time. The plebiscite isn’t on the other levels of government, it is about the 1/3 local contribution.
5 cents per kilometer is not in the current funding plan, it is a potential scenario. Included in that discussion is the option of making road pricing revenue neutral (like the carbon tax was). Also, the plan lists the potential to reduce fuel taxes by six cents per litre. That is all a future discussion.
7 Lysenko's Nemesis // Feb 11, 2015 at 10:55 am
“The Mayor of Surrey has established specific ideas for funding light-rail if the referendum fails.
If it fails, Hepner is committed to getting the system built sooner rather than later.
“We’re prepared to think outside of the box on this project, particularly when it comes to funding, which is why we’re going to look at development opportunities along the line and how we leverage development and put it to work to get things started” said Hepner.
http://www.surreyfirst.ca/2014/10/phase-one-of-surrey-light-rail-by-2018/
8 Jeff Leigh // Feb 11, 2015 at 11:06 am
That isn’t Plan B (which would need to address regional needs), but rather one municipality. And they haven’t talked about the price to local taxpayers, so to hold it up as an alternative seems risky.
What it really is, is a good example of how failing to deal with transit in a regional context will reduce plans down to point solutions, without regional coordination.
9 Lysenko's Nemesis // Feb 11, 2015 at 11:30 am
At over 150 beautifully produced pages there are many things in the Mayors’ Plan (Jeff Leigh links to it in a nearby post). One would have to be a lawyer to notice the little mention of working with other governments for $5 billion. I wonder why. The Mayors want to have this endorsement and they also want more taxing power and more control over traffic.
If we read further we see that the Mayors also want some of the Carbon Tax for transit.
For their traffic, cycling and transit plans the mayors want, over and above the present funds they receive, new funds that they will decide how to dispurse from:
Road Pricing.
A new dedicated Sales Tax blended into the current Sales Tax and administered by the province.
A cut of the present provincial Carbon Tax.
$5 billion of new funding from other governments.
And they just call it one-half-of-one-percent tax. Absolutely irresistible!
Talk about Read The Fine Print! This is like buying an advertised ticket to Hawaii for $100. Then, learning that Carry-On bags are extra. Checked-Bags are extra. Food is extra, Booking Fees will be added, Fuel Surcharges will be added, Departure Taxes will be added, Arrival Taxes will be added, Entertainment charges apply, etc., etc.
10 Lysenko's Nemesis // Feb 11, 2015 at 11:33 am
You questioned the relevance of Plan B as mentioned by ‘A Taxpayer’. I provided the answer to that.
11 Lysenko's Nemesis // Feb 11, 2015 at 11:37 am
In the link that you provided Road Pricing is repeatedly mentioned.
” The Vision identifies integrated mobility
pricing as a key action to implement
before the end of the 10-year period.
Pricing is a powerful tool to more
efficiently manage the transportation
system by influencing the choices people
make: how they travel; how far they
travel; the route and the time. …”
In their future only the rich will drive.
12 Jeff Leigh // Feb 11, 2015 at 11:41 am
And again, we are not voting on it. Vote against mobility charges when that plebiscite comes around, if you like. It has nothing to do with the current funding question.
13 Jeff Leigh // Feb 11, 2015 at 11:47 am
I get the sense that you hadn’t studied this document previously, which could explain some of the recent posts. You should go back through this thread and see how many of your questions were answered by simply looking up the information.
You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand a three way funding model. Just take a ride on the existing Skytrain, and say to yourself, this is how it was paid for. Or go out to dinner with friends, and split the cheque. And if you regularly went out to dinner with friends and split the cheque, expecting to do the same on an upcoming meal isn’t a big stretch.
No new taxing power is being proposed for the Mayor’s Council. The taxation power is with the province. They would collect the proposed funds and direct them to Translink.
They asked for a portion of the carbon tax. That was refused. That is why we are having a plebiscite.
Check the date on the report. You are presenting all of the funding options as if they are cumulative. Please read the report and come back.
14 Jeff Leigh // Feb 11, 2015 at 11:50 am
Which I pointed out wasn’t relevant in a regional context.
So I guess that answer didn’t help much.
15 Lysenko's Nemesis // Feb 11, 2015 at 12:18 pm
The ballot is reduced to a few suggestions on a playing-card sized piece of paper. How many voters are going to read all 124 pages?
Judging from the HST referendum, which was sold by the proponents as just another tax increase, I’ll be surprised if this puppy flies.
16 Lysenko's Nemesis // Feb 11, 2015 at 12:21 pm
Then that’s the point you should have mentioned in the first place. To repeat, for the largest municipality in the region, there is a Plan B (referenced above), and funding is taken into account.
17 Lysenko's Nemesis // Feb 11, 2015 at 12:39 pm
I do not accept that for one second. When I read “Key Action to implement…”, and this road pricing plan is repeated throughout the document you refer to, then I have to believe that this is what they are planning. A positive vote on this document, that lays out The Vision, will imply agreement in the actions described in The Plan.
Further; to again quote from the Vision:
“An effective mobility pricing approach on the transit and road systems will improve fairness and efficiency, while also raising new revenues to help fund the existing transportation system and the investments outlined in the Vision.”
This paragraph clearly and unequivocally states that Road Pricing is planned and being designed for the Vision, which includes all the other items we actually know about, such as Broadway Rapid Transit, trains to Surrey, more busses and 2,300 km of cycle ways.
18 A Taxpayer // Feb 11, 2015 at 1:23 pm
Mayor Robertson was quoted as saying:
“We’re going to need additional funding from the provincial and federal governments to finish off all the big projects.”
Then why not tell people what projects are completely funded by this tax rather than being very misleading in suggesting that by voting “Yes” everything on the list will be completed. The Mayors are dangling an imaginary carrot in front of the voters.
19 A Taxpayer // Feb 11, 2015 at 1:23 pm
You don’t like Plan A.
20 A Taxpayer // Feb 11, 2015 at 1:37 pm
Flash forward a few years when road pricing is proposed to be implemented and Jeff will be telling us it was in the Transit Plan that we voted “Yes” so there is no need to vote again. Mind you, based on their performance implementing the Compass Card I don’t think any of us will be alive when Tranlink finally introduces road pricing after working out all those “normal implementation issues” everyone experiences.
21 Lysenko's Nemesis // Feb 11, 2015 at 1:37 pm
Well let’s ask the president of TransLink, oops, too late! He’s just been fired but don’t feel bad for him, he’s being paid until the middle of Next year. $468,000.00 smackeroos. Not too shabby. You can pick up nice new Bentley and one for the little lady too.
22 Jeff Leigh // Feb 11, 2015 at 3:35 pm
We aren’t voting on the vision. We are voting on a one half percent sales tax to fund a specific list of items, clearly defined, and cost shared with other levels of government. Yes, those items are in the vision. So are many other things that are not part of the proposal that is on the table. Read the plan.
23 Lysenko's Nemesis // Feb 11, 2015 at 3:47 pm
If you can sell that I’ll be impressed.
That’s like saying to the voters, we’re bringing in a new tax and in a short period of time we will be increasing this tax but please approve this little tax first, so we can get our big foot in your door.
Meanwhile, our two Presidents are enjoying their $75,000.00 per month, plus car allowances that you are paying them. Thanks!
If the Yes side gets 20% of the vote I’ll be shocked.
24 A Taxpayer // Feb 11, 2015 at 3:55 pm
How much money would you invest in a Company that after issuing a Prospectus but before it closed the Board of Directors fired the CEO?
25 Lysenko's Nemesis // Feb 11, 2015 at 4:22 pm
A collector’s item:
Thrown under the bus, 2015-02-11
26 A Taxpayer // Feb 11, 2015 at 4:33 pm
The specific items are not cost shared with other levels of government until those levels in fact say when and how much they are prepared to fund in actual $. Quit misleading people by pretending this is a done deal.
27 Jeff Leigh // Feb 11, 2015 at 4:38 pm
I would like to see that funded plan. There was mention of it in November, and the published quote said that the new mayor would put together a business plan. I haven’t seen anything since. You are saying that this plan has been completed, and is costed, and funding determined? Show us.
28 Jeff Leigh // Feb 11, 2015 at 4:46 pm
Quit pretending that senior levels of government should commit funds before local citizens have endorsed a funding plan for their portion. The other funds are called matching funds, not kick starters. We have to have something on the table for them to match. Pretty basic.
29 A Taxpayer // Feb 11, 2015 at 4:49 pm
This only gives people one more reason to vote “No”.
30 A Taxpayer // Feb 11, 2015 at 4:58 pm
I didn’t say the senior levels of government could commit funds only that they haven’t and people have to know that there is no guarantee they will. It is misleading to suggest that it is just a formality for the Feds and Province to ante up their 2/3 share once we have voted for the funding proposal.
31 Lysenko's Nemesis // Feb 11, 2015 at 5:09 pm
I already gave you a reference. Call Surrey City Hall and ask for the Office of the Mayor, or her party.
After today’s disastrous headlines you can be sure that alternative funding methods than the Robertson one will be considered.
32 boohoo // Feb 11, 2015 at 5:33 pm
Curious that you demand specific numbers and timelines from plan A but not plan B.
33 TessaGarnet // Feb 12, 2015 at 7:48 am
that’s a highway, he’s talking about an arterial street in a city. But yes, that’s how many lanes of traffic a subway can carry, if not more. As Voony pointed out, it’s totally reasonable.
34 brianeleryphillips // Feb 12, 2015 at 4:12 pm
While I echo others’ statements that we are not voting on road pricing at this time, I don’t think its a terrible idea to swap the gas tax in favor of road pricing- the point of it all is to get drivers to pay for the transportation system they are using, regardless of where they buy their gas or what their car’s fuel efficiency is.
As for the $1,200 /year that you say road pricing will add to distance commuters’ costs: does that include the savings associated with the withdrawn gas tax? If not, how does the potential future cost of road pricing compare to the gas tax that suburbanites are currently paying?