The media is reporting a “backlash” against the new parking tax in Vancouver. The Vancouver Sun reports it is a “slickly organized” backlash being run by Vancouver’s business elite. This is apparently a 30 member business coalition including the Board of Trade.
This is not the first time Vancouver’s business elite has gotten organized around the issue of transit. In 2004 the then elected TransLink Board of directors voted down the proposed Canada Line public private partnership because of the cost of the project. Business organized a 34 member coalition, including the Board of Trade, to put pressure on TransLink to reconsider and to build the line as a P3.
The project was rescued and the Canada Line was built. Now, the BC government’s Comptroller General says the cost of operating the Canada Line:
is expected to exceed the additional system revenue it generates until 2025, with costs exceeding incremental revenues by $14 million to $21 million for most years until then.
This ongoing deficit is one of the reasons for TansLink’s financial problems and one of the reasons why TransLink is raising both transit fares and property taxes and also imposing the parking tax.
The business coalition’s complains that too much of the cost of paying for that financial problem is being loaded onto parking taxes and not enough onto property taxes and transit fares. Property taxpayers are already feeling pressured by tax increases, especially in Vancouver where Council is shifting part of the burden of business property taxes onto homeowners.
Transit fares in Vancouver are also already among Canada’s highest and they are going up. How does that compare with parking fees? Colliers International publishes an annual parking rate survey. In June 2009 they found the daily median rate for parking in Vancouver was $17.00. That’s more than they pay in Saskatoon and Edmonton, but less than Calgary ($22.00), Toronto ($22.50) and Winnipeg ($18.00). The new tax pushes parking costs up to a point that is not out of line for a major Canadian city.
The real problem is that property taxes, transit fares and parking taxes don’t produce enough revenue for the transit system we have, let alone the transit system we need that would include the Evergreen Line. Increasing ridership and decreasing carbon from cars will require a greater financial involvement by the provincial government than they are willing to make.
And for the business elite, perhaps the lesson they might learn is that you should be careful what you demand because someone might ask you to pay for it.
Iglika Ivanova // Jan 19, 2010 at 9:45 am
These are today’s population numbers, right? I bet they looked quite different around the time the decision to build the subways was made:
New York: late 19c
Toronto: mid 20c (interestingly, the first serious proposals dated the beginning of the 20c, but were voted down in a referendum, says Wikipedia)
Moscow: opened in 1935 (built by the USSR, although Wikipedia tells me that there were plans to build it during Tsarist Russia, which were put on hold because of WWI, then the Revolution)
I bet population density increased way higher than the city planners/mayors/decision-makers at the time could even imagine.
Point being, in 50+ years Vancouver may look quite different and these types of infrastructure investments, being long-term, to an extent end up serving the future generations better than the generation that builds them. Leaving a legacy to our children, anyone?
Keith Reynolds // Jan 15, 2010 at 8:24 pm
There is merit to what you say about taking a long term view but I think there are some pretty significant differences here.
Population Density (People/sq km)
Vancouver 1,830,000 1,650
Toronto 4,387,000 2,650
New York 17,800,000 2,050
Moscow 10,500,000 4,900
Now I grabbed these figures quickly off a web page (http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html) and don’t guarantee their accuracy (does that New York number look right to you?) but you see my point. Transit is useful to shape density but expensive projects like subways works best in cities with larger populations and greater density. We had a light rail route available for the Canada Line on the Arbutus corridor. Light rail was also the suggested option, rejected by the province, for the Evergreen Line. We could have built both lines with light rail with the money that was available.
Yes, we need a long term investment in transit but we could have done better.
Iglika Ivanova // Jan 15, 2010 at 10:39 am
@ Marvin: I agree that the Canada Line was likely not the most needed transportation project in the Lower Mainland and that it wouldn’t have been built now without the Olympics impetus.
On the question of costs, however, I think that the time horizon really matters. It is obvious to anybody with half a brain that running buses on existing surface streets costs much less upfront than constructing rapid-rail transit. If we do a cost-benefit analysis over 5 years, 10 years even 20 years, probably, the bus system will come out to be cheaper. But what about 30, 50 or more years on?
If cities like New York, Toronto or Moscow relied on plain 20-year-frame cost-benefit comparisons, they’d never have chosen to invest in the extensive subway systems they now have. However, these systems are now among the hallmarks of these cities’ transportation structure and have paid for themselves many times over since their construction.
In short, I think we should look at public transportation infrastructure as a very long term investment. Considering the pressing need to
curb greenhouse gas emissions in the near future, rapid rail may not seem like such a bad investment over the long run.
Marvin Shaffer // Jan 15, 2010 at 6:27 am
No question — most transit service will lose money. The problem with the Canada Line is how much money it will lose — and consequently how much money it will divert from higher value transit system needs.
There is no evidence that the benefits of the Canada Line will outweigh the costs. To the contrary — the objectively estimated travel time, emission reduction and other benefits are far less than the costs.
And there certainly is no evidence, nor was there any serious attempt to determine if other less costly investments could have been undertaken in that corridor.
The decision to invest in the Canada Line was skewed by political dictates and the need to be in-service by 2010. It and the financial problems it has created is another legacy of the bail-out games.
Nadine // Jan 13, 2010 at 1:29 pm
I am getting sick of hearing Translink and specifically the Canada Line being quoted as money losing ventures. Should public transit be making money? It is about providing a vital service to the public, reducing emissions and reducing traffic. While charging $2.50 per fare (1 zone), although an extremely expensive rate which is above Canadian average, it is difficult to break even. And when you imagine that the Canada Line was a $2billion system, it would take 800,000,000 riders to just pay off the cost of the infrastructure, let alone the cost of operating the system.
But if you calculate how much money is saved on roads, bridges, traffic police, ambulances, fire trucks, etc. then I believe the benefits outweigh the costs. And the Canada Line provides excellent paying jobs.
I think parking downtown should be even more expensive to discourage people from driving to a restricted area that cannot support it. Also, the majority of those working in the downtown core (no, not all but the majority) are business people making a respectable wage.
So in short, Board of Trade quit your whining. You got the Olympics and this is just one more tax to pay for it.