Free SkyTrain for all!

What if SkyTrain was a fare-free service open to ride all the way from King George to Waterfront, through Canada Way to YVR and around Millenium Line?

A crazy thought given today’s standards, but the thought nonetheless crossed the mind travelling from downtown Vancouver to Surrey which cost, roughly, $10 per day, $50 a week, $200 per month, and so on.

Thus, the thought: What it would take to provide a zero-fare service to Lower Mainlanders, restricted to SkyTrain alone?

TransLink funding sources

TransLink’s revenue sources isn’t proprietary knowledge, several articles, including one issued by the transportation giant itself, have covered this complex, and strange, model. Funding is received via two key revenue-streams: Tax and user revenues.

Tax revenue:

• Property Tax: TransLink assesses property tax on the net taxable value of land and improvements within the 21 municipalities that make up its service area. 3% increase each year has been made to keep up with inflation
• Fuel Tax: Approximately 17 cents per litre of gas goes to TransLink
• Parking Tax: When someone forks over money to park, a small tax goes to Translink.
• Power Levy: Levy added to hydro bill of Metro Vancouverites. Just under $2 p/month, at its maximum.

User Fees:

• Transit fares. (The crux of this article.) Self-explanatory. Users that use the train, pay a fare.
• Bridge Tolls. Also quite self-explanatory.

* All TransLink data taken from: https://buzzer.translink.ca/2013/03/translink-101-where-does-translink-get-its-funding-and-how-do-we-spend-it/

The transpo-economics

2012’s total revenue was $1.42 billion. Sixty per cent of this total went to transit operating costs, approximately $852 million.

Transit fares made up 32 per cent of TransLink’s 2012 total funding. This equates to about $454,400,000. Not nearly enough to cover operating costs but a substantial amount nonetheless. Ostensibly, to eradicate transit fares, the $454 million in fees must be recouped one way or another. What this would mean is an increase in taxes.

Sounds crazy to increases taxes provided Canada and B.C.’s slow economic growth, but it’s about regulation and accountability being placed in the hands of taxpayers.

We are all taxed in some way or another to provide for our region’s transit infrastructure. Fuel tax, property tax, parking tax, a hydro levy, these are all currently imposed on British Columbians for the purpose of helping fund TransLink (which, by the way, is responsible for more than just SkyTrain).

If just half the number of Metro Vancouverites were taxed, about 1.2 million citizens, a small increase across the TransLink tax board, enough to equal to about $37 p/month, per taxpayer, it would make up for the loss in accumulated revenue from fares. In turn, it would be interesting to see if taxpayers wouldn’t mind paying a little more in order to use SkyTrain and related services without the need to remit payment.

Nevertheless, at the very least, we need to establish a designated regional Transit Tax, issued by municipality. A specific tax equation that outlines how much of a small percentage is taken from here and another there, must be established. Further, it must be the region to decide on the direction and choice to set a reasonably set transit tax rate.

Referendums could be held, or kept to public consultations that TransLink organizes. But Decisions and tax rates should be set by B.C. taxpayers. Whether a regional vote or piecemeal public consultations, regional decisions need to be made through regional input.

Others who do not use the train regularly or, at all, will of course raise ire over such a policy. But because we are already taxed to help fund TransLink and have been for some time, why not establish a designated regional Transit Tax and offer public consultation to help regulate and to provide spending accountability?

Furthermore, increase it incrementally, with a cap limit placed, and effectively removing the arbitrary fare system currently in place it provides a direct correlation between taxation and benefit for the many that use the system, which was, in the last quarter of 2012, about 396,500 a day, on weekdays, according to the American Public Transportation Association (p.31).

Setting tax limitations such as the power levy cap at $1.90 will also establish a level of funding that is supported by the region, where service and upgrades will depend on taxpayers, and subject to the wants and needs of the Lower Mainland.

If reading this post makes you shake your head and think a system such as the one proposed is not possible, then we need to ask ‘why?’ And perhaps we do need a body like TransLink more than we think, to regulate projects, fares and development for us?

Give to get seems the only fair solution, arbitrary fares we have no control over applied to a system we are already taxed for, doesn’t just seem, it is, extravagant. An established tax rate the region understands and has input over is the best direction for working towards beating the region’s transit funding conundrum.

Disadvantages…there’s always cons

There are other cities and regions overseas that offer free transit services to its citizens. In Germany, France and Czech Republic, free public transportation is provided in various places to differing degrees of success. To extend similar gratuitous service here is an idealistic suggestion.

But the glaring disadvantage or conscious issue of providing free transit, as also experienced in other places that provide such complimentary service, is the increased hooliganism on board. Additionally, it would be difficult to prevent the train from turning into a makeshift destination for the region’s homeless. Granted there is little stopping them now, free fares would give them the right to loiter about.

Furthermore, a decline in overall service, increased vehicle maintenance and security costs are additional direct negative impacts.

But TransLink currently has a funding issue. The taxpayers are the only source of income for our province’s services and institutions. Why not establish a tax that the region’s residents agree to, abolish fares as a benefit, and eradicate the need to scrape together pieces from other tax sources, which makes the process complicated and unnecessary. A tax is a tax is a levy…

Or perhaps we should continue with the status quo. Pay for the system just to additionally pay to use the system. Is TransLink a business or public service? Currently it seems like both and that seems odd.

TransLink and accountability: the battle ensues

Photo courtesy: Google Images.

A report submitted on TransLink revealed that the transit authority, its governance and structure, is an anomaly worldwide.

There is almost zero accountability.

TransLink’s board is made up of unelected representatives that are in charge of making major decisions that have regional implications.

Advocates, especially elected officials, are calling for change.

At the recent GVRD board, following the vote to rescind the property tax from TransLink’s source of funding, Surrey councillor Marvin Hunt put it in clear terms.

“The model of TransLink has business men running it . . . You’ve got business men with no accountability to the taxpayer, taxing the taxpayer. That’s called taxation without representation.”

While the British aren’t coming, provincial officials just might.

Transportation Minister Mary Polak pledged continued talks with Metro Vancouver mayors to reform TransLink’s governance structure.

What this reformation will look like begs further debate.

We’ve had elected officials as board chair, then Surrey Mayor Doug McCallum. But was that truly accountability?

Is it time to directly elect a transit board of directors? George Puil declared transportation the most urgent political priority. Perhaps direct elections are warranted.

But the issue isn’t necessarily accountability either, but good governance as well. To effectively govern a regional entity, with multiple, often competing interests, impartiality is at a premium. Political ties to a specific area or municipality will surely run-up against conflict of interest issues.

Listen to Surrey Councilor Marvin Hunt talk briefly about the city’s transportation needs (note: audio quality is poor due to file compression):

So where does this leave us?

To guarantee accountability and unbiased governance, a separate electable body is a faintly glimmering solution. But consider voter turnout for such an esoteric area of politics.

The answer to TransLink accountability and governance (that won’t amount to political stalemate) will not be arrived at in a 300-word blog-post, that’s for sure.

This is something to monitor in the months ahead.

TransLink without $30 million, what does that mean for Surrey?

Photo courtesy: Google Images.

At the recent GVRD board meeting (Mar. 15 – Agenda), TransLink had the propert-tax rescinded as a source of funding thereby removing about $30 million dollars according to Bob Paddon, executive vice-president at TransLink.

Paddon said TransLink will be able to use reserve funds and efficiencies to make up the loss.

“It does mean though, we will not be expanding on anything,” said Paddon. “What we’ve committed to in this plan is all we can deliver.”

The plan Paddon refers to is of course TransLink’s 2013 Base Plan and Outlook Final report, which looks at the transit authority’s plan over the next couple of years.

If Paddon’s comments are true then all Metro Vancouverites have to look forward to regarding transportation initiatives are:

• Evergreen Line (TransLink’s contribution)
• 109,000 bus annual service hours
• Upgrades to 7 SkyTrain stations
• To continue to fund operations, maintenance and rehabilitation of the major road network.
• Maintain basic funding to municipal road and bicycle projects, at a lower level than committed to in the 2012 Moving Forward Plan.
• Continue to operate and maintain its bridges and continue discussion on the future of the Pattullo Bridge.

(The Patullo is definitely something to talk about, though it wouldn’t be surprising if the word toll comes about).

TransLink is in need of a viable long-term source of funding. Without it, it is difficult to see Surrey’s billion-dollar LRT dreams turn to reality (or Vancouver’s).

Efficiencies like the tightening of schedules, reduction in SkyTrain runs and an increase in parking rate fees (See page 8 of the 2013 Base Plan and Outlook Final report) are purely speculative saves and gains.

It isn’t certain TransLink will recoup the $41 million it states.

TransLink states it will face a $472 million shortfall for 2013-2015. The anticipated loss from transit fare revenue alone makes up $108 million of that $472 m. total.

But this is all speculation.

Paddon stated, in reference to the rescinding of the property-tax, that no expansion will be occurring.

Whether a veiled jab or not, this is how politics is played: thou taketh so thou shall not receive. This means no new projects like the LRT or the UBC subway until funding is sorted out.

But who pays in the end? Taxpayers, because we still need to use transit while everything gets sorted, and this means more out of our pockets directly through fare and fee increases.

What’s certain is that a new long-term funding model is required.