"The two-cents-per-liter tax on gasoline is a new way to fund the delayed Evergreen Line, a $1.4 billion project."
"The fuel tax is part of a proposed funding formula announced Wednesday and designed to generate an additional $70-million per year for transportation authority TransLink, which has an annual budget of about $1.1-billion."
"Along with the fuel tax, the proposal includes potential property-tax increases or – the mayors’ preferred option – a new long-term revenue source that could involve a vehicle levy or some form of “road pricing” such as tolls."
"The proposal follows recent meetings between regional mayors and provincial Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom, who last month criticized mayors for not coming up with a plan to fund their share of the Evergreen Line."
A couple of other facts courtesy of the CBC:
"According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Metro Vancouver drivers already pay the highest gasoline taxes in Canada, at 33 per cent."
"Construction on the Evergreen Line project was originally expected to start in 2010 and be completed in 2014. But by 2009 only the provincial and federal governments had committed just over $400 million each to cover their share of the cost for the $1.4 billion project." Plans for the line have been stalled for years because Metro Vancouver and TransLink have not come up with $400 million dollars to cover their share of the funding for the project."
I titled this post "the irrationality of rationality" because I have heard lots of complaints recently about the idea of a 2 cent increase in gas tax to fund transit. People are attempting to rationalize the economic futility of using the gas tax because of their selfish thinking and complete reliance on their cars. I have seen/heard these complaints via local radio, comment sections of news articles and from others. Opponents of the 2 cent increase in the gas tax generally argue that they do not use transit so why should they pay for it. They also argue that increasing transit fares are a more sensible approach to generate revenue because those using transit should pay for. Last, some say its just another tax without any palpable benefits.
I think all of the arguments above are slightly irrational. One, while Metro Vancouver residents do pay one of the highest gas taxes in Canada, they receive a lot in return from this through a well functioning and efficient transit system and through good roads across the region. Yes, many people do not use transit and prefer their cars to drive around; but an additional 2 cents that may amount to an extra $10-20 per month in fuel expenses, that can, inter alia, help bring about new transit infrastructure to alleviate traffic congestion and pollutants is certainly a worthwhile compromise. Also, higher gas taxes are meant to pay for road maintenance and expansion too thereby yielding benefits for drivers too.
Increase transit fares instead? Transit in regions like Metro Vancouver is used by all demographics (low income, students, seniors, professionals and more). Lots of research has shown how the poor pay relatively higher transit fares per unit of service than the non-poor. Thus, just from a social equity point of view, increasing fares would likely reduce ridership. And when transit ridership has grown by 50 percent in this region in the past 10 years, this move would be highly idiotic.
Last, transit investments generally make society better off. As mentioned, they alleviate congestion which can bring about environmental and health benefits. They attract investment via property development usually in the form of transit-oriented development. They also make the region more connected and provide opportunities for those living farther away from the core a chance to reach more urban locations for work, school, errands, entertainment or recreational purposes. They are also important for tourists, visitors and when the city hosts large international events because in many cases, they are simply the better and faster way to move millions of people around.
The evidence of efficient and well-maintained transit systems (e.g. London, NYC, Tokyo, Hong Kong) provide enormous benefits to these cities' citizenry (this includes everyone) but it is contingent on sustainable funding such as gas taxes or road pricing, for example. So, trade-offs have to be made in the short-run for longer term benefits in the future.
Making selfish, poorly structured economic arguments and quite frankly, irrational thoughts about the futility of new transit lines and the absurdity of increasing a gas tax by 2 cents (I wonder how much these anti-tax folks pay for insurance every month or for the maintenance of their vehicles) would lead to making society worse off. When you think transit, think collective, regional and benefits for all.
"The fuel tax is part of a proposed funding formula announced Wednesday and designed to generate an additional $70-million per year for transportation authority TransLink, which has an annual budget of about $1.1-billion."
"Along with the fuel tax, the proposal includes potential property-tax increases or – the mayors’ preferred option – a new long-term revenue source that could involve a vehicle levy or some form of “road pricing” such as tolls."
"The proposal follows recent meetings between regional mayors and provincial Transportation Minister Blair Lekstrom, who last month criticized mayors for not coming up with a plan to fund their share of the Evergreen Line."
A couple of other facts courtesy of the CBC:
"According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Metro Vancouver drivers already pay the highest gasoline taxes in Canada, at 33 per cent."
"Construction on the Evergreen Line project was originally expected to start in 2010 and be completed in 2014. But by 2009 only the provincial and federal governments had committed just over $400 million each to cover their share of the cost for the $1.4 billion project." Plans for the line have been stalled for years because Metro Vancouver and TransLink have not come up with $400 million dollars to cover their share of the funding for the project."
I titled this post "the irrationality of rationality" because I have heard lots of complaints recently about the idea of a 2 cent increase in gas tax to fund transit. People are attempting to rationalize the economic futility of using the gas tax because of their selfish thinking and complete reliance on their cars. I have seen/heard these complaints via local radio, comment sections of news articles and from others. Opponents of the 2 cent increase in the gas tax generally argue that they do not use transit so why should they pay for it. They also argue that increasing transit fares are a more sensible approach to generate revenue because those using transit should pay for. Last, some say its just another tax without any palpable benefits.
I think all of the arguments above are slightly irrational. One, while Metro Vancouver residents do pay one of the highest gas taxes in Canada, they receive a lot in return from this through a well functioning and efficient transit system and through good roads across the region. Yes, many people do not use transit and prefer their cars to drive around; but an additional 2 cents that may amount to an extra $10-20 per month in fuel expenses, that can, inter alia, help bring about new transit infrastructure to alleviate traffic congestion and pollutants is certainly a worthwhile compromise. Also, higher gas taxes are meant to pay for road maintenance and expansion too thereby yielding benefits for drivers too.
Increase transit fares instead? Transit in regions like Metro Vancouver is used by all demographics (low income, students, seniors, professionals and more). Lots of research has shown how the poor pay relatively higher transit fares per unit of service than the non-poor. Thus, just from a social equity point of view, increasing fares would likely reduce ridership. And when transit ridership has grown by 50 percent in this region in the past 10 years, this move would be highly idiotic.
Last, transit investments generally make society better off. As mentioned, they alleviate congestion which can bring about environmental and health benefits. They attract investment via property development usually in the form of transit-oriented development. They also make the region more connected and provide opportunities for those living farther away from the core a chance to reach more urban locations for work, school, errands, entertainment or recreational purposes. They are also important for tourists, visitors and when the city hosts large international events because in many cases, they are simply the better and faster way to move millions of people around.
The evidence of efficient and well-maintained transit systems (e.g. London, NYC, Tokyo, Hong Kong) provide enormous benefits to these cities' citizenry (this includes everyone) but it is contingent on sustainable funding such as gas taxes or road pricing, for example. So, trade-offs have to be made in the short-run for longer term benefits in the future.
Making selfish, poorly structured economic arguments and quite frankly, irrational thoughts about the futility of new transit lines and the absurdity of increasing a gas tax by 2 cents (I wonder how much these anti-tax folks pay for insurance every month or for the maintenance of their vehicles) would lead to making society worse off. When you think transit, think collective, regional and benefits for all.
No comments:
Post a Comment