Municipalities asked to help fund transit in B.C.

Comments

Municipalities should pay part of the cost of transit, according to the president and CEO of the Urban Development Institute.

Anne McMullin notes that whether it’s the Canada Line, proposed projects like the subway along Broadway in Vancouver, or light rail in Surrey, transit causes property values to shoot up.

A portion of that increase is taken by cities through community-amenity contributions from developers. Some of that should be reinvested in transit, which is typically financed by senior levels of government, the UDI executive said.

“The industry currently, in some municipalities, pays an enormous amount—tens of millions of dollars above the development-cost charges,” McMullin told the Georgia Straight in a phone interview. “Right now, it’s just going into the municipality that has benefited from existing transportation infrastructure, such as the City of Vancouver. The Canada Line created an enormous increase in value along that line, and developers are developing along that line because the buyer wants to buy along there.”

In 2011, Vancouver collected $180 million from developers across the city in exchange for allowing them to build more through rezoning. The money was spent mostly on affordable housing, community facilities, heritage preservation, and parks and open spaces. According to a city staff report, $3.2 million was allocated for “transportation”. The Straight asked the city’s corporate communications and engagement department for details about these transportation expenditures but no information was provided by deadline.

“That money has gone right back to the City of Vancouver—not a portion to TransLink or even a portion back to the province,” McMullin said about public benefits paid by developers. “So I think there are opportunities to look at that: how do we distribute or apply or allocate those community-amenity contributions?”

Two municipalities in the Lower Mainland have demonstrated that cities can work with developers to build transit infrastructure.

In Richmond, a new Canada Line station at Capstan Way (with an estimated cost of $25 million) will be financed by developers of new residential units in the area. Developers are also funding the $20 million Lincoln Station on the future Evergreen Line in Coquitlam. In exchange, developers will be allowed to construct more homes in these transit areas.

“Whether you build the station or contribute to the line, whichever way you cut it, I do think that is a very valid opportunity and a valid allocation of funds,” McMullin said.

In December 2012, the Victoria Transport Policy Institute released a study on transit financing achieved through a model called land-value capture. According to the authors, many planners and economists suggest that “cities could benefit by funding transit system development costs and a major portion of operating costs from land value capture.” They can do that “by taxing a portion of the additional value of adjacent properties that result from transit accessibility”.

In a January 31 letter to Transportation and Infrastructure Minister Mary Polak, the Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation presented land-value capture as one of five options for funding transit.

According to the mayors’ council, which includes Vancouver’s mayor, Gregor Robertson, “there needs to be a negotiated sharing” of community-amenity contributions paid by developers.

However, Vancouver council’s lead person on transit, Geoff Meggs, doubts whether this model will work for the city on projects like the proposed $2.8-billion underground Broadway transit line.

“It might work best with the UBC setting, where UBC is the landowner and developer and is able to, as they do, make decisions to allocate land for housing and then keep the revenue from that housing,” Meggs told the Straight in a phone interview. “So they may be able to do that for transit; I don’t know.”

Meggs noted that the model works well in Hong Kong, where the transit authority there is also the developer of properties.

“We don’t object to looking at it and exploring it,” Meggs added. “But it’s an innovation that will be hard to implement. And it would be difficult to calculate what the share of improved property value was attributable to, say, general economic growth and how much was due to transit. I’m sure there’s ways to do it, but at the same time, it varies.”

McMullin is hopeful that when Adrian Dix addresses members of the UDI for the first time this Thursday (March 14) at Vancouver’s Hyatt Regency hotel, the B.C. NDP leader will include transit financing in his talk.

“We all know that municipalities, the province, and the federal government are all cash-strapped,” she said. “So what are the priorities? The taxpayers are faced with huge costs in terms of improvements to our waterworks, sewage, and there’s huge demand for transportation in order to keep our economy going. We need to look at how do we allocate funds, and how do we allocate the funds regionally?”

Comments (11) Add New Comment
Stephen Rees
The reason the the province and the federal government are "cash strapped" is that they have been reducing taxes for the rich, and for corporations, subsidising fossil fuels and not collecting adequate royalties on natural resources - another give away to big business in the name of "economic development" and spending far too much - in the case of the feds on prisons and fighter jets, neither of which do we need - in the case of the province on highways.

Value capture was tried here - in Surrey. Developers paid for the SkyTrain stations at Gateway, Surrey Central and King George (or were supposed to have done - they went bust). Development cost charges were levied on developments in what was once called Whalley and the result was a prolonged period of nothing happening while developers went elsewhere that had lower DCCs.
10
4
Rating: +6
The real problem
The real problem with transit is decades of bad planning based on the transit philosophy of political prestige. Each rapid transit line built was forced upon who ever was operating the transit system at the time, with no care for future expansion.

The Socreds forced the SkyTriain Expo Line on us and so expensive was it, that it was built in three phases to hide the real cost. Interesting to note, each Expo Line phase was so designed to fit into an election window.

The NDP were next and built the Millennium SkyTrain Line to suit a politcal agenda and against the wishes of the population. The Millennium Line opened and the NDP reduced to two seats.

The Liberals were ever so happy to get into the rapid transit game that they they had a new toy called the Canada Line and again built against the wishes of many.

The Canada Line was built, scores of businesses were destroyed along Cambie St, due to cut & cover construction and today we have a metro that gives many former bus passengers a somewhat long trip to their destination. Funny thing too, the Canada Line did not take those 200,000 car trips a day off the road and that promise has been quietly forgotten.

A trivial matter, the Canada line is not compatible with the rest of SkyTrain network.

Now metro systems cost a lot of money to maintain and subways even more and according to sources, our present metro system is not carrying the passenger numbers that would warrant such an investment and viola, TransLink is in the red.

So three metro lines, soon to be four with the Evergreen Line, is taking an inordinate amount of money earmarked for transit, so TransLink can build more of the same, hoping for a better outcome. Somewhere, that sort of thing is the definition of madness.

Until the public know what the real causes of the financial unhappiness at TransLink, I say "don't give them a dime more."

And certainly, municipal governments should be asked to pay for what the provincial government has forced upon them.

5
6
Rating: -1
The real problem
An oops.

The last sentence should read:

And certainly, municipal governments should NOT be asked to pay for what the provincial government has forced upon them.
11
2
Rating: +9
Hazlit
@ The real Problem.

While you're making corrections:

"and viola, Translink is in the the red"

What do violas have to do with public transit?
2
5
Rating: -3
Rico
The Real Problem,

If only life was so simple. Read more sources than Rail for the Valley. Although your history is correct (the Province dictated rapid transit technology) the skytrain system has been very successful in Vancouver and reduced operating costs over the alternatives. Vancouver had a transit cost recovery of 53% last year, numbers most American and many European systems would be happy to have. What we may want to ask is why is Translink responsible for building car bridges or paying for policing? That said I would be prepared to pay more to get better transit service. Lets put our investments forward to improve the system.
8
5
Rating: +3
back to school Rico
They can smell your Communications degree in Dertroit, the only other place with Skytrain technology. You've likely never changed a tire in your life, unless it's an app, to write such blather about Skytrain.Your shill is over 79% rubbish when compared with other shills in the area, impressive indeed.

Skytrain technology isn't hard to understand. Move to a small Northern community where 99% of the vehicles are older US pickups. Then Rico, take your Yugo, 3 cylinder wagon to the local mechanic for service. Guess what the price for parts and the labour is going to be...Yup a lot. "Viola" that Yugo is Skytrain.

That you can even mention European transit systems in the same web page as Skytrain moves your numbers to %90.
8
3
Rating: +5
Rico
Wow, I can almost see the spittle as you wrote your last post. Perhaps it is time to check your meds?

Some numbers to see if your meds are working: Translink Revenue per passenger $1.86 (2012), Skytrain (Expo/Millenium) operating and maintainance costs per passanger $1.12 (2010). So that works out to about $100million per year towards capital costs (0.74 X 395,000 trips per day X 265 days). Lets compare to the vaulted Portland Max....what does it contribute to capital costs....oh wait it does not even have 50% cost recovery.....
Last I checked the Zurich transit system rocked, it is great (much better than Vancouvers)....because a lot of money is spent on it, as I recall it has 45% fare recovery. Take home message lets spend some more money so we can have a better system (like Zurich).
2
4
Rating: -2
Rico
I should not have made the med comment. Sorry, rest of the comment stands.
0
5
Rating: -5
Rico
Should also note I bet I have changed tires in hairer places than you...and I am ashamed to admit I have been a late adaptor of apps and still don't even carry a cell phone.
1
4
Rating: -3
back to school Rico

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts - for support rather than for illumination."

~Andrew Lang
4
1
Rating: +3
Rico
Nice quote, are you sure you are not the communications major?
Sometimes statistics are twisted to support a position, you see it on Rail for the Valley all the time, but I am not sure how much spin could be put on those numbers (revenue per passanger and cost per passanger). They speak for themselves. Care to try and spin them? Especially since you claimed the opposite and did not offer any evidence to back it up.
2
4
Rating: -2
Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.