« one of my favorite book reviews so far ... | Main | vancouver publishes frequent network map »

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83454714d69e2016305ae8b18970d

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference shock-shifting to transit, but not back:

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

zefwagner

Hooray for property tax! It's too bad so many citizens seem so opposed to ever raising the property tax, considering it is the least volatile, most universal (everybody pays), and most equitable (you are paying based on property ownership, so it is a better correlation to wealth than an income tax). I don't quite know why schools should be funded through property taxes but transportation apparently shouldn't. With transit it would probably be better to use a surcharge on frequent-transit-accessible property only. Otherwise low-density areas would demand their "fair share" of transit even more than they do now.

Chris B

By "we" I assume you are writing for Americans? I know in Ottawa, transit is paid for 50/50 from property tax and fares. Some capital upgrades come from the Province, and the city does receive money from the fuel tax, but "transit" is not something tha receives a seperate funding allocation - the CIty determines what they want to spend and then allocates money (so this year, they are devoing $600 million to it total, which has to come from fares and taxes).

Or do I have the Ontario model wrong? (see for example, OCTranspo in Ottawa's 2010 funding where they get $25 million from gas tax and $163 million from the City - http://www.octranspo1.com/about-octranspo/reports/)

Carla Kenyon

Had a similar thought the other day when someone was discussing the Portland OR/Vancouver WA Columbia River Crossing bridge project. No one likes the tolling idea, and the states still need to come up with their end of the costs, but they are mainly looking towards gas tax. Interesting that we want to move towards transit but we keep funding it with vehicle driving (gas tax), so we're basically taxing driving out of it's own existence.

(Which, don't get me wrong, I'm fine with haha - just an interesting situation).

Brent

Here in Toronto, most operating costs not covered from the farebox are funded through property taxes. That makes them subject to the annual political show around passing the overall municipal budget, especially in times (such as now) where the political flavour leans more toward reducing government services and lowering property taxes. The other challenge is that when ridership goes up, so does the subsidy, but if the assessment base doesn't go up by the same amount, then property taxes have to go up as well. Every year at budget time, there are calls for more diverse funding sources that "grow with the economy". So far noone has really noticed the situation south of the border, where "grow with the economy" can also mean negative growth.

Matthew

The MBTA receives approximately $150 million a year in "assessments" which are charges levied on municipalities within the MBTA district. Probably paid for by property tax in most cases. It's effectively like a fee for town-wide access to the system. It only constitutes 9% of revenues though.

Paul K McGregor

Keep in mind that the Canada Line opened at the end of 2009 and this certainly would have contributed to the expanding ridership throughout 2010 and into 2011.
Translink also uses a combination of funding sources and does not rely on any one funding source but yet, they are still not able to what they want to do unless they have an increase in these funding sources.
Another financing method that could be used is the assessment of transit impact fees. While this is useful for funding infrastructure improvements, it can also be used to establish new service. A residential development was started in southern Contra Costa County [Bay Area] and each residential unit was assessed a certain $ amount. This fund was used to start-up a new route and fund its operation for about a year. At the end of the funding, the agency would then decide whether to keep the route or let it go. This is the same principle used for CMAQ funds.

Jeff Wegerson

Economist Michael Hudson makes the argument for real estate taxing as well. He goes so far as to accuse financial institutions (along with real-estate) of working against property taxes absorbing the increasing values of urban real estate so they could capture those increases themselves through the interest payments attached to mortgaging those properties.

Alai

There's another funding model which hasn't been mentioned, where the transit agency owns the land around its stations, and gets rental and other income from it. It's my understanding that this is used in Asia to great success.

I think this could be a useful model for the US, where many rail agencies own significant amounts of land which are currently used for free- or negligible cost parking. If they were built over as shopping/town center complexes, they could really boost transit agencies' bottom lines, through rent collections, additional traffic from people traveling to the new destinations, and from additional local bus passengers who formerly drove to the station.

The main obstacle is the idea that transit agencies are obligated to provide parking (and probably free at that) to anyone who wants it.

david vartanoff

One of the mistakes AC Transit (Oakland CA) made in the wake of Prop 13 (major reduction in real estate tax rates) was failing to re institute a % levy. In the intervening years housing values have soared such that if their levy had remained in force AC would be financially comfortable. The fixed rate levies they have instituted are regressive and insufficient as fuel/wages/health care costs spiked.

Eric Goodman

Check back through my previous posts and I'm sure you'll find my supportive comments vis-a-vis property fees funding transit. Glad to see you're thinking of that as well. I say fees not taxes because I think they should be based on a utility model that charges for the transit service level or access available at a site, not a % of property value.

The utility model has potential to override public antipathy to property taxation. We use it to deliver water and gas molecules and electrons and to remove waste. Funding for these services is sometimes contentious, but I haven't heard of electric companies in North America shutting down Sunday electricity because people aren't shopping enough. Utilities are generally pretty straightforward about what the charges are and what you get for that money. A Transport Utility could levy a base charge every property pays for available access and then individual user fares cover the marginal cost of the mobility consumed.

I think it would be interesting to experiment in a small system: if they charged 100% of a line's cost as a property fee, but then rebate all revenue collected in fares, would that drive up ridership? It would be great to tell people complaining about the fee that the thing they need to do about it is "get more people to ride the bus." Unlikely as it is to happen, a profit potential exists in that system and could entice people to support it, just like so many people happily buy lottery tickets even though few will ever win.

No funding source is a panacea and relying on just one will always leave you vulnerable to whatever its' weakness is. Ideally governments should tax everything, but at a very low rate so as to limit avoidance and offset strengths and weaknesses and economic cycles. I feel it's also better to work backward from the need or desired service level to determine what the levy / fee should be, rather than deciding on a revenue stream and then figuring out how to use the resulting revenue.

Helen

According to information that I saw on one of the public transit advocacy sites, most of the recent initiatives in the US to increase funding for transit were mill levy increases, and most of them passed.

MB

Vancouver's TransLink will receive over $109 million (Can) in 2012 from a levy on property tax assessments from the City of Vancouver alone. There are 21 municipalities in metro Vancouver, and the total TransLink income from property taxes is estimated to be almost $290 million. TL's 2012 revenue from all taxes (fuel, parking, etc.) is estimated at a little over $700 million.

There are, of course, other funding sources such as grants from senior governments, and these entities contribute to about a 2/3 share of the funding of major capital projects, such as the recently-approved Evergreen SkyTrain Line. However, TL can expect to receive $225 million from senior governments for its 2012 budget, and I assume most of it is a grant from the government of British Columbia.

TransLink is an unusual organization in that it manages the regional road system as well as transit. In 2012 it will devote almost $850 million to transit, and a tad over $100 million to roads.

Clearly, taxes of all kinds on the local economy support the majority of the day-to-day TransLink operations, even if the provincial and federal governments assume the majority of costs for the occasional large project.

It has been said that the federal government returns eight cents for every dollar it takes out of the region. I'm not sure if I agree with that conseidering its contribution to healthcare, but the interpretation that the feds don't contribute as much as they should rings true in the light of energy security (i.e. inflationary fossil fuel prices) and initiatives to lessen the effects of climate change.

Paul McGregor above mentioned the high ridership of the Canada Line. It has been made abundantly clear in Metro Vancouver that the driverless (i.e. high-frequency) rapid transit network was one of the most productive economic stimulators ever imposed on the region.

It's now at the point where a two-tower, high-density residential complex sells out over 400 units in mere hours. The Gateway complex proposed adjacent to the Marine Drive Canada Line Station had over 11,000 applications for its registration list. The real estate agent said it's no longer "location location location", but "transit transit transit" that sells.

Seems to be a new world forming out there.

Nathanael

This gets us into macroeconomic issues.

When we have high unemployment and low wages... what we need is MONEY PRINTING.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

the firm

Jarrett is now in ...

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...