A new transit blog is in town and I think it is well worth a read.
Called Inside TransLink, it gives an insider’s view of the organization and the many problems the exist, culminating with this rather destructive transit plebiscite.
The ways to improve TransLink, from a voice that saw the inside. Ai??There are a lot of critics of TransLink, and they are commenting on the obvious and visible symptoms of the issues Inside TransLink. Ai?? It takes an outsiders, inside view to know exactly what is happening at TransLink and where the root causes of the problems are!
Though I am trying to avoid unhappiness with the upcoming transit plebiscite, this item from the Financial Post is well worth a read.
What I find interesting, is the following comment; “Even London, a world leader in public transit and congestion charges, is still bogged down in traffic. ai???Traffic jams in London getting worse, ai??? said a BBC headline last year.”
So those who think a few km of LRT in Surrey and a paltry 5 km SkyTrain subway under Broadway or a few BRT lines, will alleviate congestion, think again.
Terence Corcoran: Hey, Vancouver: Just say ai???Noai??i?? to transitAi??tax
ai???The cityai??i??s proposed sales tax plan is just a trigger for billions in new spending and higher taxes in future. Ai??And for what?ai???
Ah, congestion! What a windfall for policy wonks, sustainability dictators and others with a penchant for standing at the intersection of economic life and directing ideological traffic. Itai??i??s a global trend that this week officially sweeps into Vancouver with the distributionai??i??by mail!ai??i??of ballots for a city plebiscite on a proposed ai???transit tax.ai???
Or, as Happy City guy Charles Montgomery wrote in the National Post over the weekend, Metro Vancouver voters are being asked to participate ai???en masse in a fascinating behavioral experiment.ai??? Thatai??i??s not entirely inaccurate, since the plebiscite is indeed an experimentai??i??to determine whether the majority of voters in a big city can be bamboozled into voting for new taxes and big spending to support their local transit industrial complex.
The campaign for the transit taxai??i??a Vancouver-region increase of 0.5% in the provincial sales tax to raise $250-million a yearai??i??has the backing of a council of local mayors, a multi-million dollar marketing budget, plus the usual round-up of local business leaders, green activists and assorted economic theorists flaunting big dollar stats and grand claims that the tax will trigger major long-term economic and congestion benefits for all Vancouver. Be happy, vote for higher taxes.
The ballots have just been mailed out and it will apparently take Vancouver voters another 11 weeks to figure out whether they can believe claims that the new sales tax ai??i?? about $125 a year per householdai??i??will magically relieve congestion and generate $1.2-billion in long-term benefits.
Recent polls suggest that Vancouverites arenai??i??t enjoying the behavioral experiment, with the ai???Noai??? side holding the upper hand heading into this week.Ai??Ai?? Between now and May 29, the last voting day, FP Comment will present occasional commentaries on the transit tax battle. As of this week, however, the best advice to Vancouverites would be: Just say ai???No.ai???
A vote for the transit tax is a vote for massive expansion of public transit spending over the next 10 years. The official figure bandied about by the major pro-transit tax operative, the Mayorsai??i?? Council on Regional Transportation, is $7.5-billion in new capital spending over the next 10 years. More spending is needed for operating costs.
Only 6% of the $7.5-billion will go for road/bike lane improvements, with another 13% to replace the Patullo Bridge. The bulk of the money, more than 80%, will be sunk into assorted public transit schemes, the biggest item being $4-billion in new rapid Ai??rail transit investment, including a new line to the Vancouver suburb of Langley to give a fresh boost to urban sprawl.
The transit tax, if approved, would obviously only cover part of the $7.5-billion cost. As with all urban congestion relief policy expansions, the bulk of the costs will have to be borne by other levels of government and tricky manipulations of other taxes. The proposals suggest assorted additional tax grabs, including vehicle registration fees ($100-million a year) and taking back all or part of the revenue from British Columbiaai??i??s famous carbon tax (up to $380-million a year). Thereai??i??s talk of a land-value capture tax ($10-million) and a new ai???mobilityai??? tax that would tax drivers on the distance they travel rather than the fuel they use. Or maybe both. Itai??i??s not clear in the documents.
Then thereai??i??s a possible road tax, but thatai??i??s not on the ballot and in any case is shoved off into the far future by the Mayorsai??i?? Council, maybe eight years into the future. Even if one favoured road tolls as good economic policy, itai??i??s not really on the transit ballot agenda and, if implemented, would generate only $250-million a year to funding big transit capital projects. As with all urban transit tax plans, all these are seen as just starting point for bigger increases in the future.
The transit-tax ballot is in effect a marketing scam. Vote for this teeny little 0.5% increase in the sales taxai??i??only 35 cents a day per householdai??i??and collect an economic bonanza worth $950, according the Tides Foundation-funded Clean Energy Canada group and the C.D. Howe Institute.
In addition, any new regional Vancouver sales tax and the other local taxes on carbon etc. will still have to be supplemented by much larger contributions from Ottawa and the province. The ballot, in other words, is a little trigger for a big increase in tax-based spending over Ai??decades.
Nothing in any of the material on the Mayorsai??i?? Councilai??i??s glitzy get-out-and-vote Web site explains how any of this onslaught of taxes and spending will reduce actual congestion and/or improve the lives of Vancouverites. Itai??i??s a dream that has never really materialized anywhere, even in cities that have tried all the options: Spend billions on public transit, raise taxes on carbon and cars, and everybody will be happier, riding their bikes, hopping on trains and cruising over traffic-free roads.
Even London, a world leader in public transit and congestion charges, is still bogged down in traffic. ai???Traffic jams in London getting worse, ai??? said a BBC headline last year. A study showed that London was ai???second only to Brussels in terms of Europeai??i??s most congested cities, despite the congestion charge.ai??? Why? A growing economy is the main reason.
There may be good policies around to tackle congestion, including deregulation and allowing commuters to devise their own congestion-fighting behaviors. How about privatizing transit? But the idea that traffic can be controlled and reduced with massive new taxation schemes to fund zillion-dollar sprawl-inducing public transit created by central planning bureaucracies and politicians has become part of our modern urban mythology. Vote ai???No.ai???
Toronto’s lonely ICTS (SkyTrain) Line is due to be dismantled within ten years because it is life expired, but with the ongoing seesaw debate to replace the ICTS Line with LRT or a subway rages on. To keep the line operable the existing cars need to be refurbished to keep the line operating for the next few years.
This is what the TTC’s revamped SRT cars look like
The TTC recently announced that a makeover was in store for its Scarborough RT trains. With the aging transit line forced to operate until the completion of a new subway line in Scarborough (at least a decade away), it wasn’t possible to put off upgrades any longer. Despite the notorious unreliability of the cars, the city is stuck with them for now, so the the TTC will invest $132 million to overhaul the fleet.
The first car has been re-wrapped as part of the makeover. It will travel the SRT to draw attention to the project and allow for the TTC to solicit feedback on the new design. At first glance, it’s a major improvement over the dated 1980s aesthetic of the original trains, though it does bear an odd resemblance to the Montreal Metro.
It’s also clear that the TTC is invested in rebranding the SRT to “Line 3,” with each car prominently marked with this still MTA-looking label (though, in fairness, New York isn’t the only city to number its subway lines). That’s not a bad idea given the bad reputation that line has accrued over the years, with loads of service delays each winter.
Almost five million rides are taken on the SRT each year, so if this renovation project helps to make the experience better for the next decade, it will likely have been worth it, even if the construction of an LRT instead of a subway would have made this upgrade unnecessary.
In addition to the new-look exterior, the TTC will replace the motors of these vehicles as well as other aging parts and upgrade the interior space in an effort to make the trains more accessible and bright.
Battery powered trains are evolving at a fast pace.
For the Chilliwack interurbanAi?? purposes, this sort of train could operate quite well on sections of non electrified track, including the 12.5 section of shared track with the Roberts Bank Railway and the 22 km section from the Fraser river Bridge to the downtown Vancouver Central Station.
As battery powered trains and trams improve, by the time the government comes out of its transit mega project stupor, the ability of battery powered trains to run further afield, will only increase.
Prototype battery-powered ai???IPEMUai??i?? carries passengers for first time
Ai??The first battery-powered train to run on Britainai??i??s rail network in more than half a century carries its first passengers this week.
The modified Class 379 Electrostar battery-powered train ai??i?? also known as an Independently Powered Electric Multiple Unit (IPEMU) ai??i?? will run in weekday timetable service for five weeks between Harwich International and Manningtree stations in Essex.
It was retrofitted and tested by Bombardier in Derby and Leicestershire. The IPEMU is a joint project between Network Rail, Bombardier, Abellio Greater Anglia, FutureRailway and the Rail Executive arm of the Department for Transport.
The partner companies involved in the project believe there is huge potential for battery-powered trains to bridge gaps between electrified parts of the network and to run on branch lines where it would be too expensive to install overhead electrification.
Data gathered during the experiment will be used to help the wider rail industry determine what form a future IPEMU will take, be it a straight battery unit or hybrid.
On the retrofitted Class 379, the DMOS, PTOSL(W) and DMOC cars are standard, but the MOSL car has been converted to a ai???Trailer Battery Car (BOS)ai??i??. The MCM (motor converter module), CET tank and power bogie have been removed, the pipework and cabling have been reconfigured because of equipment being relocated and the toilet is locked out. The auxiliary reservoir has been relocated to the DMOS, and six battery rafts have been installed, alongside new power cables, trailer bogie, a new button on the cab desk, an additional HMI screen, and data acquisition instrumentation.
The battery rafts fitted to the Class 379 unit contain a battery box, isolation switch, power distribution control panel, battery charging inverter, batteries and battery monitoring system, all mounted within a bespoke, purpose-built rig. Their creation follows the successful testing of several types of battery technologies, including lithium iron magnesium (which are being used for these tests) and hot sodium nickel salt.
A project update for the IMechE by Charles Twort of Bombardier and Sam Barrett of Network Rail said the trial performance targets were: a range of 50km (regional service); an acceleration and speed similar to a DMU; operational cycles of 30km battery and 50km overhead; a lifetime of five to seven years; and a ai???high level of intrinsic safetyai???.
Any future IPEMU would most likely be designed as a new train and not an adapted unit, to minimise energy consumption, but this project will also provide useful information for retrofit.
It could ultimately lead to a fleet of battery-powered trains running on Britainai??i??s rail network, which would be quieter and more efficient than diesel-powered trains, making them better for passengers and the environment.
Network Rail principal engineer James Ambrose said: ai???Weai??i??ve made terrific progress with this project so far and seeing the battery-powered train in timetabled service is a huge step forward.
ai???After months of engineering and testing, the train is running just as we would like it. Weai??i??ll be using this five-week period to gather data on how it handles during passenger service ai??i?? most travellers will recognise how quiet and smooth the ride is compared to a diesel-powered train.ai???
He continued: ai???We are always looking for ways to reduce the cost of running the railway and make it greener too. This project has the potential to contribute significantly towards both those goals.ai???
Rail minister Claire Perry MP said: ai???This is a major milestone in this innovative project, and further proof of our commitment to deliver a world-class rail network fit for the 21st century.
ai???These trains potentially offer a real alternative where diesel or electrified services arenai??i??t suitable, and I look forward to seeing the results of the trials.ai???
Battery locomotives have been used on railways for around 100 years, including in munitions factories during World War 1 to avoid the risk of explosion from sparks emitted by steam locomotives. London Underground currently has a fleet of battery locomotives used on engineering trains when the power is switched off for track maintenance and improvement work.
RTM readers have recalled the two-car battery powered train in use on the Aberdeen-Ballater branch from 1958, and the BR Southern Region motor luggage vans that used lead-acid batteries, for example.
Roger Capel noted on the RTM website: ai???The 1957 battery train (gather it was a BEMU!) was done in the same works as today’s IPEMU, using the two standard ai???Derby Lightweightai??i?? DMU bodyshells. At that time DB were putting battery railcars into service in Germany, but I think its immediate despatch to the wilds of Aberdeenshire indicates that it was a BR gesture.ai???
But the IPEMU is the first modern attempt to trial battery power for potential passenger services.
Nine days after Global BCai??i??s chief political reporter compared the current transit plebiscite campaign with the one that ended with voters axing the HST in 2011, North Vancouver resident Mike Barrenger outlined the confusion shared by many Metro Vancouver voters.
In essence, both men made a plea for reasoned consideration of the facts surrounding the $7.5-billion transportation and transit plan proposed by TransLinkai??i??s Mayorsai??i?? Council.
In his Feb. 20 letter to the editor (Transit Plebiscite: Vote Yes or No but Base it on Facts), Barrenger wrote, ai???Should we make this important referendum decision on the basis of incomplete and inaccurate facts? Absolutely not.ai???
And therein lies the reason for the growing heat being generated in the campaign ai??i?? what are the facts?
Remembering the 16-year history of TransLink and the 14-year history of broken promises by the B.C. Liberals we see little to persuade us to trust that the plebiscite language, as amended by Transportation Minister Todd Stone, is anything more than politically tweaked wording on a piece of paper.
The long-standing reasons for my distrust are many and still not as complete as Mr. Barrenger deserves them to be. Nonetheless, here are a few of the most important issues voters need to have addressed if they are to make an informed decision on their mail-in ballot:
The first few jump right off the pages of a side-by-side comparison between the mayorsai??i?? wording and the final version approved by the minister:
The mayorsai??i?? version called the vote a referendum on its proposed 0.5 per cent increase in the sales tax to be dedicated to the plan.
Stone not only altered ai???referendumai??? to read ai???plebisciteai??? he removed the words ai???independent audits and public reportingai??? from the question. Why?
To use Baldreyai??i??s analogy, the HST vote was binding; yet despite all the rhetoric flying out of the Yes side, the only thing certain about the ministerai??i??s version is that, should the vote go his way, youai??i??ll get an increase to the sales tax. But wait! That isnai??i??t even a sure thing because the minister changed its name to read ai???a new 0.5 per cent Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Taxai??? ai??i?? is that because itai??i??s easier to manipulate a congestion or carbon tax than the PST?
Next, Stone omitted ai???tunnelling along Broadwayai??? in favour of the fuzzier term ai???rapid transitai??? and, similarly, changed ai???Build light rail transit to connect Surreyai??i??ai??? to ai???build rapid transitai??i??ai??? Why?
To leave plenty of room to substitute still more overly-expensive SkyTrain projects to be built by SNC-Lavalin ai??i?? the corporation thatai??i??s challenging serious charges laid by the RCMP regarding its overseas dealings?
Then thereai??i??s the Compass Card.
Aimed at saving an annual $7 million in fare evasions (buzzer.translink.ca/2012/02/the-costs-of-fare-evasion/) we were told Cubicai??i??s system would cost $100-million. But as happens too often in this walk-all-over-us province, 100 soon became 171.
Today, $171M still not being enough for the San Diego company that specializes in ai???military defense equipment and fare collection systems,ai??? the cost sits at over $190M. Thatai??i??s 27 years of lost fare revenue before we break even. Why? Did none of our politicians think of ignoring past and present lobbyists and putting projects to a fair tendering process for a fixed-price contract?
For North Shore readers ai??i?? $75 million of those dollars would buy three new SeaBuses, leaving $115 million for a revamped Taylor Way intersection and other regional needs.
Now letai??i??s talk ai???improvedai??? congestion:
The Expo, Millennium and Canada Lines reduced congestion, right?
Please donai??i??t shout; itai??i??s rude.
If efficient public transit systems prevent congestion, the City of London I left in 1956 should have been a beacon to the world.
If transit was the be-all and end-all, why did traffic flow so smoothly during Vancouverai??i??s four-month bus strike in 2001?
The facts show that the root cause of congestion has many faces ai??i?? uncontrolled growth; failure to co-ordinate construction projects; developersai??i?? carts put before local infrastructure horses, lack of emergency controls and designated alternate routes in the event of major obstructions, out-of-date traffic-light sequencing, inflexible work schedules that cause daily peak rush hours ai??i?? all play a part in creating congestion.
Some interesting discussions of congestion issues and deterrents can be found at: roadpricing.blogspot.ca/2013/02/10-years-of-londons-congestion-charge.htmlAi?? and by Googling ai???Central London: congestion charging impacts ai??i?? sixth annual report.ai???
Finally, only because full commentary would be book-length, it is well worth considering an answer given me by Patrick Condon, a University of British Columbia professor with more than 25 years of expertise in sustainable urban design.
ai???The plebiscite,ai??? Condon said, ai???is a terrible idea.
ai???By foisting this on us, the province has abrogated its responsibility. It is the province that runs TransLink, not the mayors and it has been the province that has consistently chosen expensive transit systems ai??i?? the Millennium, Canada and Evergreen lines ai??i?? based on SkyTrain when local authorities, again and again, have favoured much cheaper light-rail systems,ai??? he said.
Explaining that those poor choices mean TransLink must pay for them ai???each and every year for decades,ai??? Condon concluded. ai???It is these debt-servicing costs that are contributing greatly to the need for the additional taxes that are now the subject of this plebiscite.ai???
I wonder how TransLink would fare? I guess we will see after the transit plebiscite.
PORTLAND TriMet which runs the area’s bus and light rail system is seeing is public approval on the rise despite service issues and financial woes, The Oregonian reports:
“Poll: TriMet public approval rebounding despite MAX service problems, ongoing financial challenges By Joseph Rose The Oregonian/OregonLive on February 25, 2015 at 7:03 PM
Some 76 percent of Portland area residents approve of the way TriMet is being operated, according to the results of new “attitude and awareness” telephone poll.
That’s a sharp acceleration from this time last year, when a similar survey showedAi??the transit agency’s approval rating had slipped to 66 percent after a series of service cuts, fare hikes and controversies stemming from embarrassing safety lapsesAi??and secrecyAi??at the highest levels of the agency.
DHM ResearchAi??ran the survey of 1,000 Portland are residents over 16.
The poll, conducted in November, has a margin of error of 3.1 percent.
TriMet’s MAX light-rail system had a rough 2014, with switch and electrical problems causing rush-hour meltdowns and even a derailment.
Still, MAX service showed the biggest jump in public approval, from 69 percent in the last survey to 84 percent in the latest census.
TheAi??performance rating for light rail could continue toAi??improve in the coming years.
Meanwhile, 78 percent of respondents said they approved of bus service, an increase of 13 points compared to survey taken at the end of 2013.
“Both riders and non-riders rated the value of our service high,” said Mary Fetsch, a TriMet spokeswoman.
Fetsch said residents have an understanding of the importance of mass transit as the region grows.
DHM Research said the resurgence in TriMet’s public image is likely due, in part, to the post-recession restoration of frequent bus service and the resolution of the agency’s long, uglyAi??labor dispute.
Of course, TriMet still faces the significant challenge of paying for nearly $1 billion in pension and retirement health-care commitments without cutting service or increasing fares to the point where regular commuters stop riding.
Riders gave higher overall satisfaction ratings – 87 percent in 2014 – than in 2013 (at 83 percent). Meanwhile, most non-riders – 84 percent — said they value the benefits TriMet provides to the region.Ai??
Frequent and regular riders used TriMet most often to commute to work and school, with 75 percent saying the fare value was excellent or good.
Occasional and infrequent riders used TriMet most often to get to “recreational activities” such as sporting events, withAi??”personal business” coming in second. About 65 percent of occasionalAi??riders were satisfied with the value of the cost to ride.
People are well aware of the coming Portland-to-Milwaukie MAX Orange Line. Awareness of the project ranked at 80 percent. “Respondents said the main benefits of the new line included reducing traffic congestion, connecting parts of the city and expanding public transportation,” according to a TriMet report on the survey.
78 percent of respondents knew about the Orange Line’sAi??Tilikum Crossing bridge, which has slowly become part of the downtown skyline over the past three years.
Actually it is not a myth, transit customers do prefer rail to buses. The study does leave out the fact that rail’s operating costs can be much less than buses because the tram can operate in multiple units, thus with one driver carrying more passengers.
In the end though, transit customers perceive that BRT is just a bus operating on a tarted up rights of way and for all intents and purposes, BRT is just a bus.
If BRT or guided bus had preformed much better in the past, maybe the mode would be seen in a better light, but BRT tends to cost more and carry less customers than what those promoting the mode had promised.
It must pointed out that the so-called BRT mentioned in the Mayor’s Council’s transit proposals is not BRT at all, rather just a B-line limited stop express bus, with no signal priority at intersections nor a proper BRT guide-way.
Take a look at the image above. This rendering represents modern bus rapid transit service. The BRT vehicle travels in its own separate lane, free from the constraints of traffic congestion or traffic lights. The bus is sleek and the shelter is pleasant. If you could see the boarding procedure, too, you’d find that passengers buy their fares ahead of time, enabling them to enter quickly through any door, just as they do on a train.
Now take a look at the image below, which shows a modern light rail service. The scenes are remarkably similar. This train travels in the same dedicated lane and even has the same style. The only real difference you’ll find, if you look very close, is the faint sign of tracks on the ground.
Given what we know from these two pictures alone, there’s no reason to suspect these two ridesai??i??modern BRT or modern light railai??i??would be noticeably different experiences. And yet when transport scholars David Hensher and Corinne Mulley of the University of Sydney Business School showed these images to about 1,370 people in six Australian capital cities, the difference in preference was enormous.
For the study, Hensher and Mulley gave survey respondents the two images above, plus two others whose only difference was older-looking vehicle styles (one bus and one train), and asked them to rank the four images in terms of “which one you would like to travel in most.” They found that 55 percent chose the modern light rail image, and another 18 percent chose the older light rail. Only about 17 percent chose the modern BRT. Just 10 percent chose the classic old bus.
I wonder if the Board of Trade would be supporting TransLink’s initiative if their members had to come up with $300 or $400 million for transit improvements or if their members had to pay for the extra cost of subway construction under Broadway?
An artistai??i??s impression of the Parramatta light rail, which a group of businesses want extended to Sydney Olympic Park.
A CONSORTIUM of up to 20 high-profile businesses have formed the West Line Alliance, offering to tip in hundreds of millions of dollars to bring the Parramatta light rail link to Sydney Olympic Park.
The business group hopes to bankroll the project and make the Olympic Park line the State Governmentai??i??s preferred route for stage one, with a final announcement expected before the State Election.
The West Line Alliance includes corporate heavy-hitters such as Goodman Fielder, General Property Trust, Australian Turf Club, Accor Hotels and ANZ Stadium and has brought a number of influential business leaders to the table.
Big business is pushing for a light rail link from Parramatta to Sydney Olympic Park.
Until now, the favoured route for the first stage of the Parramatta light rail link was to Macquarie Park via Carlingford.
The route, one of four options outlined last year, has been the frontrunner because the land corridor to Carlingford has Ai??already been reserved for heavy rail and could be built faster and cheaper.
Parramatta MP Geoff Lee and Parramatta City Council have championed the Carlingford line.
However, the alliance wants the government to consider moving on the Sydney Olympic Park link sooner rather than later.
Sydney Business Chamber Western Sydney director David Borger.
The government is examining four potential corridors before it choses a light rail route
Convened by the Western Sydney chapter of the Sydney Business Chamber, the alliance wants to use a ai???value-captureai??i?? funding model which sees beneficiaries of infrastructure stumping up money for the project.
Western Sydney Business Chamber director David Borger said the link could be partially funded through contributions from developers along the route.
ai???If they are going to spend $1 billion building a light rail link, well there could be a few hundred million dollars from the private sector to do two routes rather than one,ai??? he said.
Rosehill Gardens racecourse is on the proposed route to Sydney Olympic Park.
ANZ Stadium is part of the West Line Alliance behind the push.
ai???If they are going to build a link to Macquarie Park, then build one to Sydney Olympic Park at the same time, or bring it forward rather than a stage two project.
ai???It pushes the public dollar further and makes sense for the beneficiaries of the light rail to make a contribution.
ai???The Gold Coast has levied all the businesses along the light rail route to fund the build and we need to consider all options in terms of public-private funding.ai???
Mr Borger has been a long term supporter of a route from Westmead to Sydney Olympic Park via Camellia.
ai???There is a real opportunity here to connect Westmead, Parramatta and Sydney Olympic Park as one city,ai??? he said.
ai???I just think western Sydney hasnai??i??t been able to capture a lot of knowledge jobs,ai??? Mr Borger said.
But Mr Borgerai??i??s suggested route would require an extension northwest from Parramatta to Westmead, which was not one the four preferred routes released by Transport Minister Gladys Berejiklian late last year.
The business chamber said the Parramatta light rail project had the potential to transform the region and support Parramatta as Sydneyai??i??s second CBD.
The chamber said the project should be prioritised because of its potential to stimulate economic growth and housing supply in western Sydney.
ai???A stark jobs deficit remains as 200,000 people leave the region for work each day and this is forecast to grow to more than 400,000 by 2051 without drastic action,ai??? a statement from the chamber said.
Torstar News Service VIVA Rapid Transit, launched in 2005 to carry residents across York Region.
York Region is starting to feel the burden of carrying the highest per capita debt load in the GTA, and is pulling back on infrastructure projects to rein in borrowing costs.
Yorkai??i??s debt has climbed to $2.54 billion and is expected to peak at $3.7 billion by 2020.
For years, the regionai??i??s debt repayment plan has been dependent on development charges from current and future construction of homes in booming cities such as Markham, Vaughan and Richmond Hill. (Levies collected help cover the cost of money borrowed to build infrastructure such as water and sewage pipes.)
Despite fast-tracking projects and a relatively strong housing market, development charges arenai??i??t keeping up with debt repayment. Almost 85 per cent of Yorkai??i??s debt is based on what it hopes to recover from development fees.
ai???We assumed higher growth in the early years, followed by slower growth in the later years,ai??? said Edward Hankins, director of the Treasury Office for York. ai???But because of the economic recession, some of that growth has not occurred as quickly as we thought.ai???
Officials admit the development charge collection plan is volatile and largely dependent on how the economy fares. Heavy reliance on such fees could leave York taxpayers facing two unfavourable options down the road to cover debt: higher taxes, or more sprawl to keep the development fees coming in.
According to a 2013 report, development levies collected over the past decade amounted to an average of $173 million a year. In 2014, the region reset the rates and collected $250 million, Hankins said. The region is anticipating $330 million annually in 2015 and 2016 ai??i?? even though such numbers have never been met.
But he is optimistic.
ai???York is going to grow. Itai??i??s one of the fastest growing municipalities in Canada. Itai??i??s just a question of how quickly it will grow,ai??? he said.
Yet there have already been consequences to the regionai??i??s aggressive build plan and high debt, according to the 2015 proposed budget document, which is up for discussion this month.
S&P recently downgraded the regionai??i??s credit rating from AAA to AA+, over concerns the region was spending too much and taking on too much debt. To slow down spending, York Region Council decided to delay certain projects, including the Upper York water reclamation centre and water and sewage projects in Vaughan.
The projects could be restarted if growth proves to be faster than expected, or development charge funds improve.
So, the regionai??i??s new focus is building up its reserve funds, Hankins said.
The $1.7 billion currently held in reserves, second in the region only to Torontoai??i??s, is being spent faster than the revenues coming in. By 2017, the depletion trend is expected to reverse, said Hankins.
Critics warn that Yorkai??i??s strategy will put it in much the same straits Peel Region now faces.
ai???Mississauga was able to collect development fees and use them to subsidize tax freezes,ai??? said Sony Rai, a member of the environmental group Sustainable Vaughan. ai???Fast-forward 30 years and now Peel Regionai??i??s infrastructure replacement and repair bill is causing tax increases.ai???
Paul Bottomley, York Regionai??i??s manager for growth management, believes the growth anticipated in the region by 2031 will surpass what is needed to pay off the debt.
According to a land assessment report from 2009, the region anticipates some 1.5 million people will move in over the next two decades. It also expects to add 229,300 housing units over that period, almost 40 per cent of those single-family homes ai??i?? the most lucrative type when it comes to development fees.
A single or semi-detached home brings in $37,720 in development charges. A condo of less than 700 square feet brings in almost $15,865.
But some environmentalists worry that Yorkai??i??s debt repayment policy is not sustainable and is a model destined to fuel sprawl.
ai???They are so far exposed in terms of debt and paying for that with development charges ai??i?? and the only way they can see forward is to keep doing more of it,ai??? said Tim Gray, executive director with the advocacy group Environmental Defence.
He believes that as the region builds out, there will eventually be pressure on the protected Greenbelt lands, where new development is forbidden.
Gray believes that with the provincial Greenbelt review taking place this year, the region could contemplate actively moving toward a high-density model, instead of ai???simply digging itself deeper into the hole.ai???
ai???They need to figure out how we can modify development charges so that revenue can be obtained from denser development,ai??? he said. ai???And if you arenai??i??t building new infrastructure that extends far into the countryside, then your costs are lower,ai??? he said.ai???So you can transition to a new funding model.
ai???But in the short term, and with so much debt on them, itai??i??s a hard sell.ai???
The TTC recently announced that 
Recent Comments