Or at least let Todd Litman count the ways – which he does in this issue of the Journal of Public Transportation.
He lists 18, with lots of analysis. And in case you’re wondering, here they are:
- Fare increases
- Discounted Bulk Transit Passes
- Property Taxes
- Regional Sales Taxes
- Fuel Taxes
- Vehicle Levy
- Utility Levy
- Employee Levy
- Road Tolls
- Vehicle-Km Tax
- Parking Sales Taxes
- Parking Levy
- Expanded Parking Pricing
- Development Cost Charges or Transportation Impact Fees
- Land Value Capture
- Station Rents
- Station Air Rights
- Advertising
.
He concludes, among other observations:
This research discovered no new funding options that are particularly cost-effective and easy-to-implement. Each option has disadvantages and constraints. As a result, this study’s overall conclusion is that a variety of funding options should be used to help finance the local share of public transit improvements to ensure stability (so total revenues are less vulnerable to fluctuations in a single economic sector or legal instrument) and distribute costs broadly.
Public transit improvements often provide widely dispersed benefits that can justify widely dispersed funding sources. Even people who do not currently use public transit benefit from reduced congestion, increased public safety and health, improved mobility option for non-drivers, regional economic development, and improved environmental quality.
Nothing about specific about Carbon pricing? I see emissions mentioned in a couple sections, but the lack of specific emissions about Carbon seems like a big omission.
I think that if we can prove a certain amount of Carbon savings by Translink, it would be a great idea to credit that savings directly to Translink’s budget. This source of income would only last as long as private transport has a high carbon output though…
5, 9 and 10 are essentially carbon taxes .. the core issue missing in Vancouver is vehicle levies, road tolls and parking fees on residential streets. As cars get smaller, or electric, gasoline taxes are not effective anymore, yet still clog streets, and as such carbon pricing will not help.
Drivers who refuse to admit they’re part of the problem, who refuse to pay any higher fees or taxes should remember that many of the people who support them wouldn’t be here without a good transit system. Your local coffee shop, fast food outlet, dry cleaners, etc. wouldn’t exist without access to a pool of employees willing and able to work for low wages, people who depend on the transit system to get around.
None of those are sustainable funding sources, they all will shift with changing technology, trends in car usage, market ups and downs, etc.
The only truly sustainable and equitable funding source, the one that so many other developed nations have but we seem to find intolerable here, is a stable amount from general revenues of higher levels of government (ie. income, corporate taxes). Huge amounts of general revenues already go towards funding road construction and maintenance, why is using it towards transit so aberrant?