Waterloo Region Connected
General Road and Highway Discussion - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: General Road and Highway Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=335)



RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - ijmorlan - 09-18-2016

(09-18-2016, 02:14 PM)tomh009 Wrote:
(09-15-2016, 04:21 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Define “vacant”.

Not the primary residence of at least one person.

Define “primary residence”.

Now, taking the previous as done, nice in-principle definition. How do you tell?

More specifically, how does the tax department tell so as to know what number to put on the tax bill?


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - tomh009 - 09-18-2016

(09-18-2016, 06:05 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(09-18-2016, 02:14 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Not the primary residence of at least one person.

Define “primary residence”.

Now, taking the previous as done, nice in-principle definition. How do you tell?

More specifically, how does the tax department tell so as to know what number to put on the tax bill?

The city sends the property tax bill to the owner, not resident.

But Revenue Canada has the residence information for each taxpayer.  That would be a good starting point; there would likely need to be an appeals process for cases where this doesn't accurately reflect someone's residence.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - tomh009 - 09-18-2016

(09-18-2016, 04:26 PM)panamaniac Wrote:
(09-18-2016, 02:14 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Not the primary residence of at least one person.

Wouldn't that render short term rentals "vacant"?

Yes, and thus subject to a higher tax rate.  Apartment buildings also have a higher tax rate than condos, so that might be politically acceptable.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - GtwoK - 09-20-2016

Out of curiosity, does anyone know if an improved interchange between Hwy 8 / 401 is even on the MTO's radar? Maybe in a 20-year plan? EB 8 -> SB 401 and NB 401 -> WB 8 ramps seem like they could improve traffic tenfold here, so why is the last time I remember hearing about them more than 5 years ago? Something is briefly mentioned in the 2015-2019 highway planning book, but listed as "Future". Is that really all we know? No EA studies, or anything of that sort?


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Canard - 09-20-2016

...You mean WB and EB 401 Wink

And I've always thought of 8 as running NB/SB, but I think that's just because I grew up along the 401.

From what I understand, it's probably not happening for another 20+ years.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - kps - 09-20-2016

(09-20-2016, 12:00 PM)GtwoK Wrote: Something is briefly mentioned in the 2015-2019 highway planning book, but listed as "Future".

No change in the 2016-2020 version. Don't hold your breath.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - nms - 09-23-2016

Improved GO train service is likely intended to relieve some of the car pressure.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Viewfromthe42 - 09-23-2016

GO's plans for their service involves ensuring that the last mile is largely solved by cars, meaning anything within the reason would still see vehicular traffic, only instead of to highway 7 or 401, it would terminate at some parking facility, so it wouldn't seemingly reduce anything of significance.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - tomh009 - 09-23-2016

(09-23-2016, 01:35 PM)Viewfromthe42 Wrote: GO's plans for their service involves ensuring that the last mile is largely solved by cars, meaning anything within the reason would still see vehicular traffic, only instead of to highway 7 or 401, it would terminate at some parking facility, so it wouldn't seemingly reduce anything of significance.

Well, GO isn't responsible (not can they be responsible) for the last mile.  Each municipality has to make its own decision how much of that traffic they want to be cars, buses, LRT, bicycles or pedestrian.

And the pressure on the 401 (GtwoK's original question) would likely be (somewhat) alleviated regardless of how people get to the GO station.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Viewfromthe42 - 09-23-2016

GO has somewhat decided that it will attempt to furnish parking as the prime way of allowing people to get to their stations. Constantly provide ample free parking, and there's not much a municipality can do to counteract that strong economic motivator.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - tomh009 - 09-23-2016

GO is providing parking in Kitchener?


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - KevinL - 09-23-2016

(09-23-2016, 04:46 PM)tomh009 Wrote: GO is providing parking in Kitchener?

No, at least not yet. But this is the trend at many other of their major stations, especially in suburbs.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Canard - 09-23-2016

Well that's kind of the point of how GO works Smile You live in the suburbs, you drive to the Park-and-Ride lots, and you take the train into Toronto.

It is transitioning into a system that could theoretically take you doorstep to doorstep without driving... but it's not there yet.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - JoeKW - 09-23-2016

The station that will be built in Breslau will probably have a large park and ride lot.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - tomh009 - 09-24-2016

In the suburbs, park and ride is really a requirement for GO to be successful. Hopefully they would also provide a good level of bicycle parking -- but neither transit or walking can provide enough coverage to get the people to use GO in such a setting.

Viewfrom42, what would you propose as an alternative for the suburban stations?