Hey Guest,
Welcome, Join our awesome community where you can discuss on various topics
or Create an Account


Welcome Guest! In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away. Click here to get started.

Dear WRConnected Users: WOW! Our fourth "birthday"! We've grown so much over the past four years, and much of that is because of you, the amazing WRConnected Users. But like any other website, there are costs associated with running it. As some of you may already know, we accept donations. Some of you have made donations (thank you!). This helps cover some of the background costs associated with running this site. If every user were to donate $1 we would more than cover our yearly expenses. If WRConnected is useful to you, take a minute and help keep it online for another year. Any donation is helpful. Thank you.

Thread Rating:
  • 4 Vote(s) - 3.75 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
General Road and Highway Discussion
That's the whole point of the project, I think. That, and doing the same thing for the Westbound lanes (that they'll "stay" and lanes 4 and 5 will just continue on to 8).

I have a love/hate thing watching this "ballet" play out every day. In another life I would have gotten a kick out of being a traffic engineer, because I have a really good eye for predicting how people move when driving.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(03-23-2017, 08:25 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Danbrotherston: Actually, what you're proposing is discriminatory. But don't think that I'm implying that's bad: we discriminate based on income all of the time. Our income taxes are in almost all Canadian jurisdictions are discriminatory, and (even though there are often proposals) it's pretty unlikely we remove that form of income discrimination.

That merge onto the eastbound 401 will be much better when that change is made.

I don't disagree.  What I'm suggesting is "discriminatory" in that it seeks to charge a different amount of money for people who make different amounts of money.

But that does not make what I said wrong.

Flat fees are discriminatory in that the effective punishment a person feels for a specific offence depends on their level of income.

Frankly, I feel the second is a more serious problem than the first, but I realize this is a difficult thing for people to understand.

Although it occurs to me there is an extremely simple and obvious way to solve this whole problem.

Lets phrase fines in terms of docking pay, for running a red light you get a fine which docs you "20 hours of hourly pay".  Where hourly pay = total income / (40 * 52).  Now everyone gets the same "fine", 20 hours of pay.
Reply
No, like I said, I wasn't disagreeing with your idea, I don't have a strong opinion about it (though I'm enjoying the conversation about it). I was just pointing out that the current system is not discriminatory (but might have bad outcomes) as you stated; your idea would be discriminatory (but might have better outcomes).

How would your last idea work for people who, say, don't earn any employment income? If you just live off of dividends, your hourly pay is zero?
Reply
MidTowner - you're using a very specific and subjective (and, imo, incorrect) definition of discrimination where the only thing that matters is the absolute value of the monetary fine and you ignore the actual effects on a person's life.  

It's just as reasonable to define discrimination by ignoring the absolute value of the monetary fine and focus on the actual effects on a person's life (like how Dan suggests looking at "unit of hours worked").

Using a totally different analogy, I'd argue that a building with only stairs and no elevator/ramp is discriminatory to wheelchair bound people.  Even though each person is allowed access to the same physical structures - the way it effects one group of people is significantly worse.
Reply
Or as a tax-based example. Some could argue that a flat tax rate is discriminating against those with more money because they pay (in absolute terms) more money. But I would argue that definition is very flawed and that requiring each individual to pay the same absolute amount in taxes is VERY discriminatory.
Reply
(03-23-2017, 09:05 AM)MidTowner Wrote: No, like I said, I wasn't disagreeing with your idea, I don't have a strong opinion about it (though I'm enjoying the conversation about it). I was just pointing out that the current system is not discriminatory (but might have bad outcomes) as you stated; your idea would be discriminatory (but might have better outcomes).

How would your last idea work for people who, say, don't earn any employment income? If you just live off of dividends, your hourly pay is zero?

Simply, I would define hourly pay by your yearly income divided by 52 * 40 (or 37.5) or one year of work.  Would probably cover the 99%.  But I admit, I haven't run the numbers or really thought too deeply about it.  But this is generally how salaried employees have their wages compared with hourly employees anyway.

Of course, this doesn't even touch on issues of "wealth" vs. "income".  I realize many high income people live paycheque to paycheque as well.  But honestly, we're getting into the weeds of our societal problems.
Reply
(03-23-2017, 10:14 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Of course, this doesn't even touch on issues of "wealth" vs. "income".  I realize many high income people live paycheque to paycheque as well.  But honestly, we're getting into the weeds of our societal problems.

And certainly, into the weeds of "this is not really about roads and highways anymore".
It seems like a good place to wrap up the topic, at least in this thread.
Reply
Partial list of scheduled road work in 2017 to plan your travels:
http://calendar.regionofwaterloo.ca/Coun...17#page=91
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
This is interesting:





I wasn't familiar with the term, and had to Wikipedia it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneckdown
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
It seems kind of like desire paths, but for identifying space that can be eliminated from traffic instead of space that should be created for it.

I think one of the reasons we've ended up with such generous intersections is the perceived requirement to accommodate transport trucks (for deliveries, for example), and also to accommodate fire trucks. It kind of seems like the tail wagging the dog, but now that those needs are established, it seems like it will be difficult to reverse them.
Reply
Are those not valid problems though? If the intersection is designed too tight, then what?

I think about things like this when waiting on my bike at Francis/Charles - the stop bar has to be soooooo far back because the buses can't make the turn otherwise.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(04-03-2017, 07:51 AM)Canard Wrote: Are those not valid problems though? If the intersection is designed too tight, then what?

I think about things like this when waiting on my bike at Francis/Charles - the stop bar has to be soooooo far back because the buses can't make the turn otherwise.

They are valid concerns, but in some cases they can be solved in other ways. For example, fire trucks don’t only come in one size. So instead of saying “every street must be like a suburban thoroughfare in order to allow fire trucks to get through”, you can say “firetrucks must be smaller in order to fit into our downtown streets”. Or you can trade off speed of ambulances getting places against traffic deaths caused by other traffic speeding along the same roads — if the marginal heart attack victim dies because the ambulance takes an extra 30s to get to their location, maybe that is balanced out by the marginal collision victim surviving because they were hit at 30km/h rather than 40km/h.
Reply
What kind of irritates me is that we rarely see that kind of data/analysis (from any position). It's often "This will save lives because of X!", which may be true, but it will also cost lives (and/or money*) in a bunch of other, often hard to predict, ways.

* And yes, while we never like it when its obvious, we always need to make tradeoffs between human life and money.
Reply
(04-03-2017, 07:51 AM)Canard Wrote: I think about things like this when waiting on my bike at Francis/Charles - the stop bar has to be soooooo far back because the buses can't make the turn otherwise.

To me that shows that there are multiple ways of accommodating larger vehicles - we don't have to make the intersections huge to do it.
Reply
Initial work has started on the Ottawa roundabouts - particularly near Alpine by the Ford dealership, looked like utility relcation has started.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links

              Advertise