Waterloo Region Connected

Lots of jackhammering and concrete removal on Charles. Seems to be happening at most of the intersections - a couple of metres near Cameron and Stirling have been torn out. There's also a protective welding/spark fence up at the Stirling one, which makes me think they'll be cutting the rails as well.

(06-16-2017, 06:07 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]Not this again. I feel like I’m in bizarro world where something can be called “user pay” even though there is no tolling mechanism.

Until somebody points out to me the fee that motorists qua motorists pay to use roads, what I said is obviously true.  (...)

Yes.  But the question is exactly what government services/facilities SHOULD be charged based on usage?  Roads?  Sidewalks?  Transit?  (Yes, that one is, somewhat.)  Parks?  Education?  Health care?  Clean air and water?

You are strictly speaking correct but the follow-up is not so clear.

I remember when the Sheppard subway opened, they had the Bayview station right near Bayview Village. The mall put up huge signs warning park-and-riders that they would be towed. Considering ridership stats for the line, I don't think they had anything to worry about.

(06-16-2017, 10:02 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]You are strictly speaking correct but the follow-up is not so clear.

He's not strictly speaking correct.  

First, there actually are usage fees.  Gas taxes are effectively usage fees.  And we also have some tolls + toll lanes.

Second, he said: "Nor do motorists pay to use local streets, or in this backward country of ours, even superhighways.".  Usage fees aren't the only way to pay for something.  The majority of road users are tax payers that pay taxes that fund the road.  (And I'd argue that its a much fairer system to do this then a pure usage fee approach would be - better off people SHOULD subsidize people that are less well off.)

ijmorlan, would like to pretend that roads are some gift given to drivers that are paid for from some magical source of money that has nothing to do with the people that use or get benefit from the roads.  Its an absurd position.  (Note: This isn't to say that roads aren't subsidized by non road-users, which to some extent they obviously are.).

Ok, now I'm done... maybe.

Right. Strictly speaking, the cost of the roads is not (fully and) directly paid by the users, based on their usage.

But that begs the question whether it should be -- and what other things should then be directly paid by the users, based on their usage.

Hey, did we all just forget to notice more trains coming in, or is Bombardier terribly behind schedule now? Just wondering.

(06-16-2017, 06:18 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]In the latest Ion update what are they referring to when they mention "installing pedestrian crossings" in the uptown area? There are still more fences and crossing arms to go in?

they could mean on street crossings to the stations or crossings at intersections but idk

(06-16-2017, 11:59 PM)plam Wrote: [ -> ]Hey, did we all just forget to notice more trains coming in, or is Bombardier terribly behind schedule now? Just wondering.

They are doing the static testing of all the other vehicles at the Kingston Plant instead of here. 501 is still being outfitted here so i suspect they are now doing the same to 502 at almost the same time so that when #502 gets shipped they can put it directly into track testing after post-shipping inspection. I suspect they are also having the Kingston plant install the necessary signal and train control equipment so that the rest of the vehicles can be shippped in a ready-to-test state. 502 for all intents and purposes is "assembled." At this point though I could almost see 502 and 503 being shipped together *shrugs*

Transit isn't charged based on usage either; there is always some sort of subsidy for heavy users. Gas taxes, incidentally, are proportionate to use.

@jamacan. Transit is changed for usage. You pay 3 dollars for 90 minutes. Charging for usage doesn't have to be per KM. GO also charges by distance.

Not if you buy a pass.

(06-17-2017, 07:02 AM)jamincan Wrote: [ -> ]Not if you buy a pass.

And that somehow invalidates what I said?

Transit is charged per use, but there's an unlimited option.

We aren't talking about subsidies here, we're talking about the pricing model.

There is no direct per use cost for users of roads.  There *is* a direct per use cost for transit, even though it's capped at something like ~30 rides per month.

Both modes are subsidized to some extent, but that isn't relevant to the pricing model.

(06-16-2017, 10:02 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-16-2017, 06:07 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]Not this again. I feel like I’m in bizarro world where something can be called “user pay” even though there is no tolling mechanism.

Until somebody points out to me the fee that motorists qua motorists pay to use roads, what I said is obviously true.  (...)

Yes.  But the question is exactly what government services/facilities SHOULD be charged based on usage?  Roads?  Sidewalks?  Transit?  (Yes, that one is, somewhat.)  Parks?  Education?  Health care?  Clean air and water?

You are strictly speaking correct but the follow-up is not so clear.

Exactly. It’s hard to get to the interesting and potentially fruitful discussion while somebody is still claiming that roads are paid for by their users. I find a lot of discussions to be like this: there are interesting questions to discuss, significant areas in which I’m not even sure what I think, but it’s hard to get to them when basic ground facts aren’t shared by everybody in the discussion.

To look at your question, which I think is excellent, my personal opinion is that expressways definitely should be fully funded by their users, with the toll changing based on how busy the road is to spread out the heavy use to more periods of the day. On the other hand, while in principal I would be OK with charging some sort of per-km fee for use of minor residential roads, I just don’t like the idea and am not really in favour of it. In between, I have the idea that road users should pay for the additional lanes on any road with more than one lane in each direction, but I have no idea how that is supposed to work. I’m also sensitive to issues like how much tracking we do.

So overall there is a lot of discuss.

(06-16-2017, 10:29 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: [ -> ]

(06-16-2017, 10:02 PM)tomh009 Wrote: [ -> ]You are strictly speaking correct but the follow-up is not so clear.

He's not strictly speaking correct.  

First, there actually are usage fees.  Gas taxes are effectively usage fees.  And we also have some tolls + toll lanes.

I addressed gas taxes, and acknowledged that there is a connection between gasoline usage and road usage, but as I mentioned, this is becoming less of a connection with more diversity in vehicle technology.

For you to mention the few tolls that do exist is just obfuscation. I’m well aware that a very few of our roads are indeed paid for by people who use those roads. This discussion concerns the vast non-tolled majority of our roads.

Quote:Second, he said: "Nor do motorists pay to use local streets, or in this backward country of ours, even superhighways.".  Usage fees aren't the only way to pay for something.  The majority of road users are tax payers that pay taxes that fund the road.  (And I'd argue that its a much fairer system to do this then a pure usage fee approach would be - better off people SHOULD subsidize people that are less well off.)

I’m well aware that there is a huge overlap between road users and tax payers. But the tax charged has nothing to do with the amount of road usage, and unlike something like a bus pass, one can’t even opt out of the system entirely (short of living like a hermit somewhere).

Put it this way: suppose the Region decided that it was extremely important for everybody to have bread. So they start baking bread and distributing it to every grocery store, where anybody could just take as much as they want. Who pays for the bread? The tax payers. Do bread eaters pay for the bread? No! Well, OK, there is a huge overlap between “bread eaters” and “tax payers” but the bread is being paid for by the general tax payer, in their role as tax payer, not in their role as bread eater. This is the exact situation that exists with our roads.

As to the subsidizing of less well off people, I actually agree, but it should be a cash subsidy. What’s so special about roads or even housing that it has to be specifically subsidized? Instead of a patchwork of programs we should just have a single guaranteed income paid to everybody (of course for the even moderately well off this would be taxed back and then some). Same comment applies to issues like whether the HST should cover food, home heating, and so on and on. Poverty should not be a jobs program for bureaucrats.

Quote:ijmorlan, would like to pretend that roads are some gift given to drivers that are paid for from some magical source of money that has nothing to do with the people that use or get benefit from the roads.  Its an absurd position.  (Note: This isn't to say that roads aren't subsidized by non road-users, which to some extent they obviously are.).

Ok, now I'm done... maybe.

OK, this is just ridiculous. I’m not pretending anything. Instead, the pretenders are those who think roads should just be built everywhere and parking should be free, and don’t even notice that our road addiction is a significant cause of the unaffordability of our tax-supported government services.

But you’re right. The source of money is people in general, not the people who actually use the roads. If I started commuting every day to Toronto on the 401, my taxes would only go up a bit for gas tax and increased sales tax related to car maintenance. Since I currently walk, bicycle, or bus to work about 3km, this would be a huge increase in my use of the road network, both local and expressway, and if roads were a pay instead of free service, then it would result in an increase in my payments.

Anyway, if roads are such a great benefit, then almost by definition their beneficiaries will be able to pay for them. That’s not quite true for poverty-related reasons, but it certainly is true in the case of commuters — if a commuter can’t afford to pay for the full cost of their commute from their income enabled by the commute, then the overall activity of them commuting to work and doing work is costing more than its benefit and should stop. If this would leave them in poverty, then the solution is a guaranteed income, rather than an enormously expensive and inefficient free-roads-to-enable-make-work system.

ijmorlan, the problem with your phrasing "Nor do motorists pay to use local streets, or in this backward country of ours, even superhighways" is that its blatantly untrue.  The interesting discussions can't be discussed reasonably, because you're not starting from reality.

You need to acknowledge that if we shift the burden to a more usage based model - tax revenue should fall accordingly.  It's absolutely unrealistic to pretend/assume that all the money that taxpayers are currently paying for roads would be available for other things, while at the same time the vast majority of people would have to spend a lot more for roads.  It would be a massive tax increase for the majority of people.

If you want to advocate that we should have a more usage based model - that's fine.  But its much closer to a shifting of funds than creation of new funds and I don't know how we have that discussion when you won't acknowledge that the money that's currently funding roads is already mostly coming from people using (and benefiting from) the roads and isn't coming from some magical source.

Edit: For the rest of your points, I don't think they're unreasonable.  But my main complaint has always been the way you phrase the initial problem.  It's not accurate and its something I expect from zealots/idealogues and not something I expect from reasonable people like yourself.  It's a phrasing that is used to trick people / elicit an emotional response rather than an actual intellectual argument.

Edit2: Because I feel like this part isn't clear... Saying "Motorists don't pay to use roads" is not equivalent to saying "Roads aren't funded purely by usage fees".  Those are two VERY different things.