+- 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: Grand River Transit (/showthread.php?tid=13)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
RE: Grand River Transit - Acitta - 11-13-2024
(11-13-2024, 01:25 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote: I disagree. Household income shouldn't dictate. Many people lie about their actual income. People shouldn't be penalized because they pay their fare share of taxes in an honest way. Give students a discount and encourage them to make a cultural shift towards utilizing public transit.
It doesn't matter if people lie about their income. To apply for the Affordable Transit Program one is required to provide proof of income.
Proof of income – 1 of the following, for each income-earning member of your household:
Canada Revenue Agency Notice of Assessment: your most recent Notice of Assessment from the Canada Revenue Agency that shows your income on line 23600. This is the document that the CRA sent you after they received your tax summary; it verifies your net income.
CRA Proof of income statement (Option C)
Letter from Registered Social Worker
RE: Grand River Transit - ac3r - 11-13-2024
(11-13-2024, 10:05 AM)MidTowner Wrote: A significantly lower fare would increase ridership and affordability both significantly. But it's not realistic with GRT, unfortunately, as they don't seem to place a lot of priority on those goals.
I don't think GRT could even cope with it right now. The fares are high because they struggle to retain staff, compounded with the fact the LRT and bus network is just complete garbage meaning ridership just isn't there. You could improve that obviously, but you'd also have to improve something else very important and that would be a lot more buses and trains (and staff to operate them). That is a key necessity especially now that a few billions Indian settlers are here. They have pushed most infrastructure far beyond its breaking point already and transit is one very clear, tangible sign of what the entire nation is now suffering through. Bumping up our bus route or LRT frequencies would barely put a dent in it anymore, but we clearly need it...needed it, even. At this point the LRT and most of the mainline bus routes need 5 minute frequencies through the day, maybe 7 off-peak. It's funny that 10-15 minutes is considered "good", worse, we have some that are 30 minutes even though this place has got to have 700'000 living here. That makes sense in maybe Stratford or Windsor, but not a significantly sized Canadian metropolitan area.
If the Region of Waterloo wants to improve transit to a meaningful degree, they'll need a lot more money than I think the majority of voters are unwilling to deal with right now, which sadly puts it in a rut. Nobody wants to pay more taxes for something they probably won't ever use (even if it is a net benefit for everyone). Making it free sure isn't the answer right now, unless you can immediately improve the service quality at the same time. Sadly, that takes some deep pockets.
RE: Grand River Transit - ijmorlan - 11-13-2024
(11-13-2024, 06:22 PM)bravado Wrote: All this soul-searching and strife while drivers pay $0 for any trip outside of the 407 and the financing for maintaining all of it is never in question
So very true. Make all 4xx highways exactly like the 407 and watch our government finances clear up along with the congestion. It would be a massive efficiency gain. Would need to beef up GO service as well so that people have an alternative during busy times — but of course it would be way easier to fund with the highway maintenance removed from the main budget.
RE: Grand River Transit - plam - 11-14-2024
(11-13-2024, 11:05 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(11-13-2024, 06:22 PM)bravado Wrote: All this soul-searching and strife while drivers pay $0 for any trip outside of the 407 and the financing for maintaining all of it is never in question
So very true. Make all 4xx highways exactly like the 407 and watch our government finances clear up along with the congestion. It would be a massive efficiency gain. Would need to beef up GO service as well so that people have an alternative during busy times — but of course it would be way easier to fund with the highway maintenance removed from the main budget.
I understand that's basically Japan...
RE: Grand River Transit - MidTowner - 11-14-2024
(11-13-2024, 06:13 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:(11-13-2024, 03:00 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Framing it as "wealthy teens getting cheap rides" is a value framing. I would argue that getting young people on transit--including wealthy ones--is valuable is equally valid framing.
I really dislike that “wealthy people getting stuff” framing as well, and not just for transit.
I’ve seen people complaining about OAS going to wealthier seniors. Well, either wealthy people get it, or there has to be a range of incomes with excessively high marginal tax rates to phase it out. If people think the wealthy aren’t paying enough, raise the income tax rate on the top tax bracket.
I don't think that reasons of equity are the best arguments for seniors' and children's fare discounts. I think the argument is to help move a few car trips to transit, to increase ridership (maybe during parts of the day that are not our traditional peaks), and in the case of children to present transit to them as an option that exists from a very young age and so to build ridership in the future.
It doesn't seem to me likely that a lot of particularly wealthy parents will take their eight-year-olds on the bus if there is no fare for him, but maybe. In that case, GRT has earned an adult fare, and removed a car trip. Similarly, if there really are wealthy seniors who will take advantage of the three dollar savings to take a trip on GRT rather than use a private car or a taxi, that's a win from the perspective of traffic, and how could it hurt to demonstrate to a member of that cohort that transit is useful?
RE: Grand River Transit - ijmorlan - 11-14-2024
(11-14-2024, 08:12 AM)MidTowner Wrote:(11-13-2024, 06:13 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I really dislike that “wealthy people getting stuff” framing as well, and not just for transit.
I’ve seen people complaining about OAS going to wealthier seniors. Well, either wealthy people get it, or there has to be a range of incomes with excessively high marginal tax rates to phase it out. If people think the wealthy aren’t paying enough, raise the income tax rate on the top tax bracket.
I don't think that reasons of equity are the best arguments for seniors' and children's fare discounts. I think the argument is to help move a few car trips to transit, to increase ridership (maybe during parts of the day that are not our traditional peaks), and in the case of children to present transit to them as an option that exists from a very young age and so to build ridership in the future.
It doesn't seem to me likely that a lot of particularly wealthy parents will take their eight-year-olds on the bus if there is no fare for him, but maybe. In that case, GRT has earned an adult fare, and removed a car trip. Similarly, if there really are wealthy seniors who will take advantage of the three dollar savings to take a trip on GRT rather than use a private car or a taxi, that's a win from the perspective of traffic, and how could it hurt to demonstrate to a member of that cohort that transit is useful?
I’m not arguing against reduced fares; I’m arguing against a certain argument against reduced fares (and other accommodations), or for income-testing benefits. Essentially, I’m OK with everybody benefiting from programs such as child fares — I don’t care if the child in question is from a wealthy or a poor family. If the wealthy aren’t paying enough, increase the income tax rates on the higher tax brackets.
That being said, I would rather provide some form of basic income for everybody, and eliminate all the special deals intended to help poor people. Rather than having poor people apply for rent and utility subsidies, just give everybody some money. The current system requires people who need benefits to do a bunch of extra work to get those benefits, and those are precisely the people who don’t really have time to do that extra work.
RE: Grand River Transit - danbrotherston - 11-14-2024
(11-14-2024, 09:03 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:(11-14-2024, 08:12 AM)MidTowner Wrote: I don't think that reasons of equity are the best arguments for seniors' and children's fare discounts. I think the argument is to help move a few car trips to transit, to increase ridership (maybe during parts of the day that are not our traditional peaks), and in the case of children to present transit to them as an option that exists from a very young age and so to build ridership in the future.
It doesn't seem to me likely that a lot of particularly wealthy parents will take their eight-year-olds on the bus if there is no fare for him, but maybe. In that case, GRT has earned an adult fare, and removed a car trip. Similarly, if there really are wealthy seniors who will take advantage of the three dollar savings to take a trip on GRT rather than use a private car or a taxi, that's a win from the perspective of traffic, and how could it hurt to demonstrate to a member of that cohort that transit is useful?
I’m not arguing against reduced fares; I’m arguing against a certain argument against reduced fares (and other accommodations), or for income-testing benefits. Essentially, I’m OK with everybody benefiting from programs such as child fares — I don’t care if the child in question is from a wealthy or a poor family. If the wealthy aren’t paying enough, increase the income tax rates on the higher tax brackets.
That being said, I would rather provide some form of basic income for everybody, and eliminate all the special deals intended to help poor people. Rather than having poor people apply for rent and utility subsidies, just give everybody some money. The current system requires people who need benefits to do a bunch of extra work to get those benefits, and those are precisely the people who don’t really have time to do that extra work.
One of the best arguments for this is to get away from the "handouts for the poor" reputation, it's extremely susceptible to being cut or restricted (e.g., you can't take the bus without a drug test) because sociopaths hate when poor people get "something" for free, and that's before you even consider how it also harms poor people, even aside from the having to jump through hoops to apply, it's intentionally self-labelling yourself as "someone in need". This is a big challenge for food banks, some people would rather go hungry than be seen at one, and that's for a pretty basic need like "food". Even better "services for us all" builds social capital in the community, because we see ourselves as contributing to the service.
And just to be clear here, this doesn't actually matter HOW something is funded. I think this is part of why libraries are uncontroversial. They're for everyone, all walks of life can use it. Transit is different, yes, it's open to everyone, but a lot of people have a perception that it's only "for the poors". Which is why IMO the "charging of fares" matters much much less than other elements in establishing value to a community, even in our aggressively neoconservative financialized world.
RE: Grand River Transit - KevinL - 01-13-2025
I just noticed thanks to a social media post that this year marks 25 years of GRT service - Kitchener Transit and Cambridge Transit were merged under the Region's remit on January 1, 2000. I think a quarter century has seen quite the advancement!
RE: Grand River Transit - mastermind - 01-13-2025
(01-13-2025, 02:00 PM)KevinL Wrote: I just noticed thanks to a social media post that this year marks 25 years of GRT service - Kitchener Transit and Cambridge Transit were merged under the Region's remit on January 1, 2000. I think a quarter century has seen quite the advancement!
There was no "Waterloo Transit" to join in that merger? Did they have no transit at all, or were they part of Kitchener's?
RE: Grand River Transit - timc - 01-13-2025
(01-13-2025, 04:46 PM)mastermind Wrote:(01-13-2025, 02:00 PM)KevinL Wrote: I just noticed thanks to a social media post that this year marks 25 years of GRT service - Kitchener Transit and Cambridge Transit were merged under the Region's remit on January 1, 2000. I think a quarter century has seen quite the advancement!
There was no "Waterloo Transit" to join in that merger? Did they have no transit at all, or were they part of Kitchener's?
Kitchener Transit served both cities. There was a sticker next to the door saying that a portion of the service was funded by the City of Waterloo.
RE: Grand River Transit - tomh009 - 01-13-2025
So ... I see that every driver in greater Montreal is now paying $180/year (as part of the licence fees) to fund transit.
Something like $120/vehicle would provide a 50% boost to the GRT budget.
RE: Grand River Transit - timc - 01-14-2025
(01-13-2025, 10:55 PM)tomh009 Wrote: So ... I see that every driver in greater Montreal is now paying $180/year (as part of the licence fees) to fund transit.
Something like $120/vehicle would provide a 50% boost to the GRT budget.
I can't imagine such a thing ever getting the support needed to pass Regional council. And if it did, I'm sure the provincial government would shut it down immediately.
RE: Grand River Transit - bravado - 01-14-2025
That kind of socialism and handouts will never fly here!
Meanwhile, goodbye $120 licence fee for drivers…
RE: Grand River Transit - danbrotherston - 01-14-2025
(01-14-2025, 01:35 PM)bravado Wrote: That kind of socialism and handouts will never fly here!
Meanwhile, goodbye $120 licence fee for drivers…
The thing that pissed me off the most about that is that they removed the fee from the sticker for the car, but not your drivers license.
So people who had a drivers license but no car (plenty of us around) didn't save anything, and the more cars you owned, the more you saved.
But I expect nothing less from DoFo and his folk. I don't even think it's intentional. I don't think it's even occurred to him that there are people with a drivers license who don't own a car.
RE: Grand River Transit - ijmorlan - 01-14-2025
(01-14-2025, 02:03 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:(01-14-2025, 01:35 PM)bravado Wrote: That kind of socialism and handouts will never fly here!
Meanwhile, goodbye $120 licence fee for drivers…
The thing that pissed me off the most about that is that they removed the fee from the sticker for the car, but not your drivers license.
So people who had a drivers license but no car (plenty of us around) didn't save anything, and the more cars you owned, the more you saved.
But I expect nothing less from DoFo and his folk. I don't even think it's intentional. I don't think it's even occurred to him that there are people with a drivers license who don't own a car.
Does he even know there are people at all who don’t own a car?