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: Three whole years! We've grown so much over the past three 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. To this point it has been funded out of my own pocket. As some of you may already know, we accept donations. Some of you have made donations (thank you!). This helps cover all 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
(07-17-2017, 06:24 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: But I don’t see how we can have a good discussion if some people don’t understand that roads are free to use.

I don't see how we can have a good discussion if some people don't recognize the absurdity of statements like "but ignore the enormous subsidy paid to drivers in the form of effectively free and unlimited roads".  Free to use and enormously subsidized ARE. NOT. THE. SAME. THING. (Not to mention the absurdity of a phrase like 'unlimited roads')  I've spent way too much time arguing on the internet, but a good tell on if someone is willing to discuss an issue honestly is how they react to people 'on their side' that use incorrect/wrong arguments.


(07-17-2017, 06:24 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: You can’t send less money to the government by not driving. (OK, if you don’t drive at all, you can save on the minor expense of car registration and driver licensing; and if you drive less you spend less on gas tax, which doesn’t mean regular HST but the gas-specific tax; but neither of those come close to paying for the full cost of road construction and upkeep).

Note, this is a good example of poor logic.  You want to talk about sending less money to the Government.  A proportion of the "regular HST" wouldn't be sent to the Government if people didn't drive.  We've mentioned numerous examples above (spending on non-taxable goods, savings, travel or foreign goods, spending by tourists and non-residents when getting gas here, etc.).  Again, I've argued enough on the internet that when people keep repeating already debunked statements, it's time to give up.

(07-17-2017, 06:24 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: So to be accurate, you can’t send significantly less money to the government by not driving. Roads are paid for by the general taxpayer, not by their users in rough proportion to the extent of their use.

Yes, but because the vast majority of the general taxpayers are drivers, its absurd to say they're getting "enormous subsidies".  Anyway, it's pretty clear how this debate goes on this forum.  So, I guess I'll let this die again and then in a couple of months when you or Dan come back with your ridiculous simplifications I'll just pop my head back in with:

(07-12-2017, 07:53 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: Oh we're back to the silly argument where a lot of people pay a bunch of money for roads, but we don't count that money because that's in their role as "tax payer" and not as their role of "car driver".  Maybe that explains those times when I just can't get to sleep.  I bet "tax payer" me is just really angry at "road user" me because "tax payer" me is so heavily subsidizing "road user" me.
Reply
(07-13-2017, 08:01 AM)SammyOES2 Wrote:
(07-13-2017, 07:32 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Let’s take an example: I benefit from the highways because my bread arrives on a truck that takes the highway.

[…]
Essentially, the bottom line is that by providing free roads, we as a society are deciding for everybody that they will spend their money on roads. I believe in giving everybody individual choice to the greatest extent feasible, and that definitely includes deciding how much to spend on expressways.

You're missing a couple of things though:

1. There is very large and intangible social value to the movement of people.  Not to get too political but lots of problems in the world are caused by people being in their own bubble and not actually being exposed to different people / experiences / etc.

2. There are Government services that rely on the highway network.  Ambulances.  Fire.  Police.  Public Transportation.  Etc.  I guess we could toll those, but it seems silly.  And it still wouldn't really cover the benefit.  The mere existence of a highway network can save us from building additional hospitals, improve health outcomes, etc.  These are benefits that aren't particularly correlated with the amount of miles driven.  Instead they exist as soon as the infrastructure exists.

3. Related to 2, there are really large network effects related to highway infrastructure.  It enables a whole lot of economic activity that otherwise wouldn't be possible or profitable.  Everyone benefits from that.  Which is very different than a bakery going in (it still has economic spin-off benefit, but not on the same scale as something like transportation).

4. I don't have a 4.  Smile  But those are just off the top of my head, I'm sure there are a lot more.

(1.) is a good reason to have a free network of basic local connectivity. Two-lane roads to every address I think I can get behind, as it’s hard to imagine a world, starting from where we are, without that. Even if we all hypothetically started working hard to avoid using vehicles, we would still need those local roads for occasional deliveries to our houses. Garbage trucks would still need to come; it’s hard to imagine that taking one’s trash on the bus to the dump would ever be a reasonable way of dealing with garbage.

However, this is not a good reason to build a 16-lane superhighway. All those people on that highway could fit on a single 2-track LRT line.

(2.) again, is a good reason to have a free network of basic connectivity. Those services need to be able to get everywhere, so there need to be roads going everywhere. There do not need to be 4- and 6-lane roads, and expressways, all over the place.

(3.) is a good point, in that a single road is useless, and again this is a good reason to have a complete transportation network. But if there is so much traffic that a 2-lane road is not enough, perhaps the large volume of people using it should be the ones to pay for it.

Quote:
(07-13-2017, 07:32 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: This is a bit like saying that everybody should have enough food to live, but if you want caviar, you’ll be paying for it, and it’s expected that some people won’t be able to afford caviar.

I disagree that this is the same thing.  The caloric value of food is the same (roughly) for each person.  So its generally easy to make a distinction like this.

It's not true for roads.  A 4-lane highway from two northern Ontario towns is very different transportation service level than a 4-land highway between KW and Toronto.  It's silly (to me) to use the physical size of the road and ignore the actual context of the road.

The physical size of the road is quite important. Basic connectivity requires a two-lane road (well actually you can get away with a single lane in many places but let’s keep things simple). Four lanes are required only for capacity. If enough people want to use a road that 4 lanes are needed, splitting the cost up among them will give a perfectly reasonable road use charge. Alternately, the capacity could be handled by high-frequency public transit. Same applies to expressways, even more so. If it is unaffordable for people to pay enough to use a superhighway to pay for the superhighway, then whatever they are doing that requires them to use the highway isn’t sufficiently economically beneficial to justify using the highway.
Reply
(07-17-2017, 06:40 AM)SammyOES2 Wrote: ....
Note, this is a good example of poor logic.  You want to talk about sending less money to the Government.  A proportion of the "regular HST" wouldn't be sent to the Government if people didn't drive.  We've mentioned numerous examples above (spending on non-taxable goods, savings, travel or foreign goods, spending by tourists and non-residents when getting gas here, etc.).  Again, I've argued enough on the internet that when people keep repeating already debunked statements, it's time to give up.

I simply don't believe that people would spend all their extra money saved on those things. Yes, some percentage may go there, but most would not.  I can tell you personally, I spend that extra cash on things like bikes, movies, dinner out, for which I pay tax on.  Care to provide what evidence you think shows that this is not going to be the case for most people and most of their money.

Also, what is your problem with the term "unlimited roads"...is there some limit I am unaware of about how much I'm allowed to drive on roads?
Reply
The entire discussion here seems to be one where neither side will agree with the other, so it's basically a waste of time. Besides the HST on gas and on vehicle purchase, one important piece no one considers is that literally millions of jobs across the world (and probably several thousand in Canada) are there because of the fact that people buy and use vehicles. Mechanics, dealerships, engineers, manufacturing jobs, tire companies and so on. All those people get their livelihood because of drivers, and their income tax and sales tax is generated that livelihood.
Reply
That's a slightly different argument though. An activity could be 'subsidized' in order to create a net benefit to society (the economic and social spin-off benefits more than compensate for the original cost of the subsidy). So just because something has a bunch of benefits, doesn't really inform if it was originally a subsidy or not.

And getting into evaluating the overall benefit of our current transportation system is unbelievably complicated and requires a number of value judgements that can't really be quantified objectively.
Reply
It is a different argument with respect to whether HST should count toward subsidies but it is not off-topic with respect to the original article that spurred this entire discussion. We hear how drivers are taking and taking from the government and not giving very much back. The fact that hundreds of thousands of jobs in Canada are dependent on this industry is entirely relevant to that argument, because government wants jobs to be created so it can earn income tax and sales tax from those jobs, and then provide services from those tax dollars.
Reply
Alright, I think that's been enough pages of debate on the financing of our road network for now.

I'd say that you have all done an admirable job of explaining your respective positions, and that further discussion is unlikely to be fruitful.
Reply
In other news, Westheights got a new coat of asphalt last week. Still needs painting. Had some Frogger-like experiences last week with pylons, rollers, and steady traffic. Will be nice when it's complete.
Reply
At least not in this thread ... if we split it into a separate thread, then people who want to argue this, can continue to do so, but not bother those who want to talk about roads in general. Smile
Reply
I noticed that according to the King St reconstruction plan, Phase A of the construction (Bridgeport to Erb) is supposed to last 14 weeks, starting from April 17th. That brings completion of Phase A to the end of next week.... that CAN't be right. From what I've seen, they've barely even started on underground work from Bridgeport to Princess, and JUST started underground work From Princess to Dupont. How is all of that, PLUS electrical, PLUS installation of the underground tree-box things, PLUS curbs, PLUS lighting, PLUS asphalt supposed to be done by next week? How far behind are they on this?

[Image: King_Street_Uptown_2017_Work_Map-2.jpg]
Reply
(07-18-2017, 02:34 PM)GtwoK Wrote: I noticed that according to the King St reconstruction plan, Phase A of the construction (Bridgeport to Erb) is supposed to last 14 weeks, starting from April 17th. That brings completion of Phase A to the end of next week.... that CAN't be right. From what I've seen, they've barely even started on underground work from Bridgeport to Princess, and JUST started underground work From Princess to Dupont. How is all of that, PLUS electrical, PLUS installation of the underground tree-box things, PLUS curbs, PLUS lighting, PLUS asphalt supposed to be done by next week? How far behind are they on this?

[Image: King_Street_Uptown_2017_Work_Map-2.jpg]

They are quite behind, as you surmise, they initially had issues with getting the water supply approved, which is apparently a time consuming process.  They have apparently brought in more crews however.  I am not sure what the current expected completion date will be though.
Reply
Would the general public have access to more detailed info on timing with these sorts of projects? And I don't mean the "sometime between May and October, and if it's delayed you won't find out unless you drive by and it's still (or again suddenly) closed." ? I myself do a lot of driving and it seems to be a mixed bag of what to expect everyday
Reply
The closure of the on-ramp from Bruce to 85 North was similarly surprising to me. Did they have signage up warning of the closure? I somehow was oblivious to it until suddenly one day it was closed.
Reply
(07-19-2017, 06:57 AM)jamincan Wrote: The closure of the on-ramp from Bruce to 85 North was similarly surprising to me. Did they have signage up warning of the closure? I somehow was oblivious to it until suddenly one day it was closed.

I first saw the sign the day before... Can't say when it went up as Bingeman Centre is my go-to route for now.

Coke
Reply
(07-19-2017, 06:57 AM)jamincan Wrote: The closure of the on-ramp from Bruce to 85 North was similarly surprising to me. Did they have signage up warning of the closure? I somehow was oblivious to it until suddenly one day it was closed
Was thinking the same thing.  The temporary detour on ramp they are constructing ( the reason for the closure ) cannot open until the existing Victoria Bridge is demolished.  The bridge was originally not scheduled to be demolished until November/December.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)