Waterloo Region Connected
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - 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: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit (/showthread.php?tid=14)

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 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Pheidippides - 06-16-2017

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?

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 06-16-2017

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.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 06-16-2017

(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.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - DHLawrence - 06-16-2017

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.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - SammyOES2 - 06-16-2017

(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.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 06-16-2017

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.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - plam - 06-16-2017

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

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - trainspotter139 - 06-17-2017

(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

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - trainspotter139 - 06-17-2017

(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*

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - jamincan - 06-17-2017

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.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 06-17-2017

@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.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - jamincan - 06-17-2017

Not if you buy a pass.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 06-17-2017

(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.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 06-17-2017

(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.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 06-17-2017

(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.