ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[danbrotherston]

Taxes in general are levied against people who don't directly benefit from the services all the time, because we think it's something that benefits society as a whole. That's just how taxes work.

It is obviously a little more subtle than that, and I don't specifically have an issue with pro-rating township taxes for no transit service, but I don't find the "I don't directly benefit from this service" argument very compelling. I mean, everyone who lives in Canada pays federal taxes which support Via Rail but many Canadian's live in cities not serviced by Via Rail. Same in Ontario for GO Transit I believe.

[ijmorlan]

Is it not already the case though that the cities are not permitted to expand out into the townships? For example, is there not a green belt between Waterloo and Woolwich?

Seems to me that residents of the townships should be getting some sort of rebate seeing as they had their waste transfer stations shut down and are now being forced to bring all rubbish and yard waste (that can't be curbed) into Erb St landfill. I mention that as I see it as indicative of the view held by the region towards the townships. Less important, but still a good source of revenue even if the services being charged for are not made available.

I'm curious to see what others think. It will be quite indicative of how people view the townships and their residents

The idea of a “no waste transfer station” rebate based on township/city is questionable. For some residents of Wellesley, the Erb St. landfill is closer than it is for almost anybody in the City of Waterloo. A rational basis for such a rebate would have to be related to driving distance from the landfill, although I would accept straight-line distance as an acceptable compromise for practicality.

[Canard]

I'm curious to see what others think. It will be quite indicative of how people view the townships and their residents

Not that I was really interested in sharing my thoughts on this anyway, but you basically just already told us you're not interested in hearing any opinion that differs from your own.

[BuildingScout]

Charging fees to the townships for services they do not benefit from is absurd.

I am an unswerving supporter of LRT but I don't think people should have to pay for something when there community is not serviced by it.

I don't have kids so  I want a discount on my school board taxes. I don't drive a car, so I don't want to pay road taxes. I don't get sick, so I want a discount on my medicare taxes. I never go to the townships, so I want to make sure that none of my tax money goes to them ever since I don't use their facilities.... I also want them to pay for the department of agriculture, which I never use either.

You get the picture, taxes do not work on a per use basis. We pool revenues on to the city/regional/provincial/federal pot and we entrust them to spend in the ways that society benefits the most from that money. Me?  I'm pretty happy some of my tax monies are going up north to improve the quality of drinking water in isolated communities.

[tomh009]

Charging fees to the townships for services they do not benefit from is absurd.

I am an unswerving supporter of LRT but I don't think people should have to pay for something when there community is not serviced by it.

I don't have kids so  I want a discount on my school board taxes. I don't drive a car, so I don't want to pay road taxes. I don't get sick, so I want a discount on my medicare taxes. I never go to the townships, so I want to make sure that none of my tax money goes to them ever since I don't use their facilities.... I also want them to pay for the department of agriculture, which I never use either.

You get the picture, taxes do not work on a per use basis. We pool revenues on to the city/regional/provincial/federal pot and we entrust them to spend in the ways that society benefits the most from that money. Me?  I'm pretty happy some of my tax monies are going up north to improve the quality of drinking water in isolated communities.

And this, in short is the answer.  It's neither realistic or desirable to micro-target taxes to only people who benefit from specific services.  Elmira Guy, you yourself said that St Jacobs and Elmira residents do get transit, so are you saying people in only those two towns should pay, and other towns should not?  How far from town?  Should Heidelberg, Breslau and St Jacobs residents get a rebate on their Woolwich taxes because they don't benefit from the street maintenance in Elmira?  Why should mennonite residents pay to Woolwich for recreation centres they never use? 

Really, this kind of thing simply doesn't work.  In the end, a plurality of people will elect a government (at each level), and that government then sets priorities for spending and taxation.  If you don't agree with the government spending money on project X or Y, work on getting a different government elected next time there is an election.

[Canard]

Didn't we have this exact discussion several years ago?

Elmira is not Waterloo Region's Scarborough.

[DKsan]

Didn't we have this exact discussion several years ago?

Elmira is not Waterloo Region's Scarborough.

Right. That's Cambridge.

I'M KIDDING.

[MacBerry]

To no one's surprise, the railway bridge at Waterloo Park is already attracting art:





The sooner they commission something to cover up the concrete the better!

We need those no paint station panels here 

[timc]

This, unfortunately, is what the entrance to the R+T Park station is now going to look like.  I think it's absolutely terrible.  Those fences have got to go, and look like garbage. C'mon![/i]

Unfortunately, this station looks more approachable from Phillip Street than it does from the R&T Park.

[zanate]

Charging fees to the townships for services they do not benefit from is absurd.

I am an unswerving supporter of LRT but I don't think people should have to pay for something when there community is not serviced by it.

I don't have kids so  I want a discount on my school board taxes. I don't drive a car, so I don't want to pay road taxes. I don't get sick, so I want a discount on my medicare taxes. I never go to the townships, so I want to make sure that none of my tax money goes to them ever since I don't use their facilities.... I also want them to pay for the department of agriculture, which I never use either.

You get the picture, taxes do not work on a per use basis. We pool revenues on to the city/regional/provincial/federal pot and we entrust them to spend in the ways that society benefits the most from that money. Me?  I'm pretty happy some of my tax monies are going up north to improve the quality of drinking water in isolated communities.

And this is why the ultimate answer to this kind of question is always a political one. Because when you put your cases like that, you're both right, but you both can't be right. Which argument seems more right depends on where your audience's interests lie.


Look at Hamilton, which doesn't just differentiate between rural and urban areas when taxing for transit, but divides it up by ward. The result becomes a severe obstinance against expanding transit into areas that don't pay for it, because of this level of micro-targeting. Which means that Hamilton has yet one more pressure that forces people to drive. That results in an artificial easiness in growing the road network compared to providing any alternative. So, area rating for transit is bad.

But conversely, it doesn't make sense to most people to tax a small town outside of the KCW metro area to fund transit that doesn't serve it. And transit service out to places like Elmira and other towns has been funded on a per-route basis. (And still faces opposition on that account too.) So, area rating for transit makes sense, I guess?

It might be a different conversation if people understood that a new subdivision in Wilmot, for example, is housing a few hundred people who are primarily driving into KW to work and to shop, and this places pressure on our connecting regional roads, as well as the need for street capacity and parking room in the city. If that subdivision was a denser development in an urban area connected by good transit, the pressure on roads around and in KW would be reduced. So there's an argument that in lieu of paying for transit, there should be an additional road transportation levy.

Or maybe we should stop talking about paying for one type of transportation here, and one type there, we should talk about paying for any transportation across this region as a whole.

But we're not, because politics.

[Canard]

Unfortunately, this station looks more approachable from Phillip Street than it does from the R&T Park.

...which isn't hard to imagine.  The access from Philip was an afterthought by the Region, and they purchased a sliver of land to be able to do so.  Meanwhile, the "stock" entrance off of Wes Graham Way/the Laurel Trail is done by the Consortium, who, unless specified otherwise, will have no impetus to do anything beyond the bare minimum as far as effort goes - and why would they?  To be perfectly clear, I am not faulting anyone over this:  I just want attention brought to it, so it can be cleaned up.

Here are a couple more photos of the area.

   

   

   

Maybe it'll look great with a nice curving concrete path, and a bunch of trees/bushes hiding the fence?  Right now though it just screams "Welcome to Prison Camp".  Not very inviting at all. "HOSTILE TO PEDESTRIANS!!!!", even! :: horrors ::

I'll dig and see if I can find out any more info.

[nms]

From the article: Larry Masseo is on the board of directors for the Waterloo Region Home Builders’ Association: “I suppose I would look at it as a broader perspective. You could say that you don’t use parks, or I don’t use schools, why should I pay?” he said.“It is half my taxes right there. I think from a broader policy perspective, if the transit cost is spread out over everybody, everyone in the township still has access to use that transit should they need to, whether they are visiting the city, or one of the many who live in the townships, and work in the city, so it will impact them from that perspective.”

According to the article, it isn't new taxes that are being considered but rather boosting the development charge for new construction.  It may be the thin edge of the wedge towards an amalgamated transit/transportation fee that is Region wide (along the lines of the same way that everyone in the Region pays for policing or the airport).

Conveniently, charging development charges allows politicians to have their cake and eat it too.  No, the existing taxpayers of the Townships (assuming that they don't move into a new build), will not be paying for the LRT; but Yes, the Townships will be paying for the LRT in an indirect way.

The transit discussion is far from over as the concept of funding transit out to outlying areas.  Maybe, once the LRT is running, and once the Region has rationalized the existing KWC GRT bus routes, then the Region can begin to look in earnest at connections to the outlying areas.  I'm sure that a two-way St. Jacobs Market-Heidelberg-St. Clements-Hawkesville-Wallenstein-Elmira-St. Jacobs loop would be quite welcome for people living in Wellesley and Woolwich.

[tomh009]

From the article: Larry Masseo is on the board of directors for the Waterloo Region Home Builders’ Association: “I suppose I would look at it as a broader perspective. You could say that you don’t use parks, or I don’t use schools, why should I pay?” he said.“It is half my taxes right there. I think from a broader policy perspective, if the transit cost is spread out over everybody, everyone in the township still has access to use that transit should they need to, whether they are visiting the city, or one of the many who live in the townships, and work in the city, so it will impact them from that perspective.”

According to the article, it isn't new taxes that are being considered but rather boosting the development charge for new construction.  It may be the thin edge of the wedge towards an amalgamated transit/transportation fee that is Region wide (along the lines of the same way that everyone in the Region pays for policing or the airport).

With "half my taxes", Masseo is referring to parks and schools (which he doesn't use), not transit.

That said, given that one of the leaders of the local home builders' association doesn't see a major problem with the idea of the incremental development fee to support transit, maybe this would not be such a huge crisis as the Observer paints.

[Markster]

Hey, so I was on the radio last week!

If you missed it, and want to listen, I posted my part (as well as a Tom Galloway bit from earlier spliced in) to YouTube. It also features a bunch of supporting imagery.

[danbrotherston]

Hey, so I was on the radio last week!

If you missed it, and want to listen, I posted my part (as well as a Tom Galloway bit from earlier spliced in) to YouTube.  It also features a bunch of supporting imagery.

Finally got to listen through your interview, it was a really good interview, you definitely seemed to get your point across.

I did find a few things interesting, regarding my own pet peeve on this particular issue, which is in my opinion, the *real* problem is that the area was never designed to be walkable.

I think Tom Galloway touched on this when he said there weren't formal paths.  And you kind of implied it when you said it was surprisingly walkable.

If the paths had been formal paths from the beginning, then crossings would have probably been included in the design.  But since walkability i.e., the concept of walking from the neighbourhood to the businesses was never built for (I imagine, never even considered), these paths don't exist.  The fact that the hydro corridor with the recreational trail and few/no/with holes fences prevented it, merely meant that walkability was a happy accident for residents.

This might be a problem affecting Traynor right now, but the general problem affects many neighbourhoods like Traynor across the region.  Specifically, even places that could be walkable, aren't.  Designs seem to, and indeed do, go out of its way to prevent walkability.