Wonderful Waterloo Archive

This would be a perfect article for a Parking thread Ive been meaning to start which would include the Uptown parking strategy and what not, good idea?

Yes. Parking is an important topic in its own right.

So should we do one big parking thread, or separate ones for generic parking issues, Uptown Parking Strategy, etc?

I highly doubt public opinion would ever support such a move, but it's just some food for thought. Does anyone know of any other cities that have completely publicly funded transit systems?[/COLOR]

I should add that there are some serious direct cost savings in going to a free transit system: no fareboxes and maintenance, elimination of staffing for transit passes and overhead for ticket printing. Biggest of all is the time (and thus operating costs) saved in loading, as that would be done quickly and through all doors.

Just as a point of reference, total GRT expenditures last year were $73m, $21.5m of which came from passenger revenue and $41.5m of which came from regional taxes. So it would be a 50% increase in the regional tax levy to make transit free. (Though it would be somewhat more due to the higher resulting ridership.)

I suppose you might be able to gain some (or even considerable) popular support for "free" transit if you offered it as an alternative to LRT. With such a program, you could intensify bus routes, vastly increase ridership, and get personal vehicles off the streets for far lower capital costs than with LRT.

You could even get some cost recovery for the transit system by charging nominal tolls on the expressway which would drive even more people to transit (but would probably be very unpopular at this point in time).

There's something wrong with your math. Passenger revenue + Regional subsidy is less than the expenditures. Also, a 1% Regional tax increase generates $3,500,000 in revenue. That gives me an 6.1% tax increase to make transit free, assuming the $21,500,000 in passenger revenue is correct. The Region has an annual budget of over $1,000,000,000, tax revenue is more than $43,000,000 (the revenue that would make a 50% tax increase generate $21,500,000).

To be honest, I think I would find tolls on public roads offensive in principle. The taxpayers paid to build the road; why do the people that paid to build it have to pay to use it? That's sort of like buying a pinball machine and then having to pay $1 for each game that you want to play.

You could argue that you are paying for maintenance costs; but we're already doing that anyways with the gas tax etc., and if the money collected was strictly for maintenance costs, then theoretically we should get any surplus back.

By exactly the same token, you should find paying to use public transit offensive. But if the marginal cost to use transit were to be zero, more people would use it as it would compare favorably to their other options. Some people would use it just because it's there and just as free as walking.

Note that while all taxpayers pay for highways, not everyone uses them equally often. Frequent users of the highways -- the ones that cause more of the wear and tear and the congestion -- should be paying a larger share.

While it would have lower upfront capital costs, the operating costs would be become extremely expensive very quickly. With the kind of ridership free transit would bring it would be quite a bit cheaper to build LRT. We'd also end up with Ottawa-style bus jams.

On the other hand, I have no issues with private roads charging tolls (ex. the 407).

The 407 is a publicly funded road that has simply been leased to a private corporation for operation. Not sure why this would be more acceptable?

I was under the impression that the land was leased from the government but the construction costs were funded by a private corporation.

You could argue that you are paying for maintenance costs; but we're already doing that anyways with the gas tax etc.

No, it was built with public money. Then when Harris needed cash and his common sense revolutionary ideology, never mind an impending election, wouldn't let him raise taxes he sold/leased the highway to private interests in what can only be called, with great understatement, the sweetheart deal of the century. For more background see Ontario Highway 407. Suffice it to say that Hwy407 is about the worst example of highway construction/management imaginable. We don't need any more of those sorts of "success stories."

No, it was built with public money. Then when Harris needed cash and his common sense revolutionary ideology, never mind an impending election, wouldn't let him raise taxes he sold/leased the highway to private interests in what can only be called, with great understatement, the sweetheart deal of the century. For more background see Ontario Highway 407. Suffice it to say that Hwy407 is about the worst example of highway construction/management imaginable. We don't need any more of those sorts of "success stories."

Note also "The highway opened in 1997, and highway cost roughly $1.6 billion. The published $1.6 billion cost does not take into account more than $100 billion spent since the early 1970s acquiring the land that it sits on." The cost of building these monstrosities is much, much greater than the public realizes. Imagine what $100 billion could do for public transit in the GTA.

The $100 billion figure just for land is very suspect...

Still, even if the land only cost a fraction of that amount, imagine what it could do for public transit in the GTA.

Grand River Transit is spending $2.5 million to improve service for blind and deaf passengers.

That’s the cost to buy more technology to automate the announcement of bus stops, using speakers and digital readouts. By October, 161 buses (74 per cent of the fleet) will have this technology, already in use on express routes. All buses are planned to have it by 2014 as older buses are replaced.

Regional council hopes this will fend off a potential prosecution by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The commission says announcing stops is an immediate need and it’s not good enough for drivers to call stops on request, as they do now. This follows a landmark ruling won by a blind Toronto passenger in 2007.

Annual staffing costs for the new technology will eventually reach $260,000. It would have been much cheaper to have drivers call out all bus stops. But drivers refused, forcing a health and safety review that has yet to conclude. Automated announcements are now seen as the best resolution.

It’s expensive but seems the best way forward for three reasons.

1. There’s little to be gained in opposing a human rights demand that originated elsewhere but is not unreasonable.

2. While some drivers can surely call out stops, it’s impractical to require all drivers to call out all stops, all the time. Too often drivers are busy with traffic, bad weather, and noise. They don’t need another distraction.

3. New technology will improve transit for all passengers in many ways.

Satellite tracking of all buses is required to automate announcements. Knowing where all buses are at all times helps keep buses on schedule. The technology can be further developed to tell passengers when their bus will arrive, in real time. It can help plan better bus routes, minimize delays, and speed responses when buses break down.

This is all good. But realistically, better technology will not likely draw many more passengers from their cars.

This shift will happen when Grand River Transit is seen as a competitive way to travel. To achieve this, politicians will have to buy a lot more buses and run them a lot more often to a lot more places. At the same time, traffic congestion will have to get so bad that people will no longer want to drive if they can avoid it.

Honestly, we’re decades away from anything that.

Calling out bus stops now a human right
"Spending $2.5 million to improve service for blind and deaf passengers" ignores the fact that on crowded buses it's difficult for anyone to know where they are because they can't see out. Moreover, visitors to the region, as well as locals travelling on unfamiliar routes, likely don't know that their stop is coming up even if they can look out. So this expenditure benefits all passengers, one way or another.

"It would have been much cheaper to have drivers call out all bus stops. But drivers refused, forcing a health and safety review that has yet to conclude." The GRT's bus drivers are a bunch of hypocrites. A couple of years ago the Record published several letters from riders who'd been on buses that were being driven erratically because the drivers were yakking on their cellphones. The union poo-poohed that, claiming their drivers could safely do both tasks simultaneously. Then when asked to call out stops the same union claimed their drivers would be distracted. I suppose what they really meant is that driving a bus while yakking on a cellphone and also calling out stops is a difficult skill for their members to master.

GRT is mediocre system ,reluctant to change.Nothing new.

The GRT's bus drivers are a bunch of hypocrites. A couple of years ago the Record published several letters from riders who'd been on buses that were being driven erratically because the drivers were yakking on their cellphones. The union poo-poohed that, claiming their drivers could safely do both tasks simultaneously. Then when asked to call out stops the same union claimed their drivers would be distracted. I suppose what they really meant is that driving a bus while yakking on a cellphone and also calling out stops is a difficult skill for their members to master.

management won't remove the radios and/or implement a radio system in which there is only communication between the bus and the supervisor/dispatch only

I don't recall any discussion of this in any of the many articles and letters in the Record during either the cellphone or call stop reading controversy. If it's such a serious issue why has your union kept silent about it, at least from the public's perspective? Considering the concern over cellphone use I'd imagine you could garner a lot of sympathy with the public if only we knew about it.

If it's only a small minority of drivers then why aren't the rest of you using peer pressure to stop this dangerous practice? After all you pass these guys on your routes every day and you're as much at risk from their dangerous behaviour as anyone. And again why isn't this getting more publicity -- both the yakking on whatever device and the call sheets that you can't read? It seems to me that your union is consistently letting you down. Wouldn't you rather have the Record writing editorials that plead your case rather than writing ones that (ought to) embarrass you?

The media in Waterloo Region seems to be incredably one-sided when it comes to issues such as these.

With all due respect, your union needs to grow a spine and/or get some PR/legal help. Consider the CAW. They don't seem to have any problems getting the public's attention. They've been doing it successfully for decades, so much so that I can even rhyme off the names of their leaders over the past 20 or 30 years without having to look them up: Ken Lewenza, Buzz Hargrove, Bob White. Now that's recognition.

I submit that your union is letting you down. There's lots that you and your union can do. (And that's without having to resort to strikes and similar job action.)

In terms of using peer pressure to stop people from using cell phone there is this stigma that it's not a good idea to "rat out" your co-workers, if you say something to them they tell others who look down upon you, if you say it over the radio everyone can here it, if you tell management you are a rat and management see the union members fighting amonst ourselves (and probably love it I might add). No, this is not the union letting us down, this is (I will admit) drivers being their own worst enemy; the public then takes this minority as the norm for all drivers, blows it way out of proportion and all of a sudden it's considered to be the norm.

That sure sounds like the union letting us, the public, down... Unfortunately, a bus driver's union's priorities can conflict with those of the travelling public. If the union is to be perceived positively, it ought to make attempts to align its interests with those of riders and taxpayers.

Who answers these kinds of calls and letters, union members or GRT management?

Although there are still many improvements GRT could make, including the latest satellite tracking technology, it's not true there's been nothing new happening with the system.

There's simply no arguing the last decade was awesome for transit in this region. Ridership was up 75% from 9.4 million in 1999 to 16.5 million in 2009. We now have service between KW and Cambridge. Say what you will about Sunday service in Cambridge, and yes it is still bad, but there was no Sunday service a decade ago. Cambridge now has monthly passes & 90-minute transfers. We now have service to a township. We now have express lines. We have more frequent service. We've done planning for a major expansion. Buses are now low floor. etc...

There was a ton of change during the 2000's, let's only hope the 2010's are just as successful.

I dont think LRT would solve all our transportation issues with magic wand.