The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by JHikka

I'm sure QC has reasons for why they want the QC-specific birthrate to be high.

?

I don't know if they want it high but stable/healthy . Any sane society would want that.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CityTech

I mean.. QC is also blowing surplus money on big globs of cash to parents. The system there is insanely unfair to single/childless people.. pay the highest tax on the continent and watch as all the money goes to kid programs. At least some of their surplus should be going to broad base income tax cuts to bring their tax rates more in line with the national average.

Note I said "investing in the future". Is there any better example of society's future than... kids?

Anyway, I was in favour of pro-family policies even before I knew I would eventually have kids myself.

Most of the pro-kid stuff we have in Québec will soon be useless to me personally. But I will still support it.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

And this is exactly why I suggested extending Line 4 or 5 (preferably 4 now because it serves North York) to at least Pickering. 401 rush hour traffic in 905 East is no joke and if they hop on the 401, chances are that they don’t go downtown but mid- and north-town.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

No, I don't.

There's nothing to suggest that any significant percentage of people driving on the highway would be using the subway connection and certainly not near enough to warrant what a subway could handle. The highway carries traffic with many different origin-destination pairs with most of the trips not benefiting from the subway, so even if 100% of those making that specific trip switched to transit (unlikely it would be anywhere near that high) it still is unlikely enough to warrant it. The solution to what you describe would be a dedicated transit lane carrying express buses with the diverse origin-destination pairs of the commuters.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

That’s something I can get behind. At least those already exist on the Durham Portion of Highway 2 up to Downtown Oshawa.

This is why having both the Sheppard and Bloor lines terminate at STC makes sense. It gives those commuting in to have multiple options.

Any extension east of there should be at least 25-30+ years out. By then, who knows.

In the mean time, reserved lanes for buses would be good in the short term.

[Dengler Avenue]

Hmm I would say extend it to Centennial College and UTSC.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Hmm I would say extend it to Centennial College and UTSC.

Which on, Bloor or Sheppard?

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Which on, Bloor or Sheppard?

Good question. I don’t know.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Good question. I don’t know.

https://blog.metrolinx.com/2020/02/28/me...n-and-eglinton-crosstown-west-extension/

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Note I said "investing in the future". Is there any better example of society's future than... kids?

Anyway, I was in favour of pro-family policies even before I knew I would eventually have kids myself.

Most of the pro-kid stuff we have in Québec will soon be useless to me personally. But I will still support it.

A lot of the people who get government supports for children are wealthy people. It's one of the most unfair things in society.

How is it possibly fair or progressive for parents who have a combined income of $150,000 a year to be getting tens of thousands of dollars a year worth childcare, while single childless people who make $30,000 a year do not? Why are transit agencies giving free fares to the literal children of millionaires while someone making $15 an hour has to pay over $100 a month for their transit pass?

That's why the federal government eliminated the child activity tax credits; they were basically a giant subsidy to the wealthy. The argument of encouraging higher birth rates doesn't work either: data shows that you just can't get people in development to hit replacement fertility by paying them. The few examples that exist in the developed world of at- or above-replacement fertility are there for cultural reasons unrelated to money. The highest birth rate in the developed world is in Israel, and that's actually one of the most expensive countries to raise a child in; they have babies not because the government is paying them to but because they have high levels of religiousity.

I'm in all in favour of supports for parents, but they should not be given to wealthy parents. The discrimination against childless people has to end.

We don't really need babies anyway; there's no shortage of immigrants we can take in. In fact, dropping our birth rate to zero and just importing 18 year olds to fill our universities and workforces would probably be more economically efficient.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Doady]

Bus lanes at the side of road would be very difficult for police to enforce, just like the existing HOV lanes. The current practice is to put a transitway in the middle of the road or off the road. But considering amount of crowding of riders and buses all over the city, it would probably be better to invest in rail instead of bus infrastructure.

But maybe rail would not be a good idea either. The people of Etobicoke, North York, Scarborough will be able to afford a car eventually. They won't be poor forever, and once they leave behind poverty they will also leave behind transit. Look at how the cities across the US started to abandon cars as people's wealth started to grow. Once Toronto starts to prosper, the people of Toronto will do the same. To prepare for the inevitable future, what Toronto really needs is to invest in wider roads and more expressways, not transit.

[Nouvellecosse]

So basically the city should try and build it's way out of road congestion. Wow what a fresh, innovative new idea! I wonder why no one has ever thought to try that before.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by CityTech

A lot of the people who get government supports for children are wealthy people. It's one of the most unfair things in society.

How is it possibly fair or progressive for parents who have a combined income of $150,000 a year to be getting tens of thousands of dollars a year worth childcare, while single childless people who make $30,000 a year do not?

The former Québec Liberal Government made changes to the child care system to make it revenue based. Previously, it was $7.30 per day for everyone. That price remained for families making under $50G. It went up to $8 for families making $50-75G, $11.75 for those making $100G and $20 per day for those making over $160G (salary brackets above $75G are a little off, but this is based on an article published by Radio-Canada in November 2014).

I was highly supportive of this change, and so were some high revenue families I know. But in November 2019, the current CAQ government announced they would return to the old single price system. Not sure what happened with that since.

I agree with affordable childcare as long as we have brackets as per the previous Couillard government. A family that makes $100-$200G needs to pay their bills, their mortgage, a car, save for college...

Other services like health care should be 100% free for anyone, in any circumstance.

Ottawa has an "EquiPass" for low income individuals and families. This is something that other cities should consider. On the other hand, Ottawa's fares (single ride and monthly pass) are the same for a middle-class adults who live downtown and commute 1 kilometer to work and the suburbanites who drive their big SUV to park-and-rides and jump on transit for the remaining 35 kilometers to downtown. Not so equitable.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

We do NOT need an Eastward extension of Line 2, we need a relief line. Again, RER serves the 401 East Corridor. The slight Eastward extension of Line 5 to Guildwood which is currently shelved would allow LSE users to transfer at drastically lower costs than a *unthinkable* extension of BD.

Did I say it should be a priority over a DRL? I don't even think it should be a priority of anything currently planned. I do think it should be planned to be done AFTER everything else that has been planned is built.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Ottawa has an "EquiPass" for low income individuals and families. This is something that other cities should consider..

Gatineau has this too. Montreal is on track to implement it and Quebec City is considering it as well.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Why are transit agencies giving free fares to the literal children of millionaires while someone making $15 an hour has to pay over $100 a month for their transit pass?

I don't understand this. Where are the kids of millionaires getting free transit that is being denied to others?

Also, the most expensive urban transit pass in Montreal is around 85 dollars a month.

And as I said, they are looking at cutting that (roughly) in half for low income families.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CityTech

We don't really need babies anyway; there's no shortage of immigrants we can take in. In fact, dropping our birth rate to zero and just importing 18 year olds to fill our universities and workforces would probably be more economically efficient.

This is actually pretty much the extreme opposite view of the theory espoused in the book Le Grand Remplacement by hyper-controversial French author Renaud Camus, and which is quite popular among wacko tiki-torch carrying American dudes who chant "we will not be replaced!".

True to myself, I prefer the middle ground on such matters.

Though I still find it really odd for a society to send subtle messages that its own children are "luxury items" or "trophies" for parents, when they're not an outright societal burden. Looking at Ontario from the outside (where parents often pay 50-75 dollars a day for free market childcare), that's often the impression I get from our neighbours.

I won't be telling them what to do with their own society, but it sure doesn't align with my values.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CityTech

A lot of the people who get government supports for children are wealthy people. It's one of the most unfair things in society.

How is it possibly fair or progressive for parents who have a combined income of $150,000 a year to be getting tens of thousands of dollars a year worth childcare, while single childless people who make $30,000 a year do not? Why are transit agencies giving free fares to the literal children of millionaires while someone making $15 an hour has to pay over $100 a month for their transit pass?

That's why the federal government eliminated the child activity tax credits; they were basically a giant subsidy to the wealthy. The argument of encouraging higher birth rates doesn't work either: data shows that you just can't get people in development to hit replacement fertility by paying them. The few examples that exist in the developed world of at- or above-replacement fertility are there for cultural reasons unrelated to money. The highest birth rate in the developed world is in Israel, and that's actually one of the most expensive countries to raise a child in; they have babies not because the government is paying them to but because they have high levels of religiousity.

I'm in all in favour of supports for parents, but they should not be given to wealthy parents. The discrimination against childless people has to end.

.

One of the basic principles that favours universality in social programs is that the rich need a stake in the system. Otherwise they over time will use a whole bunch of political and other subterfuges to gnaw away and reduce public funding for programs (which they disproportionately support via their higher taxes - they're rich after all) to the point where they end up transferring wealth from the public system to their own pockets - from which they may then pay for their own services privately.

As a result the public services that the Average Joe and Joan rely upon end up getting progressively shittier and shittier. The classic examples of this taken to the extreme are public schools and hospitals in much of the U.S.

You may disagree but there is a method to the madness of keeping a whole bunch of public services at no-cost or low-cost for rich people (who could otherwise) as well as everyone else.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by CityTech

A lot of the people who get government supports for children are wealthy people. It's one of the most unfair things in society.

.

Though families are clearly larger (or at least, the number of kids is clearly higher - in many cases kids live in rather "creative" household set-ups) in the lower socio-economic strata.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The former Québec Liberal Government made changes to the child care system to make it revenue based. Previously, it was $7.30 per day for everyone. That price remained for families making under $50G. It went up to $8 for families making $50-75G, $11.75 for those making $100G and $20 per day for those making over $160G (salary brackets above $75G are a little off, but this is based on an article published by Radio-Canada in November 2014).

I was highly supportive of this change, and so were some high revenue families I know. But in November 2019, the current CAQ government announced they would return to the old single price system. Not sure what happened with that since.

I agree with affordable childcare as long as we have brackets as per the previous Couillard government. A family that makes $100-$200G needs to pay their bills, their mortgage, a car, save for college...

.

I am pretty sure things have been changed so that everyone pays the same regardless of income. I believe the daily rate is now 8.50 per child.

There are some occasional rumblings similar to the criticisms here (about affluent families), but by and large I'd estimate most people are favourable to a single price for these services regardless of income.

And this generally seems to apply to people who benefit from it, who used to but don't anymore, and who never did.

It's worth noting that the CAQ campaigned on this (among other things) and that the Liberals (who had implemented the fee scale based on income) didn't put up much of a fight.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Acajack

One of the basic principles that favours universality in social programs is that the rich need a stake in the system. Otherwise they over time will use a whole bunch of political and other subterfuges to gnaw away and reduce public funding for programs (which they disproportionately support via their higher taxes - they're rich after all) to the point where they end up transferring wealth from the public system to their own pockets - from which they may then pay for their own services privately.

As a result the public services that the Average Joe and Joan rely upon end up getting progressively shittier and shittier. The classic examples of this taken to the extreme are public schools and hospitals in much of the U.S.

You may disagree but there is a method to the madness of keeping a whole bunch of public services at no-cost or low-cost for rich people (who could otherwise) as well as everyone else.

It's also administratively much simpler. Just give everyone the benefit with no opt outs, loopholes etc. Then spend the effort to make everyone pay what is deemed to be their fair share on the taxation side.