A friend and I were having a rather amusing discussion about the nonsense surrounding The Order of Canada right now, and he had this to say:
Dear Catholic Church,
Stop fucking little boys and we'll stop killing babies... btw, you first.
Toronto Life: July 2008 Archives
Retired Bus Driver Of Durham is a blog I read on occasion, written by a retired transit worker living in Durham. It's not updated vary often, and some of what he says, like Canadian content requirements, I disagree with on economic grounds.
Today when I checked, there was a post titled Go wrongfully takes passengers from DRT. Normally I would post a quick paragraph from the article that I want to disagree with but he doesn't actually argue why this is the case. Even the previous post he links to in this new post, Parking lot plan drives councillor mad, doesn't say much on the subject.
Now, it's hard to poke holes in an argument that isn't really there is both hard and terrible, but I'm going to try it. I surmise from readings done elsewhere, like Steve Munro's blog that the problem is that GO Transit, in adding more parking, will take people off the buses because they can now drive and park their cars instead. Steve's arguments are more focused on GO's need to stop focusing on peak-period travel, and the local transit services need to grow to support regular service.
Now, there are some potential problems I see in this argument, and to get to them requires some background information. First, being a semi-regular user of GO Transit's Lakeshore West line to get to my parents when I have appointments, need money, or need to get out of the city, I've seen the state of the stations. I've also taken the train out East on a few occasions over the last two years so I've seen those stations too. I'm also well aware of the abysmal state of public transit in the suburbs. So I see the amount of work GO Transit is doing to turn itself (at least on the Lakeshore lines) into a legitimate service. People tend to ignore things like additional track and platform construction, and the new engines that pull more train cars. So GO seems to be doing its part to get people riding its service.
Second, I would like to assume, although this assumption is weak, that GO transits funding is separate from the suburban services, despite Metrolinx (I still shudder when I read that). If GO deems that a parking garage is what they want to do with their money to maximize the utility from their budget, then that's GO's decision.
When I say the suburban transit is abysmal, I mean it. I don't bother taking Oakville Transit because (if it's even there when my train gets in) it takes me longer to get from the GO Station to my parents' house than the train ride does. Granted that is usually it's ZONE service, not regular bus service, but my memories of late, semi-regular service are more than enough to keep me away from their buses whenever possible. I can't even imagine what Durham Region Transit is like. I've never ridden on it, but the stories I've heard make Oakville Transit seem like a paradise. The suburban services seriously need to improve their routes. Oakville Transit should consider just scrapping their system and starting from scratch with a number of important focus points (GO stations, shopping centres, high schools and Sheridan buildings).
So, to say that GO is taking customers from DRT bothers me. It gets under my skin. If DRT can't run a service that attracts passengers to it, that is DRT's problem. Not GO's problem. DRT should consider improving its service if it wants to get more people riding, not complaining about GO trying to better service its customers.
The Canadian Press is reporting that Ontario is placing recycling fees on electronics to help establish a recycling system for electronics, much like in provinces such as Alberta, British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan. And, like always, people are complaining.
Although the fees will be charged to manufacturers, there's no indication whether companies will absorb the fee as a cost of doing business or pass it on to consumers.
Eleanor Friedland of the Consumers Council of Canada said she fully expects the majority of companies will add the fee to the final cost of their products.
"I think the cost will be definitely forwarded on to the consumer," she said. "All additional costs eventually get passed on to the consumers."
Pardon my French, but ah-duuuh. This woman must not have taken even a first year economics class. The fee, which is a tax, will be passed along to between firm and consumer. Isn't that how it works? Now, as for the whole fee being passed along to the consumer, the only case I can think of off the top of my head (and that's not many considering how fried my brain is right now) is the case where the consumer has a completely inelastic demand curve. Demand for something like televisions sets, or especially cellphones, might be pretty inelastic relative to other goods, but they're not food, or gas. So it will be interesting to see how this happens.
Of course, given the market power of most firms consumers might end up paying for the whole fee anyway. In the end, it's my position that they should be paying for it anyway. So you won't hear me complaining.
Bombardier became a shoe-in for the $3-billion contract after its main rival, Germany's Siemens AG, pulled out of bidding at nearly the last minute.
680 News: Bombardier most likely to receive streetcar replacement contract
Well fuck. Toronto, get ready for ugly, uncomfortable, "utilitarian" LRVs on the Transit City LRT lines that were supposed to show the GTAH that transit doesn't have to suck.
