September 14, 2007
Won't You Take Me Down Ben Kerr Lane, Hampton Promises Minimum Wage Hike, And Zoned Fares? That's Brilliant!
City to designate laneway "Ben Kerr Lane." It is predicted that the laneway will become the center of Toronto's booming hot sauce scene.
Howard Hampton promises to roll back MPP pay hikes and to raise the minimum wage to $10/hour. Good thing Hampton hasn't actually published an economic plan yet. I mean, there's only less than a month until the next election, wouldn't want to tip your hand too early...
Economics researcher links higher gas prices to lower obesity rates. He's in his final year of PhD studies in economics, and his brainstorm is that expensive gas means less driving. His parents might want to request a refund on his tuition if that's the best he can do.
The LCBO's new bottle return policy creates "blue box scavengers." Which is technically illegal, but Torontoist doubts that anybody's going to get arrested any time soon. (Unless they are gay blue box scavengers and Julian Fantino comes back as police chief.)
TTC considers zoned fares. Because what we really need for the TTC is a new fare system that further discourages greater use, especially for commuters who would be on it for longer periods of time instead of in their cars! Man, it looks like the TTC really needs to read that economics researcher's paper.
And finally, the Blue Jays beat the Yankees. Although soon they might have to do such things without Troy Glaus. (Somebody should tell Glaus to just hit, like, 60+ home runs per season. Then nobody will care if he's juiced up.)
Photo via avoidinglife.com.
|
My recycling was being picked clean of bottles years ago. When I lived at Bloor and Shaw it was an older Asian woman doing the picking most times, but there was a guy on a bike who did it too.
Can anyone explain again why this was deposit plan was instituted? Are they just doing it so that they can increase bottles that are being recycled? Or do they actually reuse the bottles?
If it's just to get them recycled, doesn't it seem like a lot of trouble for the relatively few people that are that throwing out their wine and liquor bottles in the garbage? Why not just implement a fine for doing this?
I'd be a lot happier to just recycle my (relatively few) wine and liquor bottles than to have to be blackmailed 10 or 20 cents a bottle to drive them to the beer store afterwards. Am I crazy here?
Three main reasons for a deposit return system
One, although compliance was relatively high where people actually have blue boxes not everyone has access to a blue box (apartment dwellers, primarily). Where they have deposit return systems like in Alberta recycling rates are much higher.
Two, there is too much breakage and contamination in the curbside system, for various technical reasons you need to sort clear and coloured glass before it's remelted and in practical terms you can't really sort broken bottles so the bottles need to be kept whole until they reach the sorting point, broken mixed glass is just going to the landfill anyway, with the beer store system the bottles get sorted at collection point then it doesn't matter if they get broken or damaged in handling because all the bits are the same colour.
Three, it serves as municipal uploading, collecting glass at curbside is a money loser for the municipalities (only newsprint and cardboard actually make money and even that not always depending on the market) so less glass in blue bins = less cost for cities.
Thanks Chester! That makes a lot of sense. Although for point one, I've lived in a few apartment buildings, and they all have access to blue bins (though compliance was usually less than par.)
regarding zoned fares, with the status quo on funding the ttc loses more money when it gains more riders. so the immediate problem is not to expand ridership, but to find a funding model that works. zoned fares are tied more closely to the actual operating costs of the service, so the hope is to minimize the budget shortfalls. this idea is used in other transit systems, such as tokyo, where fares vary according to distance travelled. it's not such a hassle and i think it increases the attractiveness of short trips.
yeh, regarding zoned fares: a lot of major cities do that, inclduing sydney australia, halifax (i think) among others.
Zoned fares are a fine idea if you want to inch closer to recovering all of your expenses from the farebox. If, on the other hand, you want to get people out of their cars and to be accessible to as many people as possible, a small, flat fare combined with a huge subsidy from government(s) is the way to go.
Hong Kong also successfully uses zoned fares, but they're an incredibly dense city. I'm intrigued that cities like Sydney use the system though.
Is it still constructive to discuss models that rely on huge government payouts if it's so painfully obvious that neither the provincial nor federal governments ever intend to fund the TTC's operating costs? Have we ever made any progress in those areas? I haven't seen any glimmer of hope there.
Furthermore, should we be discussing the TTC any longer as a moral authority? Why should it be held responsible for convincing drivers to ditch their cars when it should be putting all its efforts to providing the best service for the most number of people possible (who in all likelihood already use it)? Why should it even keep courting riders if it's already struggling to maintain its current level of service?
Zoned fares wouldn't make sense on the subway or streetcars, but it would be pretty difficult to implement on the buses. Toronto just doesn't have the subway network that would justify it.
In Seoul the subway is zoned, but it has 9 lines that connect to the suburbs and neighbouring cities too, and the minimum fare is 1,000 won (about $1.30). Starting it on the subway here would most likely mean you'd pay $2.75 to go from Union to Christie and more to go beyond, let's be honest.