BRFR Cake Stop 'breaking news' miscellany

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Legendary Member
This is an interesting article about Toronto and its traffic problem. They've appointed a 'traffic czar' to get 'traffic' (i.e., cars) flowing better, but until they grasp the nettle and recognise that cars aren't the answer, but the problem (cf America and guns), no amount of tinkering is going to solve it.

https://archive.ph/78Wnm

While there are probably some short-term improvements the city can make in some areas — like removing a few bottlenecks or speeding up major construction projects — the reality is that Toronto traffic is worse today than it was a decade ago. In another decade, it will be worse than it is today.

Few of the politicians and bureaucrats at city hall want to acknowledge that, but I think most know it to be true. There are too many cars and not enough roads. Absent a radical reform like a congestion charge similar to New York City — where a price on driving in the city causes people to look to alternatives — there’s no way to reverse the trend. Another bureaucrat is not going to do it. They’re more likely to just serve as a scapegoat for politicians frustrated that problems that have persisted for decades aren’t solved immediately. I just don’t see this car czar getting very far.

It’s tempting, I guess, to see Toronto traffic as a solvable problem. In my years watching city hall, I’ve seen dozens of candidates for municipal office suggest the answer is as simple as synchronizing the traffic lights, or making more one-way streets, or adding more free parking at transit stations.
But these ideas are old enough to collect a pension. The first mention I can find of municipal candidates promising a fix to traffic in the Star archives is a story from Oct. 21, 1950 — almost 75 years ago. In a front-page story beneath a photo of the Dionne

Besides, none of this traffic talk is meant to make you feel doom and gloom. While driving around Toronto is only going to get worse, that doesn’t mean getting around Toronto can’t get better. Walking can get better. Cycling can get better. Transit can certainly get better.

But making serious improvements in those areas may require trade-offs that frustrate drivers who don’t want to leave their car behind — and want to keep believing there are simple solutions to incredibly complex problems. When Toronto’s traffic czar does finally take the wheel, they’d better be ready to tell some hard truths.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

Stevo 666

Veteran
 
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Legendary Member
Maybe that's why Reform couldn't trim any more from the budget they said they were going to slash.

bmbcudmufgsferu34ntbe2qzar3aki2auv6v7kt3fvxtm@jpeg.jpg
 
OP
OP
briantrumpet

briantrumpet

Legendary Member
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/how-have-english-councils-funding-and-spending-changed-2010-2024

1. Taking the period 2010–11 to 2024–25 as a whole, councils’ overall core funding is set to be 9% lower in real terms and 18% lower in real terms per person this year than at the start of the 2010s. The reduction is set to be larger for councils serving deprived areas (e.g. 26% per person for the most deprived tenth) than for the less deprived areas (e.g. 11% for the least deprived tenth). This reflects the fact that the funding increases seen since 2019–20 have offset only part of the overall cuts seen in the 2010s, which fell hardest on poorer areas. Average council tax bills are around 2% higher in real terms than in 2010–11, and little changed since 2019–20, with high inflation offsetting high nominal increases over the last few years. This compares with a real-terms increase of over 60% between 1997–98 and 2010–11.

2. During the 2010s, councils’ overall core funding per person fell by 26% in real terms, on average, with higher council tax revenues only partially offsetting a 46% fall in funding from central government. But these cuts affected areas differently: in the most deprived tenth of councils, funding per person fell by 35%, compared with 15% in the least deprived areas. Councils in the North and London were also relatively harder hit. Councils responded by prioritising statutory services: while spending per person on children’s social care rose by 11% in real terms, per-person spending on culture and leisure, housing, planning and development, and transport fell by over 40%. Councils also offset some of these pressures by raising more from sales, fees and charges on service users.
 

icowden

Shaman
Yep. Have you heard of 'real terms' as referred in what Brian posted?
Here's a clue: "In real terms" means that a figure has been adjusted for inflation, so it reflects its purchasing power over time"
Apologies. You are absolutely right. I missed that.

I believe that the increase is due to debt. Most local councils are now in significant debt. The Government doesn't underwrite the debt so Councils have loans and pay interest. This is why many Councils are filing for bankruptcy. It's worth noting that the Tories deliberately underfunded and failed to help Labour councils.
 
  • Like
Reactions: C R

BoldonLad

Old man on a bike. Not a member of a clique.
Location
South Tyneside
Have you heard of inflation? The increasing number of old people?

What has the increasing number of old people got to do with it?

I pay same council tax as a “young” person

Emptying my bin costs the same as a young persons bin (perhaps less actually)

I get same street lighting

I walk on same pavements
 

Pblakeney

Über Member
What has the increasing number of old people got to do with it?

I pay same council tax as a “young” person

Emptying my bin costs the same as a young persons bin (perhaps less actually)

I get same street lighting

I walk on same pavements

Didn’t you get the memo? Current bogeymen are,
1. Foreigners
2. Old people
3. Cyclists on the roads, or pavements

😉
 
Top Bottom