2018 London Municipal Election

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by Dupcheck

Cheng hit the nail on the head this morning on CBC radio. Kudos to him.

Have a link / context?


-----

Speaking of Cheng...
Paul Cheng under fire, again, from departing deputy mayor Paul Hubert

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/cheng-under-fire-again-from-london-council-vet

[Dupcheck]

Originally Posted by haljackey

Have a link / context?


-----

Speaking of Cheng...
Paul Cheng under fire, again, from departing deputy mayor Paul Hubert

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/cheng-under-fire-again-from-london-council-vet

8 am morning news on cbc London 93.5 fm

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Sure, but are you one of the candidates? And do you know if there is actually a civic code limiting current tower height?

I'm not aware of one, however I heard years ago something about Downtown London's soil profile not being able to easily support building heights above ~35 stories. Any engineers here that know anything about that?

[Djeffery]

There was this on CBC this morning. Not sure if this is what was referred to above, since it didn't really show Cheng coming up with anything "kudo-worthy" lol. Good to see them sniping at each other though, and I did notice how the host skipped by Tanya Park when discussing business experience lol

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-mayors-debate-1.4860649

[Dupcheck]

Looks like Holder got this in the bag. At least that is what his amount of signs say everywhere I drive.

[haljackey]

BRT or something else? Mayoral candidates weigh in

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-mayoral-debate-transit-1.4860975

[Dupcheck]

Originally Posted by haljackey

BRT or something else? Mayoral candidates weigh in

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/london/london-mayoral-debate-transit-1.4860975

Thanks for sharing the link. Paolatto did fairly well in this one.

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by Dupcheck

Thanks for sharing the link. Paolatto did fairly well in this one.

I agree, Paul Paolatto has done well in the debates. My perception of him has gone up a couple notches.

Tanya Park is basically acting as the incumbent in this election. If you like things the way they are now, she is your choice.

If you want a mixup, Holder/ Paolatto / Cheng.

[warpus]

Voting for Cheng is like voting for a potato. He seems so out of touch I have no idea how people can consider voting for him.

Holder and Paolatto don't have a plan for transit and it seems are just trying to ride the populist vote into office.

[Djeffery]

Cheng is just clueless, as today's "press conference" shows. If he has to borrow money now, what kind of management of his campaign has there been? People have known for a year and a half he was running. If he couldn't convince people to set aside a campaign donation until it was legal to collect, what does that say about what people really feel about him?

The guys might be trying to play the anti-BRT card, but Park is only playing the pro-BRT card, and doesn't really have much to say about anything else. Other than rehashing the various things council has already decided on. Maybe she can try to jump on another orange wave next fall. She will still need a job because she won't have this one.

Holder was who I was hoping for to get in the race, as I think I posted in this thread back when he pulled out of seeking the PC nomination after the Patrick Brown scandal. Not really sure I'm totally impressed though. I do like how he went after Cheng in the last week about how we really don't know anything about him. But he isn't really that exciting either. Yes, he has the past business, political and community service experiences and I'm sure would make a fine mayor. I just wonder how much influence and control he will be able to sway over council and push his ideas forward.

I've liked Paul Paolotto from the start. I knew him as the chair of the Police Board and the director of the Research Park at UWO. I like that he has put so much effort into preparing for this race. Even though he caused some controversy about being too early about it. He did thread the line a bit on the legality of campaigning early, but I think the idea of not being able to say you are running for something before a certain date is pretty stupid. If they want to say you can't raise money or put up signs before a certain date, fine, but if you are allowed to spend $25k of your own money, you should be able to do that whenever. He's been committed to this race for over a year now, unlike Ed or Tanya, and has worked tirelessly for this. It's still an uphill battle as one with the lowest profile going in to this, but he's going to be my number 1 choice on Monday.

[Stevo26]

I wasn't impressed with the responses from Paolatto, Cheng, or Holder with respect to their stance on BRT - all they were giving were vague answers about how they would improve public transit in London.

Arguing that Park's only real concern is climate change is simplistic and unfair.

Where Paolatto, et al. recommend what we've always done - just nibbling around the edges and not doing anything substantive, Park makes are a cogent argument for BRT - that it gets busses out of the way of traffic and cars out of the way of busses.

Clearly, Paolatto, Cheng and Holder don't favour the needs of all Londoners, just the well-heeled who have influence over city council.

[tyeman200]

Originally Posted by Stevo26

I wasn't impressed with the responses from Paolatto, Cheng, or Holder with respect to their stance on BRT - all they were giving were vague answers about how they would improve public transit in London.

Arguing that Park's only real concern is climate change is simplistic and unfair.

Where Paolatto, et al. recommend what we've always done - just nibbling around the edges and not doing anything substantive, Park makes are a cogent argument for BRT - that it gets busses out of the way of traffic and cars out of the way of busses.

Clearly, Paolatto, Cheng and Holder don't favour the needs of all Londoners, just the well-heeled who have influence over city council.

That's my problem too. People hate BRT so much and the sad part is those people don't even know what the plan is even about. Even if Park doesn't win, hopefully you'll still get a majority of councillors that support BRT and the plan will go through either way. I know in my ward I'm voting for the pro BRT canidate.

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by tyeman200

That's my problem too. People hate BRT so much and the sad part is those people don't even know what the plan is even about. Even if Park doesn't win, hopefully you'll still get a majority of councillors that support BRT and the plan will go through either way. I know in my ward I'm voting for the pro BRT canidate.

It's easy for people to hate something they don't understand. Despite all the public consultation sessions that have been held, I don't think the city have done a very good job of actually selling BRT to the public.

For instance, one thing I repeatedly see and hear is that people object to BRT because they have it in their heads that the plan is going to cost London $500 million. It isn't. London's share of project costs is just $130 million.

And anytime I encounter people who pull out the $500 million figure, I tell them that London's actual cost will work out to just $13 million per year over the 10 year construction time frame. This works out to just 1.7% of London's annual budget of $750 million each year. Eminently affordable.

Still others point to the possibility taxes will go up to fund BRT, yet the city have said nothing about needing to increase taxes to fund it. That's because most of the project - at least London's share of it - will come from development charges.

I think what is at the root of BRT hatred is you have disgruntled business owners who fear that BRT will kill their businesses, and developers who want to profit from increased business as a result of BRT bringing more people into the downtown core, but don't want to pay for the opportunity. Both factions have managed to find a way to whip up anti-BRT opposition.

[Dupcheck]

Originally Posted by Stevo26

I wasn't impressed with the responses from Paolatto, Cheng, or Holder with respect to their stance on BRT - all they were giving were vague answers about how they would improve public transit in London.

Arguing that Park's only real concern is climate change is simplistic and unfair.

Where Paolatto, et al. recommend what we've always done - just nibbling around the edges and not doing anything substantive, Park makes are a cogent argument for BRT - that it gets busses out of the way of traffic and cars out of the way of busses.

Clearly, Paolatto, Cheng and Holder don't favour the needs of all Londoners, just the well-heeled who have influence over city council.

Under the current BRT plan, In some areas such as Richmond south of Windemere, traffic for cars will be worse as the flow will be reduced to one lane as there is no room for expansion. So saying that the buses will be out of the way of cars is not correct at all scenarios. In this case buses will take away a lane from cars and create traffic havoc. If cars were allowed to share the lanes with the buses such as HOV 3+ then that could actually be a sensible solution; as more people will be willing to car pool instead.

[inimrepus]

Originally Posted by Dupcheck

Under the current BRT plan, In some areas such as Richmond south of Windemere, traffic for cars will be worse as the flow will be reduced to one lane as there is no room for expansion. So saying that the buses will be out of the way of cars is not correct at all scenarios. In this case buses will take away a lane from cars and create traffic havoc. If cars were allowed to share the lanes with the buses such as HOV 3+ then that could actually be a sensible solution; as more people will be willing to car pool instead.

I really don't think this will be as big of an issue as people think. They are getting rid of left turns on Richmond as well except for places with turning lanes. So while you will lose a lane of traffic you won't be waiting for somebody to turn left across Richmond in rush hour while a bus is simultaneously stopped letting passengers on/off.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Dupcheck

Under the current BRT plan, In some areas such as Richmond south of Windemere, traffic for cars will be worse as the flow will be reduced to one lane as there is no room for expansion. So saying that the buses will be out of the way of cars is not correct at all scenarios. In this case buses will take away a lane from cars and create traffic havoc. If cars were allowed to share the lanes with the buses such as HOV 3+ then that could actually be a sensible solution; as more people will be willing to car pool instead.

They are saying the buses will be out of the way because as it is now, there are no bus bays on Richmond St, so when a bus stops, it blocks a lane of traffic. The other factor is that there are no turn lanes on Richmond, so when someone is trying to turn left, that blocks the middle lane. In some situations, and I've been in it, a bus stops in the right lane, and someone is turning left in the left lane, nobody is moving. Under the new plan, there will be left turn lanes (not sure if there are any right turn lanes), so at least the traffic will still be able to move when someone is turning.

I still think that Wharncliffe to Western Rd would have been the better option for the north leg though. They are just in the midst of this road widening, and they could have better planned to make it wide enough to accommodate BRT in there. Takes away the CPR crossing concern on Richmond, takes away the possibility of Western University throwing a wrench in things. We know the city will end up replacing that bridge that's closed right now. Most of the people using transit to get to Western are going to the west side of campus as it is, and BRT is going to come out onto Western Rd anyway. And I also think that it would be an easy tie in if BRT was ever going to be expanded to the huge southwest chunk of the city if it already operated along Wharncliffe.

[Dupcheck]

Originally Posted by inimrepus

I really don't think this will be as big of an issue as people think. They are getting rid of left turns on Richmond as well except for places with turning lanes. So while you will lose a lane of traffic you won't be waiting for somebody to turn left across Richmond in rush hour while a bus is simultaneously stopped letting passengers on/off.

I guess you have not dealt with students or taxi cabs much. They stop in no stopping areas and they turn in no turn lanes when they like.

[haljackey]

Well I voted. Never studied up on how do do ranked ballots at all and it was super easy.

Good turnout at my polling station when I was there, but it was around 5pm so likely among the busiest time of the day.

-----

How long will it take to announce the mayor elect once polls close at 8pm?

My guess is 30 hours.

[Djeffery]

I voted at 1pm, and was number 206 on the machine. My wife voted at 5, and was 456. Hopefully the last 3 hours have a higher turnout.

[Djeffery]

Paul Cheng already on the radio downplaying our system and how his supporters weren't able to vote this morning.