2018 London Municipal Election

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

[

To most people in London "proper" means driving. That is the reality first and foremost. A lot of the problems we have are from people who want to impose (either directly or indirectly) THEIR view of proper.

Nobody is trying to impose anything on you. There was provincial and federal money to build transit. London decided they don't want to build transit. That federal and provincial money will still build transit. It'll do it elsewhere.

London can still build plenty of roads. Nobody else will be sharing the cost though. Hope you're okay with that.

[TallerIsBetter]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'll say it again. There is no money coming to build highways through London. At least not from the Feds or Queen's Park.

Well the new Mayor campaigned on beting able to open the coffers at those levels, so now is the time to try. If the city got LOUD (I mean everyone) and persistently demanded the support because our transportation system is in "an emergency" we will get as much as we can. The persistent squeaky wheel gets the grease. So lets see if Ed can make something happen. Apparantly the $200M from Ottawa is on the table for whatever transformative project we choose. Building and realigning roads helps mass transit as well as drivers! Ed was a Conservative MP so is probably closer to the Ford people. Make a case for a northern Kitchener-Stratford-London 4xx because that is strategic and takes pressure off the 401 and USMCA and all. I'd pay more property tax for a real solution that built freeways, widen roads, and even had a non-Anti-Car mass transit component. The real solution would include all these - unfortunately it seems the pro BRT side wants to hold on to the Anti-Car goal.

[TallerIsBetter]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

All of their funds, otherwise, are directed at projects which reduce emissions. .

Well maybe that will change after next year's election, as I suspect the Carbon Tax may sink Justin. You may not like it but NOTHING Canada does can have ANY effect on the average temperature of the planet. And if you think China and India and the USA are "going to follow our example" you are fooling yourself in spades.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

If that were true, I and lots of people would be onboard, so to speak. But LRT & BRT were not going to do that. The village of Hyde Park to Summerside, or Byron to Fanshawe, or Adelaide to Lambeth would still be 1 to 1.5 hours with BRT when you factor in getting from the average residence to the transit system entry point and then from the transit entry point to final destination. You can't just measure the in transit system duration - that doesn't get you there, figuratively or literally. Those drives are a lot less than that.

Expecting to achieve that overnight is ridiculous. Would take well over a billion to achieve that. That's why I said "well designed". The proposed BRT would have been a system that could be built on. Add extensions. Increase frequencies. Launch branched routes that go local in neighbourhoods when off the BRT corridor.

Now, you're going to get exactly zero. And traffic is only going to get worse with half a million people by the end of the decade. And crossing 600 000 in the 2030s:

https://www.fin.gov.on.ca/en/economy/demographics/projections/table13.html

[TallerIsBetter]

We can still build a transit system that would be the backbone of an extended reach into the neighborhoods etc. See my posts. The problem was the dedicated lanes that would make driving cars worse, and going up Richmond causes issues (there is nothing 'rapid" about snaking through campus). Do something up Wharncliffe/Western without dedicated lanes and you avoid the train issue. Widen Wharncliffe/Western (that bridge should have be six lanes!) and add bus bays and you have a fast corridor for 5 minute frequency. Also do something similar between downtown and old east. I'm not against mass transit, and I'd be willing to pay more for it. What I, and I suspect others are against is the Anti-Car undercurrent and a plan that doesn't make driving better for drivers through road enhancement. People would be happy to pay for that.

[TallerIsBetter]

How much would it cost to put Wharncliffe under Oxford. Tell Justin it will save the planet or whatever. Seriously that would avoid most bottlenecks, all trains, and would really help the E-W flow. So we knock down a few strip malls and Sutton. That could really be something!

[Stevo26]

TallerIsBetter writes:

I'd pay more property tax for a real solution that built freeways, widen roads, and even had a non-Anti-Car mass transit component. The real solution would include all these - unfortunately it seems the pro BRT side wants to hold on to the Anti-Car goal.

The thing is, BRT doesn't have to be (and isn't) anti-car, since the purpose of BRT isn't just to make public transit work better, but to get buses out of the way of cars and vice-versa.

I personally support BRT and I own a car. What I want to see is the best of both worlds - roads that let buses and cars flow smoothly and harmoniously.

Although it does seem that there is a faction in London that is anti-car, and some of those anti-car people work for the LTC and city hall. This, of course, has me scratching my head, because the faction within city hall is anti-car, but won't do anything meaningful to improve public transit.

How are people supposed to get around if they can't use cars but public transit services are poor and at best mediocre? The disconnect beggars belief.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Well the new Mayor campaigned on beting able to open the coffers at those levels, so now is the time to try.

Is there a politician out there that doesn't say he's going to shake more money from the money tree?

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

If the city got LOUD (I mean everyone) and persistently demanded the support because our transportation system is in "an emergency" we will get as much as we can. The persistent squeaky wheel gets the grease.

No. The politically important wheel gets the grease. London has 4 ridings. Of which only 2 are Liberal federally and only one is Conservative provincially. If the federal Liberals or provincial governments can deploy their funds more effectively elsewhere, they will.

Heck, the don't even have to spend. Just look at yesterday provincial announcement cancelling three university campuses. They have no issues cancelling hundreds of millions to be spent on new campuses in more populated regions. Why would they have any issue simply not building anything in London? That is the best part of all this for the provincial conservatives. It's not even a cut or cancellation. They simply don't build anything for four years. After all, what are you going to do if they don't build anything, vote for the Liberals?

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Apparantly the $200M from Ottawa is on the table for whatever transformative project we choose.

Source? Cause I've never seen something definitive on this. And I think the definition of "transformative" is probably upto the folks controlling the purse.

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Make a case for a northern Kitchener-Stratford-London 4xx because that is strategic and takes pressure off the 401 and USMCA and all.

How exactly will this help anybody with day-to-day traffic inside London?

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

I'd pay more property tax for a real solution that built freeways, widen roads, and even had a non-Anti-Car mass transit component. The real solution would include all these - unfortunately it seems the pro BRT side wants to hold on to the Anti-Car goal.

Show me a candidate who ran on raising taxes to build more roads. Seems to me that the only "anti-car" folks are the ones who usually claim they can cut taxes while somehow at the same time offering to build more.

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Well maybe that will change after next year's election, as I suspect the Carbon Tax may sink Justin.

I think you forget about all the cheques that people are going to get in the mail right before the next election. And that's before we talk about things like the split on the right.

I am no Trudeau fan, but as of today, I think he's set to win next year. We'll save that discussion for another forum though.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Stevo26

The thing is, BRT doesn't have to be (and isn't) anti-car, since the purpose of BRT isn't just to make public transit work better, but to get buses out of the way of cars and vice-versa.

I personally support BRT and I own a car. What I want to see is the best of both worlds - roads that let buses and cars flow smoothly and harmoniously.

I, too, never understand why people think that transit improvement automatically mean worse driving conditions. It isn't really the case elsewhere. So why would it be so in London?

I lived in Toronto when they were doing the work on St. Clair. People bitched and moaned a ton. Guess what? Way more driveable today than it was in the past.

Originally Posted by Stevo26

Although it does seem that there is a faction in London that is anti-car, and some of those anti-car people work for the LTC and city hall. This, of course, has me scratching my head, because the faction within city hall is anti-car, but won't do anything meaningful to improve public transit.

London is a city that is absolutely dominated by cars. What has me scratching my head is where people see evidence of this "anti-car" agenda. Is there a single spot in the city which is not accessible by car?

Originally Posted by Stevo26

How are people supposed to get around if they can't use cars but public transit services are poor and at best mediocre? The disconnect beggars belief.

We're going to find out in 5-10 years.

There's nothing new here. I saw this happen in the 905. In the 90s, transit was a "Toronto problem". The 905 cities happily elected the Harrisites and cheered on all kinds of transit cuts. Then Toronto filled up and growth hit them. And now the 905 literally has worse traffic than the 416. Try going across York Region on Hwy 7 during rush hour. It'll be a revelation. So all of the 905 is now scrambling to build any transit they can.

This is exactly what will happen to London. And much sooner than people think. No highway will help either. What are you going to do? Dump all those cars in the core with no garages to park? If you build the garages, do you have the avenues to feed them off the highway? If you think traffic is bad now, just imagine in a decade (2028) when the province says Middlesex County has 65 000 more residents. London is going to find out exactly what GTA traffic is like in a decade.

[TallerIsBetter]

I'm starting to worry about Canada then. If you are saying that Governments of all stripes have overspent to the point where the Federal and Provincial governments can no longer simply support local road infrastructure that is needed to reasonably accommodate traffic in a community unless they are a political favorite or if it serves some pet cause (again Canada can do NOTHING to impact the average temperature of the planet - that's just the math of CO2) then we are lost. How can you persuade any business to come here. Sorry, no major road improvements supported here, please locate in the GTA. Lubbock/Texas/US Federal Government seems to be able to somehow work together to have roads that work for the community, and I bet they have lower property tax than London. And I think they are getting High Speed Rail in Texas.

Looks like it is still in planning but much further along than ours by the looks of it.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/transpor...ding-potentially-traumatized-butterflies

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

I'm starting to worry about Canada then. If you are saying that Governments of all stripes have overspent to the point where the Federal and Provincial governments can no longer simply support local road infrastructure that is needed to reasonably accommodate traffic in a community unless they are a political favorite or if it serves some pet cause

I never said to worry about the country's finances. I said to worry about the willingness of governments to expend those funds on London in an era of competing demands. Every 905 municipality is screaming for funding to build more transit. What's the value in sending that money to London over them? That's the question every political operative at the LPC and PCPO will ask when the request comes.

A great example of this is Brampton. They voted against their LRT. Metrolinx went right ahead and launched the Hurontario LRT and terminated it before Brampton's downtown. There's been no change in policy for them with the new Conservative government. Because no other plan makes sense. Brampton's councillors know it. And Metrolinx's planners know it. So they got on with building what they could. And basically decided to ignore Brampton till they come to their senses. London is about to get the exact same treatment.

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

(again Canada can do NOTHING to impact the average temperature of the planet - that's just the math of CO2) then we are lost.

Traffic and climate change are different things. You could switch every car in London to a Tesla and you'd still have traffic.

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

How can you persuade any business to come here. Sorry, no major road improvements supported here, please locate in the GTA.

Exactly. So now you get why this is a quality of life and economic issue. I am glad you're finally starting to understand my angst.

And it's not just road improvements. Who is going to fund the parking for all those cars?

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Lubbock/Texas/US Federal Government seems to be able to somehow work together to have roads that work for the community, and I bet they have lower property tax than London. And I think they are getting High Speed Rail in Texas.

There are some big differences between Canada and the US.

1) Americans have massive funding for interstates with their federal gas tax. Which adds up quickly, when you have 330 million people. We don't have that kind of scale unfortunately.

2) Thankfully for them, a lot of their highway network was built in the 50s and 60s out of necessity for the Cold War. Can't build that cheaply anymore.

3) Americans pay insane property taxes, the likes of which most of Canadians can't comprehend. I am temporarily in the US on a military exchange in California. I live in a town with great infrastructure. Million dollar homes which pay $20-30 000 per year in taxes. I have American colleagues who tell me stories about inheriting homes and not being able to afford the property taxes. Canadians always talk about US income and sales taxes. Nobody ever talks about their property taxes, which is what all those low tax states use to fund everything.

Looking online, Lubbock has property tax set at 1.75% of fair assessed value. Average home price in London is about $350k. At Lubbock's rates, the average London house would be paying > $6000 per year in property tax. We can build highways in London too. If we jack up the average tax bill to $6k and have people with larger than average homes paying five figure tax bills.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

And I think they are getting High Speed Rail in Texas.

Looks like it is still in planning but much further along than ours by the looks of it.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/transpor...ding-potentially-traumatized-butterflies

Texas is getting high speed rail between Dallas and Houston. Lubbock is no where close to that. It's > 300 miles from Dallas. This is like saying a high speed rail line between Ottawa and Montreal would be relevant to London.

Also, you do realize that Texas is a state with 28 million in it right? They have a lot more resources to deploy for something like high speed rail.

[Truenorth00]

And by the way businesses do relocate....not for roads. For rail.

Case in point: Google.

Google is building an absolutely massive campus in downtown San Jose:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...-seen-transforming-biggest-bay-area-city

Google parent Alphabet Inc., already Silicon Valley’s biggest property owner, is negotiating to buy 40 acres of city-owned land for a new campus near San Jose’s SAP Center and Diridon train station. It would bring as many as 20,000 jobs over the next 10 to 12 years.

And they are doing that, specifically because of this:
https://www.hsr.ca.gov/programs/station_communities/san_jose_station.html

Housing in the Bay Area is expensive. Google employees making six figures share rooms and take an hour in traffic getting to work. Meanwhile Fresno has homes for $250 000 or less. So Google has decided, they'll relocate right to the station and let employees commute by everything from high speed rail (Cal HSR) to commuter rail (Caltrain) to LRT (VTA).

It's why I've long argued that high speed rail to London would be transformative for London. But if that ever came to pass, good luck feeding it with no real higher order transit to connect to.

[TallerIsBetter]

Thanks for the insights on the US property taxes. I believe the Texas HSR has a lot of private money behind it. I'd suggest that Google is an outlier in terms of what they look for. The enterprise that wants to consider London is certainly going to be interested in roads, with the degree of concern dependant on sector.

Hope you understand I want good transit for London. Good roads, less congestion for those who choose to drive (without being coerced into taking transit because congestion is made frustrating), good, fast, and frequent transit for students, with reach into areas that have the jobs for those who don't have cars.

I now see an opportunity to move beyond dedicated lanes and find solutions for all modes of transportation. If putting Adelaide under the CP tracks is $60M could we put Wharncliffe under Oxford for $80M?? What about other bad chokepoint intersections (Wellington/Commissioners with a big park and ride bus terminal, other ideas anyone?). We now have an opportunity to think outside box and really come up with effective all-mode solutions!!!

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Thanks for the insights on the US property taxes. I believe tje Texas HSR has a lot of private money behind it.

Indeed. But there's also a ton of money sloshing around for rail projects in the US doled out from the Obama administration previously. I'm sure, in one way or another projects like that attract that kind of funding. Also, the business case for a rail line between two large metros in a warm climate is a lot better than we would have here. So there's that.

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Id suggest that Google is in outlier in terms of what they look for. The enterprise that wants to consider London is certainly going to be interested in roads, with the degree of concern dependant on sector.

Ummm no. High tech manufacturing values all kinds of links. Not just roads. Air, sea and rail travel is usually far more important them. Another great example just days ago. Dyson just announced a multi-billion dollar factory for electric cars. Do you think they built in China? Nope. They picked one of the most expensive places in the world to manufacture: Singapore.

https://gizmodo.com/dysons-new-electric-car-manufacturing-plant-in-singapor-1829929333

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Hope you understand I want good transit for London

I don't buy that for a second. Your last proposed solution to traffic here was a suggestion to build a highway to Kitchener.

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Good roads, less congestion for those who choose to drive (without being coerced into taking transit because congestion is frustrating), good, fast, and frequent transit for students, with reach into areas that have the jobs for those who don't have cars.

Nice airy-fairy boilerplate stuff that does not actually translate into policy. Is there anyone who doesn't want "good roads" or "less congestion"? The devil is in the details.

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

I now see an opportunity to move beyond dedicated lanes and find solutions for all modes of transportation.

If you don't make transit faster, there's no reason to take transit. Simple as that. And so all those people will be joining you on the road. And like I said, in the next decade, tens of thousands more will be joining you.

Anybody who has to take a major avenue for their commute in London should start planning on their commute times going up by 2-5% per year, every year going forward.

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

If puttong Adelaide under the CP tracks is $60M could we put Wharncliffe under Oxford for $80M?? What about other bad chokepoint intersections (Wellington/Commissioners with a big park and ride bus terminal, other ideas anyone?). We now have an opportunity to think outside box and really come up with effective all-mode solutions!!!

Great ideas. London council should get on with exclusively funding that.

[UpstairsCranberry]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Again I'll contrast London to Lubbock, TX. Lubbock is half the size of London, but has I-27 running N-S through the city.

It's 2/3 the size of London, but that's irrelevant. It is a U.S. city, and like all U.S. cities they have freeways cutting through them. As a result, almost all U.S. cities have many empty blocks home to nothing but grass. It is like this because of the American freeway system.

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Problem is that the way London is laid out with a downtown and everything going out in all directions

Okay, this is what all cities do.

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

means we are naturally a car city.

This does not follow. If London is supposedly a car city, why does it have the highest ridership around? It has less than 1/2 the population as Ottawa, yet they both have the same ridership numbers.

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Same with Lubbock's layout.

When it comes to motorists and how the city interacts with it's surroundings they are not the same. Lubbock has separated highways coming in from every direction. It did not construct these. London one has these highways to the south, and technically it is only one that ends up splitting to the west.

The proper term for a ring road is bypass. Now, why would it be called that? They are not there for the residents, initially. They are there so people can bypass the city. As the city grows and encompasses it the residents start using it. Eventually, it becomes congested and so an additional ring road must be made - which you link to for Lubbock - in order for motorists to bypass the bypass.

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Trouble is we have a lot of people that want to deny that and try and impose strategies that only really work in cities laid out differently.

Laid out differently - Is this the highways the Lubbock has but not London, or a downtown and everything going out in all directions?

[TallerIsBetter]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't buy that for a second. Your last proposed solution to traffic here was a suggestion to build a highway to Kitchener.

Thats unfair of you. Just because I am brainstorming ideas (in that case a regional one that could benefit London at the north end with a ring segment) doesn't mean I don't care about better options for everyone

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

[...]

It's why I've long argued that high speed rail to London would be transformative for London. But if that ever came to pass, good luck feeding it with no real higher order transit to connect to.

Bingo. No BRT, no real public transit system beyond the bare minimum, a railway station where there is only maybe one city bus stop that's right at the station, and a inter-city bus terminal located 300m away isn't a coherent transportation strategy. It's a dog's breakfast and a sign that neither Londoners nor city hall actually give a shit about public transportation and the integration of rail, bus and public transit networks that would make getting around a lot easier.

High speed rail in London would not likely do as well as it could unless and until there is one station for all three services including HSR.

Mind you, Toronto isn't tremendously better as the Greyhound bus terminal is quite some distance away from Union Station. However, at Union Station, you have direct access to the TTC subway, GO Transit and UP, the Union Station to Pearson Airport light rail line. And that's all from just ONE station.

The unwritten message seems to be that if you can't afford to own a car and have to make use of Via Rail, Greyhound Bus Lines, or the LTC, you're unworthy of anything better.

You'd never see these kinds of chaotic and near-useless systems of transport in the UK or Europe. Across the pond, competition is managed so that various transportation systems are happy to co-locate in one facility.

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Hope you understand I want good transit for London. Good roads, less congestion for those who choose to drive (without being coerced into taking transit because congestion is made frustrating), good, fast, and frequent transit for students, with reach into areas that have the jobs for those who don't have cars.

I now see an opportunity to move beyond dedicated lanes and find solutions for all modes of transportation. If putting Adelaide under the CP tracks is $60M could we put Wharncliffe under Oxford for $80M?? What about other bad chokepoint intersections (Wellington/Commissioners with a big park and ride bus terminal, other ideas anyone?). We now have an opportunity to think outside box and really come up with effective all-mode solutions!!!

I know the perfect location for the park 'n ride lot: the southeast corner of the land on which Parkwood Hospital sits. There is a ton of vacant land there.

If we could just get CN/CP to move their freight lines south of London (I know, ain't happening) there'd be no need to build a railway underpass on Adelaide. There's $60 million that could be invested in improving the LTC or fixing other chokepoints.

Putting Wharncliffe under Oxford is a great idea in principle, but how would cars heading southbound or northbound on Wharncliffe turn on to Oxford?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by TallerIsBetter

Thats unfair of you. Just because I am brainstorming ideas (in that case a regional one that could benefit London at the north end with a ring segment) doesn't mean I don't care about better options for everyone

If you think a highway to Kitchener is a serious suggestion in a discussion on London traffic.....

On the other hand, might not be such a bad idea as London stagnates further. People will need an express route out.

Bookmark my posts here. When nothing gets built and traffic is worse in 5 years, you can buy me a beer.

And if I'm proven wrong, I'll happily shell our for your brew.