Chip Martin of the London Free Press has thrown down the gauntlet and is telling Londoners he thinks London's mayor and councillors are doing a terrible job, even going to so far as to suggest they are royally incompetent by calling some of them "rookies".
He starts off by saying,
Quote:
In two days less than eight months from today, Londoners elect a new city council.
The current mayor and councillors have done little to warrant re-election.
•They voted for a $500-million-plus bus rapid transit plan, known as Shift, that will not be rapid, but is costly and ill-conceived.
|
OK, Chip. Fine, you're entitled to your opinion, it's a free country. But where is the evidence that it is 'costly and ill-conceived'? Are you a professional urban planner or civil engineer who can speak from a position of authority on the matter? Have you done studies costing hundreds of thousands of dollars that support your position?
London's share of the project is only $130 million, or about $6 million annually if amortized over the life of the construction project, which is expected to take about 20 years. The city will spend far more on projects of far lesser utility in the same time-frame.
Then he goes on to say that most of the newcomers on city council have come from " 'Pints and Politics and Urban League of London groups, whose millennial activist members promote bicycling, transit, environmentalism and other causes in echo-chambers of the like-minded. They are seeking a new champion.' "
Well, Chip, this is how democracy works. Enough people in London liked what they offered enough to vote them into office. Hardly what I would call an echo-chamber of the like-minded.
Quote:
|
ts members have repeatedly backed the Shift plan at every twist and turn. The occasional word of wisdom has come from Coun. Phil Squire, whose ward faces major dislocation. The bus plan, the largest capital project in city history, has become divisive in London because of the way it has been rushed, promoted and rammed through. Voters are unhappy.
|
The BRT plan has not been rushed through or rammed. It was announced several years ago and in the time that has elapsed since then, the city has held numerous public education and input sessions and is continuing to hold them. On top of that, part of mayor Brown's mandate was to build a RT system for London. If Londoners didn't want a better transit system and didn't want to spend the money, they wouldn't have voted him in.
The city has a valid business case for a RT system. It didn't spring up overnight; it's the end result of a decade's worth of research and investigation.
BRT isn't nearly as divisive as Chip would have you believe. What we've seen so far is a few isolated pockets of malcontents and axe-grinders who think they alone should be able to decide whether London gets improved public transit, regardless of what the voters as a whole have said on the matter through the ballot box.
Yes, some businesses will be negatively affected by BRT construction. But the same negative effects happen any time major road or sewer repairs are needed, or road or other infrastructure improvements are required. Sometimes these projects can be lengthy and there is simply no way to speed them up to minimize or offset the economic losses of businesses that are affected. As the saying goes, 'you have to break a few eggs if you want an omelet.'
Quote:
But populist Paul Cheng and pragmatic Paul Paolatto have been warned not to campaign or advertise, despite the fact everyone knows they want the mayor’s job.
Both oppose Shift, Cheng adamantly so, wanting the issue placed on the municipal ballot so Londoners have the final say. Paolatto demands to know more about the costs and ridership projections and suggests a slower, more incremental and studied improvement to transit.
|
If we vote for Cheng or Paolotto, two things will likely happen: the BRT system will never get built, or the glacial pace involved in continuing to study it to death will mean London will lose the opportunity to build it, just like it did with the in-city expressway it should have built over 50 years ago.
In fact, if London chooses to further delay implementation of a RT system, the province could very well decide that London isn't serious about improving transportation in the province and in turn decide that London should not get a high-speed railway station, if the HSR system gets built. The economic consequences of London not having such a stop could be quite major, and the repercussions for London's future equally grim.
Better public transit and a RT system for London have already been extensively studied, so why are further studies needed? Will those studies be likely to naturally come up with a conclusion that BRT should not be implemented, or will they be packed with cherry-picked facts and specious arguments that reach the pre-determined conclusion that you want to see?
Londoners already had the final say on BRT at the ballot box during the last municipal election, so why is a referendum needed on the subject?
Does this mean that anytime the city wants to do something radical or forward for the benefit of all Londoners, the matter should be decided via referenda? Even though no legal mechanisms for permitting such referenda exist anywhere in current Ontario municipal or city government legislation?
Such referenda alone are sufficient to be an election issue and not something that should be implemented afterwards.
Demanding more studies and a final referenda (after the city has already spent millions of dollars planning for BRT) is just another way to try to kill the project.
Suggesting that such demands are anything but that is highly disingenuous and an insult to the intelligence of all Londoners.
Chip, you surprise me with the low opinion you have of Londoners in general.
Then again, should we expect different op-ed pieces from a pro-conservative, pro-business bird cage liner like the London Free Press?
The entire article can be seen here:
http://www.lfpress.com/2018/02/23/ma...st-councillors
Linear Mode
