ReThink London

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

The harsh new reality that ivory tower politicians in London do not want to deal with is that London's woefully inadequate transit system is the single biggest thing driving young people away from London. I have talked to endless Western grads who told me that the poor public transit system in London was the primary reason they didn't consider staying in London after graduation. (My main reason was a lack of employment opportunity, but public transit ranks as a close second for me. Unlike many of my colleagues at Western, I actually looked for work in London.)

Like it or not City Hall, today's young people value public transit in a way that earlier generations cannot comprehend. Public transit is a big deciding factor for young people when deciding on a city to live in. Places like Waterloo Region, Toronto, and Ottawa that embrace public transit are the places that young people want to move to. Places like London that treat public transit like a service for the poor and handicapped don't cut it anymore. Maybe this strategy worked in 1995, but it doesn't in 2012.

London is just going to keep bleeding talent until it does something to make the city attractive to young people. With talent will come the jobs. And today, an effective, modern public transit system is a huge factor. I can't speak as a politician, but I can speak as a young person who spent five years being surrounded by people complaining about London Transit and talking about moving to a city with a good public transit system after graduation.

London could do wonders if it went out and asked current Western and Fanshawe students about their attitudes about this city. A bunch of "emerging leaders" is far from representative of the younger demographics of the city. They could even take it a step further and survey Western and Fanshawe grads who no longer live in London, and find out why they moved. Both surveys would yield results that I don't think the City of London is ready to hear.

^ What he said.

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

The harsh new reality that ivory tower politicians in London do not want to deal with is that London's woefully inadequate transit system is the single biggest thing driving young people away from London. I have talked to endless Western grads who told me that the poor public transit system in London was the primary reason they didn't consider staying in London after graduation. (My main reason was a lack of employment opportunity, but public transit ranks as a close second for me. Unlike many of my colleagues at Western, I actually looked for work in London.)

Like it or not City Hall, today's young people value public transit in a way that earlier generations cannot comprehend. Public transit is a big deciding factor for young people when deciding on a city to live in. <remainder snipped for brevity's sake>

There's another trend emerging that leaders of municipal governments everywhere would do well to pay heed to, and that is the fact that many young people now are doing without a car.

The reason why is that many young people have little interest in cars. Plus, they don't want the hassle or the expense of owning a car, and considering that so many young people are unemployed, or underemployed despite having a good education, they can't really afford one, either.

Right now, the auto industry is quietly having a conniption because the most crucial segment of their target market - the 18 to 34 age group - can't afford to buy a car, and if they have one already, they're hanging on to it until it drops. Or they're doing without.

And when young people find they do need a car, they're renting one - it's one reason why car-sharing services like Zipcar are making such inroads in heavily congested, very populous centres like Toronto and in many US cities.

Added to this development the fact that all of the baby boomers now retiring will, in about 10 to 15 years from now, be too old or sick to continue driving.

The confluence of these demographic trends means that much better public transit is going to be needed sooner rather than later. Any municipal politician who ignores that fact does so at his or her own peril.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Stevo26

There's another trend emerging that leaders of municipal governments everywhere would do well to pay heed to, and that is the fact that many young people now are doing without a car.

The reason why is that many young people have little interest in cars. Plus, they don't want the hassle or the expense of owning a car, and considering that so many young people are unemployed, or underemployed despite having a good education, they can't really afford one, either.

Right now, the auto industry is quietly having a conniption because the most crucial segment of their target market - the 18 to 34 age group - can't afford to buy a car, and if they have one already, they're hanging on to it until it drops. Or they're doing without.

And when young people find they do need a car, they're renting one - it's one reason why car-sharing services like Zipcar are making such inroads in heavily congested, very populous centres like Toronto and in many US cities.

Added to this development the fact that all of the baby boomers now retiring will, in about 10 to 15 years from now, be too old or sick to continue driving.

The confluence of these demographic trends means that much better public transit is going to be needed sooner rather than later. Any municipal politician who ignores that fact does so at his or her own peril.

Bingo, and that really drills down to part of the root cause of why young people are increasingly valuing public transit as a means of getting around. The other reason is environmental consciousness. I know myself that I have never earned enough money to be able to afford even a used car; the job I have recently started does pay enough to afford a used Honda Civic. And I'm 26 years old.

For what it's worth, the city I'm now in (Kingston) has a transit system far worse than London's. As a result Queens and St. Lawrence students barely venture away from campus, and I'm forced to live within walking distance of where I work until such time I can afford a car, which will probably be three months from now. At least I live in a good area.

As a side note, affordability of a car and house increases tremendously if you can find a significant other and/or get married. And perhaps that is part of the problem facing young people today; they are satisfied staying single for a long time and don't want commitment. Personally I'd like to find a significant other and get married, but it seems as though very few others are looking for that today, and those that are, are already engaged or married. It's tough being a 26-year-old single in Canada today; you can't afford the lifestyle your parents had at your age, and the other singles are career-focused and want to stay single.

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Bingo, and that really drills down to part of the root cause of why young people are increasingly valuing public transit as a means of getting around. The other reason is environmental consciousness. I know myself that I have never earned enough money to be able to afford even a used car; the job I have recently started does pay enough to afford a used Honda Civic. And I'm 26 years old.

Well, if it's any comfort, things weren't any easier for me when I was 26, and that was 24 years ago. When I left university, I had to go to Toronto to find work, because nothing was available in London. While I wasn't exactly starving, I couldn't afford to live well, and a car was more or less out of the question until my father helped me find an older Pontiac Acadian that I could use to get to and from work in Markham.

Once I was on my feet, I traded up to a used '84 Olds Omega. But I ended up leaving Toronto because of the high living costs. So when I got back to London, the job I had didn't last long and so I had to sell the car just to stay afloat for a while.

For what it's worth, the city I'm now in (Kingston) has a transit system far worse than London's. As a result Queens and St. Lawrence students barely venture away from campus, and I'm forced to live within walking distance of where I work until such time I can afford a car, which will probably be three months from now. At least I live in a good area.

I once visited Kingston briefly many years ago and was surprised to see how spread out it is compared to other cities with a similar population. No wonder why public transit sucks there.

As a side note, affordability of a car and house increases tremendously if you can find a significant other and/or get married. And perhaps that is part of the problem facing young people today; they are satisfied staying single for a long time and don't want commitment. Personally I'd like to find a significant other and get married, but it seems as though very few others are looking for that today, and those that are, are already engaged or married. It's tough being a 26-year-old single in Canada today; you can't afford the lifestyle your parents had at your age, and the other singles are career-focused and want to stay single.

Agreed. When I got married for the first time at age 42, I discovered how much more affordable a nice house and a new car were with two salaries going into the bank account. But the marriage didn't last, alas.

I don't blame people not wanting to commit anymore, because when divorce happens, it's usually a messy, expensive and painful process that only enriches lawyers. Plus, too many men now are finding that women try to use divorce as a tool to cash in.

I was lucky. When my ex-wife and I broke up, we split the equity in the house 50/50, divvied up the other assets fairly and moved on. No kids were involved, so there was no chance of me having to make support payments.
I filed the divorce papers myself, and because ex-wifey didn't contest anything, it took less than six months for the whole thing to be finalized. Best $500.00 I ever spent!

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Stevo26

I once visited Kingston briefly many years ago and was surprised to see how spread out it is compared to other cities with a similar population. No wonder why public transit sucks there.

The older part of the city is fairly compact. I'm fortunate that I live in an area where most of what I need is within walking distance: I live within walking distance of a Loblaws and a Metro, a Canadian Tire, Pharma Plus and Shoppers Drug Mart, an LCBO and Beer Store, downtown, and the office I work in. A lot of Queens graduate students live in the area, and Queens is within walking distance as well. Fortunately, I do not have a big need for public transit right now, although once winter comes I might be singing a different tune. Still better than London; where I lived, the only thing within walking distance was a Mac's Milk.

That said, I don't think there's a single place in London that has all of those amenities within walking distance of each other. So Kingston's lack of an effective transit system is not so bad if you live in the older part of the city, but if you live in the suburbs, you almost have to have a car. Most areas of London require some sort of transportation option to get around, mainly because of the lack of grocery stores in the older part of the city.

[Blitz]

I'm sure the employment situation was a big factor in their moving away too though. In London, public transit is seen as something for poor people (it's the same mentality in Windsor). There seems to be more of an American or midwestern view toward transit in these cities.

What angers me most about London is that it takes 40 bloody minutes to drive across the city at rush hour. I don't think improving the transit system will help improve commutes because there are lots of people that won't use it regardless due to the apparent stigma.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Blitz

I'm sure the employment situation was a big factor in their moving away too though. In London, public transit is seen as something for poor people (it's the same mentality in Windsor). There seems to be more of an American or midwestern view toward transit in these cities.

Oh yes, absolutely. It's the main reason I am no longer in London. And I know a lot of former Londoners who no longer live there because of a lack of work there. Those who come to London from other cities to study, from what I gathered, shared a very low opinion of the city: the most frequent complaint was London Transit, with other complaints being the lack of anything to do off campus other than drinking, the problems with hate and hate crimes, and the fact we're not Toronto. Of course, there's nothing we can do about the last one, but the other three things are things we can control. I'm sure that if we could retain enough of the talent that comes out of Western, we'd have new business ventures in the city that could hire qualified people. But it's not happening. Our graduates are bypassing London and are going to Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal, Western Canada, Europe, and in one case I'm aware of, even Windsor.

Originally Posted by Blitz

What angers me most about London is that it takes 40 bloody minutes to drive across the city at rush hour. I don't think improving the transit system will help improve commutes because there are lots of people that won't use it regardless due to the apparent stigma.

The stigma can be changed, albeit gradually. It's all in the marketing.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Originally Posted by Blitz

What angers me most about London is that it takes 40 bloody minutes to drive across the city at rush hour. I don't think improving the transit system will help improve commutes because there are lots of people that won't use it regardless due to the apparent stigma.

This is why not transit alone will fix London both roads and transit in tandem are necessary. It's not even grand schemes like LRT/BRT routes, although would be great, which would seriously help. More bus bays, express routes, centre left turn lanes, channelization at intersections would be good improvements.

Main obstacles with London are widening arterials that are way overcapacity like Commissioners, Southdale, Western-Wharncliffe, Oxford; Natural obstacles like rivers, tributaries and ponds that cut off roads, Gainsborough-Windemere-Kilally, Sarnia-Huron, Riverside to King St, Adelaide, Colboune st. missing link; Man-made obstacles, CN & CP rail lines, lack of grade separation, no crosstown expressway and political indifference.

Ultimately why would any company want to invest/set up shop with this lack of transportation infrastructure? Young talented people don't want to stay in London, good aren't moved efficiently. IMO major improvements would lead to both economic investment, having people stay in London and make the London a more vibrant place.

[haljackey]

If I was elected as mayor, I'd raise your taxes and make this entire city a constant construction zone.

It would be 4 years of hell, but a modern, efficient city would emerge from the dust.

Would you vote for me?

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by haljackey

If I was elected as mayor, I'd raise your taxes and make this entire city a constant construction zone.

It would be 4 years of hell, but a modern, efficient city would emerge from the dust.

Would you vote for me?

Raise by how much...

Realistically I would have no problem paying extra taxes for a specific plan that everyone is contributing to and work is being done.

I may be in the minority but it would help everyone in the long run

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by haljackey

If I was elected as mayor, I'd raise your taxes and make this entire city a constant construction zone.

It would be 4 years of hell, but a modern, efficient city would emerge from the dust.

Would you vote for me?

It might be better to issue municipal bonds. The City of London has a better credit rating than the Gubmnt o'Murrhica, so interest rates would not be too bad. The whole thing would work without a massive increase in taxes, provided that you carefully budget the infrastructure projects and also ensure that you can cover regular principal and interest payments.

I'd still vote for you, chances are you'd be better than any mayor this city has had for the past 40 years. The real issue is getting council on your side, as Mr. Ford has recently proven in Toronto.

[manny_santos]

http://www.lfpress.com/2012/10/12/ta...-core-and-more

Interesting read with lots of interesting comments, including from former councilor Sandy Levin. I used to disagree with his views but I'm starting to understand his philosophy.

[haljackey]

I met Sandy Levin earlier this year on several occasions about a redevelopment project.

He added a lot of input to the questions I asked him and gave me a lot to think about as well. Seeing that I am young and he is old, the two of us got along quite well despite that age barrier being in the way.

I've always been a supporter of smart growth and I believe London is capable of it and doing it right. Canada's growing both economically and demographically so any failure on London's part to cash in on this is not acceptable, but it has to be done within certain circumstances.

[Simpseatles]

Straight talk

By Larry Cornies, Special to QMI Agency

Friday, December 14, 2012 5:26:54 EST PM

Brent Toderian, a much-heralded urbanist, zeroes in on the many planning miscues he observed during a short visit to the Forest City

Canadian urbanist and planning consultant Brent Toderian isn’t afraid to speak his mind. And that may have been one of the personality traits that got him dismissed earlier this year, “without cause,” as Vancouver’s planning director.

Depending on whom you believe, Toderian’s tenure at Canada’s third-largest city was cut short by his brash personality, opposition to a centralization of power within the city bureaucracy, resistance to fast-track approvals for developers, lack of “soft” political skills or the fact he was a fall guy for competing interests.

Regardless, the things he said at his last meeting with Vancouver staff resulted in a five-minute standing ovation, according to writer Nate Berg in The Atlantic.

Toderian went on to tell Berg that a planning director “has to be able to speak truth to power. A planning director has to always make their recommendations on the decisions based on integrity, professionalism and principle — and being able to say what needs to be said is a very important part of that.”

At a ReThink London event this week, he did just that, despite the fact he was visiting for only a few days. He told Londoners some things about their city they badly need to hear — and act upon.
...
http://www.lfpress.com/2012/12/14/straight-talk

Anybody go to hear him?

I would have liked to. The man had some excellent suggestions and ideas. Couldn't agree more that we deserve much better than what we have been getting in London! Local politicians really need to stop with the excuses.

[MolsonExport]

^I would have liked to have heard the talk, but I agree with the main points printed in the LFP.

[Simpseatles]

ReThink London is wrapping up now. Yesterday was the unveiling of a draft version of the cities' new Official Plan at City Hall, which is supposed to be the culmination of their efforts. I was lucky enough to be there (in an overflow room because it was so busy!), and here are some of the noteworthy points that I can remember:

-2 designated rapid transit corridors (one from Masonville to White Oaks, another from Oxford/Highbury to Oxford/Wonderland via Dundas)
-"Transit villages" at the termination points of these corridors
-No more references to arterial, secondary, local roads (A new road hierarchy with names that place less emphasis on car traffic volumes has been derived)
-Less strict zoning regulations (don't remember all of the details on this one, but the goal is to allow more mixing of uses. It'll no doubt be controversial!)
-A system for determining the proportion of a road ROW that should be for sidewalks, bike lanes, and vehicular traffic lanes
-New industrial lands designated for the area around Wilton Grove Road, the 401, and the VMP extension (nothing around the Wonderland/401 area)
-A secondary Plan for the LPH grounds was also included, along with a general goal of becoming one of Canada's greenest cities

That's all I can think of for now.

Oh, and if anyone's interested I was interviewed by the Free Press after yesterday's meeting and was featured in this article!

http://www.lfpress.com/2014/05/22/pu...-leaders-didnt

[ssiguy]

What about downtown transit and the idea of turning a section of Dundas into pedestrian only?

[Simpseatles]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

What about downtown transit and the idea of turning a section of Dundas into pedestrian only?

I think that turning Dundas into a pedestrian only street was briefly mentioned. In terms of downtown transit, the rapid transit corridors that run through downtown were on York, Richmond, and Queens I believe.

[MolsonExport]

Rethink the mayor's office. Get rid of shoeless Joe Fraudtana. Two horrible mayors in a row maketh for a bad city vision.

[ssiguy]

In most cases in NA, pedestrian only streets don't work unless they are very short. I don't think it would work well in downtown London {except maybe Market Lane} but Vancouver has done well with it's Granville Street bus-only {and taxis} 4 block section.

It works well for the buses, has allowed much wider sidewalks with the cafes and bistro patios and yet maintains heavy pedestrian traffic due to all the transit users that got off on the stretch.