Transportation Policy Doublespeak


In a report to the 2007/07/09 Planning Committee meeting with respect to the Transportation Policy Review, R. Panzer (General Manager of Planning and Development) states that “The Transportation Strategy…will endeavour to influence the public in choosing forms of transportation that reduce the dependency on automobiles…”

At the same time, he admits that “The Capacity Enhancement Strategy…has been developed on the premise that…Londoners have not demonstrated a willingness to reduce automobile use.” Based upon that self-fulfilling defeatist attitude which conflicts with the first strategy, Mr. Panzer purports that it is financially prudent to surrender to “current modal choices for travel” and that there is a “need for 37 roadway capacity enhancement projects over 20 years.”

The same kind of doublespeak exists in the Proposed Transportation Policy Modifications. s.2.11 (Transportation Planning) refers to “the City’s intent to provide a safe…transportation system.”

If the Corporation of the City of London, Ontario cared about the safety of it’s citizens, particularly those who attempt to adopt alternative modes of transportation, then staff and members of City Council would not have ignored the police report which identifies the channelization and other kind of design flaws which exist at the Commissioners/Pond Mills intersection and which continue to put the safety of pedestrians at risk. Based upon my recent Freedom of Information appeal, I can state without reservation that the City has no plans to address that serious safety issue. In other words, they plan to do nothing.

If the Corporation of the City of London, Ontario cared about the safety of pedestrians, staff and members of Council would not ignore the stated concern of citizens like myself with respect to the height of wooden walkway fences and the city’s failure to properly maintain foliage which encroaches upon those walkways and upon sidewalks (see:

If the Corporation of the City of London, Ontario cared about the safety of pedestrians, my 2006 proposal for a Pedestrian Committee would not have been treated with duplicity. Referred by ETC to Board of Control to staff for “study” the proposal was ignored throughout all of 2006. Then, immediately following the election, the proposal was apparently rejected. No study was ever returned by staff to either Board of Control or ETC for public scrutiny and discussion. At no time did any member of city staff or Council ever contact me for further input. Stated plainly, I have no reason to believe that any study ever took place or that it was ever anyone’s intention for a study to take place.


Tags: , , , ,

One Response to “Transportation Policy Doublespeak”

  1. Angela Browne Says:

    In the region of Niagara where I have the misfortune of living, we have our own TTC, or “take the car”, as we have no alternative forms of transportation. People who cannot drive, choose not to, or simply cannot afford a car are looked down upon and not given jobs that match their skills and education. Our pollution ranking is higher than Hamilton and Toronto on most “smog days” and our regional politicians don’t care. As for pedestrians? Well, many people stopped walking in our community, as cyclists keep insisting on using the sidewalks as their private roadways, risking many a life and limb.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: