Posts Tagged ‘growth’

Seize the Moment Before it Disappears

March 3, 2008

Here’s a post that I found at Theater Of Cruelty and admired so much that I just had to ask for permission to repost it here:


Human Population

December 8, 2007

add to  Add to Blinkslist    add to furl  Digg it  add to ma.gnolia  Stumble It!  add to simpy  seed the vine  Reddit  Fark  TailRank

Although the rate of global human population increase has almost halved since it’s 1963 peak, it’s still a serious concern. Currently, our species continues to increase by almost 204,000 every day.

At the same time, global life expectancy has risen from 46 years (in 1950) to 65 years (in 2005), and even higher in developed countries.

As 3rd-world countries progress economically, limited resources will become more depleted. But worse than that, the ability of the environment to withstand the stress of our consumption may well reach a breaking point.

Click HERE to watch David Bleja‘s great learning simulation.

Other Links:
AMP: How much human life can planet Earth sustain?

Fudged LTC Numbers?

August 27, 2007

Can the LTC be trusted?

Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 10:40:42 -0700 (PDT)
From: “Gregory Fowler”
To: “Larry Ducharme”
Subject: LTC Ridership


In the past, I have communicated my concern to you that raw ridership numbers are relatively meaningless, because they do not reflect the corresponding increase in the city population. However, it did not occur to me that there was any reason to question those raw numbers. I simply accepted them at face value.

Having re-examined all of the staff reports re ‘Financial Update – Passenger Riding’ which are available on the LTC website as part of your meeting agendas, I now have a question with respect to the accuracy of the reported raw ridership numbers.

By your own admission, there has been a marked trend “away from the cash and ticket categories to the pass category.”

Although the cash and ticket categories can be very accurately measured, ridership for the pass category can only be calculated.

As I understand it, you have created something that you call “ride factors” which are based upon “expected usage” of those passes, and you then pad (fudge?) the measured ridership (cash & ticket) to arrive at your published ridership numbers. Worse still, “factors are adjusted as required…”

Required for what purpose? So that it will appear that you are experiencing a growth in ridership?

How hard would it be for you to take an actual head count? An accurate measurement of the number of individuals who actually board LTC buses month by month? Instead of simply guessing?

Greg Fowler
962 Eagle Crescent
London, Ontario; N5Z 3H7

LTC Long Term Service Growth Plan

February 1, 2007

The key Requirement Analysis and Official Plan Policy Changes staff reports were received by the Commissioners at yesterday’s LTC meeting, and direction was given to LTC administration to prepare a presentation for a joint City Hall ETC/Planning Committees meeting in Council chambers at 3pm on Feb. 12th.

Note: each staff report includes additional background info on the Growth Plan.

See also: 2007/02/05 communication to ETC

Working Group to review LTC Long-Term Growth Report

January 9, 2007

Board of Control will consider the proposed Terms of Reference for the Working Group that will review the LTC’s Long Term Growth report at it’s meeting this Monday.

London Transportation – My Public Response to Paul Berton

January 6, 2007

Hold onto your hats… this is a long post…

Mr. Berton,

To begin with, a note of appreciation for today’s “Back transit plan before it’s too late” editorial. Public transit is hugely important towards safe and healthy cities, and as I’ve written to you before and despite all of City Hall’s posturing, sadly ignored (as evidenced by per-capita mode share stats). Had it not been for significant transfer payments from the province and the feds in recent years, I hate to think what sad shape public transit in London would now be in.

LTC ridership was 18,761,000 in 1988. But thanks to the political pressure of the 0%-tax increase coalition, Council’s attitude toward increased support of public transit and other necessary services became very negative. The result was that LTC made a decision to increase user rates, the results were predictable. Ridership decreased year after year for the next 8 years! From a ridership level of only 11,905,000 in 1996, we are only now in 2006 finally getting back to that 1988 level.

But even that stat is deceiving, because the city has grown considerably since then. Whereas the 18,761,000 riders in 1988 represented a very modest mode share of 10%, the 18,276,000 riders which the service attracted in 2005 only represent a mode share of 7%. In order to match projected population growth and simply recapture the 10% share, the TDM estimates that ridership has to grow an average 600,000 additional rides per year, every year, until 2024.

Along with community centres (which I also strongly support), let’s not forget the importance that public transit plays in the lives of marginalized citizens (OW, ODSP, minimum-wage earners, disabled, etc), the increasing disparity between rich/poor in our society, and the resultant societal problems and huge health/policing costs that go along with those.

Perhaps if this initiative succeeds, more citizens will have access to Fanshawe Pioneer Village (as one example of a less accessible but important community resource) and it’s consequent improved finances will in turn reduce pressure on City Council at budget time.

To borrow a phrase from Arlene Kennedy, “Our city must become the centre for innovative and creative thinking.” Contrary to statements from the developer-backed naysayers on City Council, increased municipal investment in public transit would move us in that direction.

Might I suggest a follow-up article which examines the true cost of private automobile usage, not only including such things as purchase price, insurance, maintenance, license… but also things like municipal road widening, road extensions, public parking, police enforcement, bylaw enforcement, collisions, environmental degradation (pollution, loss of farmland, etc), increased infrastructure and emergency service costs resulting from urban sprawl … ?

If you haven’t already done so, I encourage you to read Ryan McGreal’s “The High Cost of Free Parking.

I must admit though, that I’m somewhat at a loss to understand the failure of the LFP to address London’s record-setting year with respect to vehicle/pedestrian incidents, in any of your year-end recaps that I’ve read. Did I miss something?

On another transportation-related note. Many months ago, when I notified you about the proposal that I had put to City Council with respect to a Pedestrian Subcommittee for London, you replied that you had a special interest in pedestrian/bicyclist safety and that you wished to be kept informed. That being the case, you may be interested in the correspondence which is attached (below). In addition to the highly questionable manner in which the proposal was handled by City Council and “city administration”, I note that I haven’t had a single contact from any elected member about this.

Continuing with the same theme, and my efforts to extract a copy of the Commissioners/Pond Mills safety study from London Police Services. I’ve now succeeded in doing so but only with the assistance of the Ontario Privacy Commissioner.

The unsafe intersection of Commissioners and Pond Mills has been the sight of several horrific vehicle/pedestrian incidents and is one that I have focused on as part of my political action towards improved pedestrian safety in the city of London. It employs pedestrian islands and channelization (dangerously rounded corners so that drivers don’t have to stop or even slow down).

Excerpt from Constable Riley’s 2006/05/29 “Police Witness Statement” which I only obtained 2007/01/04 under FOI:
“I have met with FOWLER and monitored this intersection both with him present and on my own…The following are things that I have noted:
– very high traffic intersection both pedestrian and vehicle
– right hand turn, merge lanes for all directions of travel
– vehicles turning right generally come at a quicker rate of speed but are not speeding
– vehicles turning right, if they stop do so in such a place that they are generally in the crosswalk
– there are no indicators for vehicles making right turns that pedestrians are present or about to cross
– for pedestrians wanting to cross any of the intersections, they must first make it to the island on the opposite side of all the right hand turn lanes in order to push the button to cross the major part of the intersection
– once pedestrians are on the islands they are pretty much blind to vehicles and there is a safety risk that vehicle may not see them”

Excerpt from Constable Riley’s 2006/08/10 “Case Summary” which I only obtained 2007/01/04 under FOI:
“FOWLER was contacted…and a request was made to meet with him and go over this complaint in detail at the intersection in question. Intersection was monitored for a couple of days. Very high traffic both pedestrian and vehicles. Crosswalks are not very safe as pedestrians are forced to cross the path of the turning lane to enter on to an island in order to depress the pedestrian walk button.”

In an email to me dated 2006/08/11, Sgt. Thomas O’Brien wrote:
“Constable Riley’s report acknowledges that Commissioners and Pond Mills is a busy intersection for both vehicles and pedestrians. He doesn’t like the configuration of the merge turns and how it impacts pedestrians. He indicates that local MPP were notified of the concerns… I had conversation with Mr. Shane Maguire of the City Traffic. We discussed this intersection and the unusual requirements for pedestrians to cross merge lanes to get to an “island” to further cross. He is fully aware of the concerns. I asked him to look at other similar intersection configurations within the city to see if they’re experiencing similar problems.”

Correspondence re: Proposal for a London Pedestrian Subcommittee


Date: Wed, 14 Jun 2006 12:36:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: “Gregory Fowler”
Subject: Update – Pedestrian Safety
CC: “Sandy White”

Mr. Maguire,

In appreciation of your past demonstrated willingness to meet with me and discuss these issues, please be advised,

In response to several complaints by me, Sgt. Tom O’Brien has assigned Const. Riley (661-5545) to investigate the issue of pedestrian safety at the intersection of Commissioners Road East and Pond Mills Road.

I met with Const. Riley at said intersection this morning and discussed the situation with him at length. My impression following the meeting is a good one.

Const. Riley appeared to be very receptive to the perception which I expressed with respect to multiple pedestrian safety issues, and seems to appreciate the dangers imposed by the physical configuration of this particular intersection.

I’ve been promised by Contst. Riley that he will continue to monitor this situation, and that he will endeavour to have Sgt. O’Brien visit the location with him in order to explain/discuss the problems further. He also suggested the possibility of involving MPP Ramal, and he indicated to me that there will be a report available following his investigation.


As a result of my efforts toward the establishment of a Pedestrian Charter and a Pedestrian Subcommittee for the City of London, I have been informed by the Secretary of the Environment and Transportion Committee that the matter has been referred to the Board of Control for it’s consideration and reply.

I encourage you to follow these developments, and invite you to contact me at any time should you wish to discuss them further.


Greg Fowler, Candidate Ward One
962 Eagle Crescent
London, Ontario; N5Z 3H7
(519) 649-0500

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 22:20:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory Fowler
Subject: Fwd: RE: Your Letter

Mr. Bain,

Thank you for your letter dated 2006/12/19 which summarizes how my proposal for a Pedestrian Subcommittee and a Pedestrian Charter was “handled”.

According to the material which you provided, civic administration’s “review” and “report” simply consisted of the single simple sentence that “Pedestrian safety would be a logical fit with the CSCP mandate and it is therefore recommended that … the CSCP’s duties be amended by adding thereto after the words ‘injury prevention’ the words ‘pedestrian safety’ in order to incorporate the area of pedestrian safety within the mandate of the CSCP.”

Was there any background study? Any consultation with other municipalities? Any consultation with London Police Services or members of the public? Why didn’t “civic administration” contact me? Is this what Mr. Fielding means when he talks about “accessibility”?

Why was the “report” submitted to the Striking Committee meeting? Given the fact that my proposal was referred by ETC to Board of Control, shouldn’t any “report” have gone back to Board of Control and even perhaps ETC, for public review and discussion?

Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 14:41:31 -0500 (EST)
From: Gregory Fowler
Subject: RE: Your Letter
To: “Stein, Brett”

Mr. Stein,

My apology. The letter originated from Mr. Bain, and I apparently did not exercise sufficient care in responding. Thank you for forwarding it to Ms Lysynski.

Greg Fowler

“Stein, Brett” wrote:

Mr. Fowler
I am unaware of any letter regarding pedestrian safety sent to CSCP in my name on December 5, 2006. I have taken the liberty of forwarding your email to Heather Lysynski, who after reading all the attached emails, seems to be your contact on this subject.

Brett Stein
Manager of Licensing and Elections
City of London
(519) 661-2500 x 5884

From: Gregory Fowler []
Sent: Monday, December 11, 2006 1:29 PM
To: Stein, Brett
Cc: Caranci, Roger
Subject: Your Letter

Mr. Stein,

Thank you for copying me your 2006/12/05 letter to CSCP which indicates that the issue of pedestrian safety has been incorporated within the mandate of that committee.

It strikes me as being highly inappropriate to have taken this action, given the fact that I’ve been awaiting a response to my proposal for a Pedestrian Committee since last May.

Has staff reported back to Board of Control? Has a decision been made with respect to my proposal?

Greg Fowler

Subject: RE: Follow-up re Pedestrian Committee
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 13:59:17 -0400
From: “Lysynski, Heather”
To: “Gregory Fowler”

My apologies, just what has been happening until this point.

Heather Lysynski
Committee Secretary
City Clerk’s Office
519-661-2500 x 4856

From: Gregory Fowler []
Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 1:40 PM
To: Lysynski, Heather
Subject: RE: Follow-up re Pedestrian Committee

Ms Lysynski,

> Pedestrian safety issues continue to be addressed by the
> Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee.

Is this the response to my proposal for a Pedestrian Committee that I’ve been waiting for, or simply an explanation of how things have been done up until now?

Greg Fowler, Candidate Ward One

Subject: RE: Follow-up re Pedestrian Committee
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:25:40 -0400
From: “Lysynski, Heather”
To: “Gregory Fowler”

Mr. Fowler,

In response to your inquiry, the Bicycle Advisory Committee was established with the mandate of assisting with the finalization of the Bicycle Master Plan, after which it would be integrated with the Transportation Advisory Committee. The Bicycle Master Plan has been completed, the Bicycle Advisory Committee has been disbanded and the terms of reference for the Transportation Advisory Committee have been amended to include representation from the cycling community. Pedestrian safety issues continue to be addressed by the Community Safety and Crime Prevention Advisory Committee.

Thank you,

Heather Lysynski
Committee Secretary
City Clerk’s Office
519-661-2500 x 4856

Date: Sun, 27 Aug 2006 00:20:10 -0400 (EDT)
From: “Gregory Fowler”
Subject: ETC Comments
To: “W. J. Bud Polhill”


With respect to your remarks during the last ETC that “maybe if it was safer more people would ride a bike” and “I can understand a bicycle on the road but they have to have their own space.”

Perhaps, if you’re as concerned about the safety of alternate modes of transportation as your comments would suggest, you’ll explain to me why my proposal for a Pedestrian Committe was sloughed off to BoC and from there
to staff? And why my inquiry about the Bicycle Committee was simply ignored?

Greg Fowler, Candidate Ward One.

Date: Sat, 26 Aug 2006 23:25:26 -0400 (EDT)
From: “Gregory Fowler”
Subject: RE: Follow-up re Pedestrian Committee
To: “Lysynski, Heather”

Ms Lysynski,

I’m aware of the fact that BoC tossed my proposal for a Pedestrian Committee to staff like it was a hot potato, but can you explain to me why I’ve had no response to my inquiry about the disbandment of the Bicycle Committee?

Greg Fowler, Candidate Ward One.

Subject: RE: Follow-up re Pedestrian Committee
Date: Thu, 8 Jun 2006 13:29:18 -0400
From: “Lysynski, Heather”
To: “Gregory Fowler”

Mr. Fowler:

Your communication was referred to the Board of Control for its consideration. The ETC report will be going to the Municipal Council meeting on Monday (June 12th).

Hope this helps.


Heather Lysynski
Committee Secretary
City Clerk’s Office
661-2500 x 4856

From: Gregory Fowler []
Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 1:23 PM
To: Lysynski, Heather
Subject: Follow-up re Pedestrian Committee

Ms Hlysynski,

Since I’ve had no response from anyone, and since the minutes of the 2006/05/29 ETC meeting are not yet online, perhaps you’d be kind enough to tell me how my communication (Agenda #9) was dealt with?


Greg Fowler.

Date: Wed, 17 May 2006 15:45:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gregory Fowler
Subject: Inquiry
CC: Thomas O’Brien ,,,,,,,,

Environment & Transportation Committee
City of London
c/o Heather Lysynski, Committee Secretary

May 17, 2006

Please be advised that I am interested in exploring the possibility of forming a pedestrian committee for the City of London , and the creation of a Pedestrian Charter, similar to those which already exist in the City of Toronto .

I understand from a recent agenda that the bicycle subcommittee has been disbanded. Might I receive some background information about what led to that decision, and whether it might negatively impact upon the creation of a pedestrian committee?

For more than a decade, I have been publicly active in advocating for things like increased police services, walkway lighting, etc. Pedestrian rights is simply the latest extension of that, and is driven by increased public environmental awareness, the city’s adoption of a Transportation Master Plan, the hiring of a TDM Co-ordinator (albeit with an insufficient budget), an aging population, and an alarming increase in the incidence of vehicle/pedestrian collisions.

I am attaching a recent communication to London Police Services which reflects that concern, and I ask that you give it your consideration and hopefully your support as well. I also note the excellent LFP May 16 column by Julie Ryan (“Give pedestrians ‘brake’ they deserve”) and I encourage you to read it if you have not already done so.

In the event that you might be receptive to the formation of a pedestrian committee, any recommendations from you would be very much appreciated.


Mr. Gregory T. Fowler
962 Eagle Crescent
London , Ontario ; N5Z 3H7
(519) 649-0500

Date: Tue, 9 May 2006 14:08:59 -0400 (EDT)
From: Gregory Fowler
Subject: RE: Police Enforcement & Pedestrian Safety
To: Thomas O’Brien

Sgt. O’Brien,

Thank you for your willingness to investigate my complaint.

I note with regret the article in today’s paper (“Cab hits senior in core”; Patrick Maloney; 2006/05/09), and I feel compelled to repeat the same warning that I’ve made many times before. London is headed too much in the same direction as Toronto and other large municipalities have gone, and vehicle/pedestrian incidents are inevitable unless we take aggressive measures to prevent it.

You are quoted as warning that “pedestrians need to be careful crossing city streets” and I have no problem with that. What bothers me is that you never seem to talk about the other side of the coin, and as a result I’m left with the impression that you have a bias against pedestrians.

Mr. Maloney attributes you as saying last month that “For the most part, pedestrians are at fault.”

I witness many incidents in which pedestrians behave in an unlawful and dangerous manner. I first started speaking out against that and other behaviours many years ago, when Chief Faulkner was still a Deputy. It’s one of the reasons that I publicly campaigned for an increased police budget so that more officers could be hired, something that even Chief Faulkner wasn’t doing.

But please. Let’s not try to pretend that drivers don’t share any responsibility for these incidents.

As I reminded you during our recent meeting at City Hall, walking is a natural right. Pedestrians don’t have to be licensed by the province, and the province can’t legislate against it.

Certainly, pedestrians are not at liberty to act with complete disregard. Hence, prohibitions such as R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 140 (4) with which I completely agree.

On the other hand, driving is not a right, it is a privilege (R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s. 31). And with that privilege, comes the legislated responsibility that drivers do everything possible to be in full control of their vehicles at all times, and those are so numerous that I feel it is unnecessary to cite them.

Until this city starts taking action to curb the seemingly insatiable selfish desire of people to use private automobiles to get to their destinations in the shortest possible time, and to curb our ever-increasing population, vehicle/pedestrian accidents will likely continue to increase. But London Police Services can try to keep it from becoming an epidemic.

I ask you again consider the possibility of conducting sting operations, similar to those which are employed by the Los Angeles Police Department (see:


Greg Fowler, Ward One Municipal Candidate.

LTC Long-Term Service Growth

November 30, 2006

At yesterday’s LTC meeting, Commissioners received the “Gapping Analysis” interim report as part of the Long Term Service Growth Plan (background information).

Administration was directed to finalize the report for presentation to the 2007/01/31 LTC meeting.

LTC Facility Requirements

November 30, 2006

LTC Commissioners have voted to retain the existing Highbury Ave. facility (which is now +50 years old?), noting that the facility requires an estimated $11.9 million (2006 dollars) in upgrades and repair. They also approved the rebuilding of the Highbury Ave. complex within the next 20 years at an estimated replacement cost of $45.6 million (2006 dollars) + unestimated demolition costs.

Commissioners also voted to construct a satellite facility (by 2009?) to accomodate an expansion of 110 buses. The estimated capital cost of the 2nd facility is $25.2 (2006 dollars).

Read the staff report here .

LTC Long-Term Growth Strategy

June 8, 2006

The Long-Term Growth Strategy Report & recommendations were accepted “in principle” at yesterday’s meeting.



In 2005 LTC began 4 studies to guide it and the city in meeting the Transportation Master Plan’s 10% transit mode share target:
1 – Route Design: short-term route structure assessment; long-term transit design study.
2 – Policies & Guidelines: transit supportive policies and technical guidelines.
3 – Transit & Parking: TDM parking policies and program.
4 – Service Integration: strategy/process for integrating conventional and specialized transit. (here)

The Long-Term Growth Strategy Report sets out the framework for various initiatives to be undertaken over the short-to-long term leading to attaining the mode share targets that are set out in the TMP. It must be viewed in context with the following studies:
1 – City of London Official Plan
2 – City of London Transportation Master Plan
3 – City of London Long Term Corridor Protection Study
4 – London Transit Ridership Growth strategy plan and other related plan documents
5 – London Transit’s review/upgrade to the AVLC.

The various plans and studies serve to define:
1 – how the city has and is expected to continue to grow and develop
2 – how transit services are to develop in terms of service design (frequency, routing, types of service) and delivery
3 – expectations (expressed as a mode share target) for public transit service as a key component of a sustainable transportation system

The completion of the Long Term Growth Study was under the direction of a Steering Committee consisting of transit and civic administrations (Transportation, Signals and Parking, SHIFT, and Planning).

Key findings and directions of the study are:
1 – Adoption and implementation of an Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Strategy which promotes the use of higher order transit to improve the speed, frequency, comfort, and reliability of transit services on key corridors
2 – Using a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) platform to provide premium-level service to customers. The BRT system for London will feature higher levels of service and operating speeds, a range of transit priority measures, exclusive transit rights-of-way, faster passenger boardings, and a system image that is uniquely identifiable
3 – LTC administration prepare and maintain a Design Manual for BRT Corridors to address such issues as lane width, spacing/design of stations and stops, and customer information and passenger amenities.
4 – develop transit priority triggers for areas outside of the BRT corridors
5 – submit formal comments for the 2006 Official Plan review to incorporate the nodes and corridors into policy documents
6 – prepare and publish Transit Supportive Design Guidelines
7 – City of London, in cooperation with London Transit, develop a comprehensive parking strategy, as committed to through the 2004 TMP.

The following phasing of BRT corridors is recommended as part of the Long Term Growth Strategy:

Short Term Medium Term Long Term

The achievement of the City’s transit mode share target cannot be achieved by London Transit alone; it will require strong support from the City of London, including a re-examination of existing land uses such as parking.

LTC (and other public services) and Taxes

December 10, 2005

Her Worship the Mayor, and London City Council
c/o Mr. Kevin Bain (, City Clerk



The 2005/11/30 meeting of the London Transit Commission included a 2005/10/25 communication from the City Clerk, Kevin Bain, and which itself reflected an 2005/10/24 inquiry from ward 7 Councillor Paul Van Meerbergen with respect to the status of public transit for the community of Lambeth. In his letter to the Mayor and members of City Council, Councillor Paul Van Meerbergen asserts that “a bus route to Lambeth is needed now” and he asks, “why is a bus route to Lambeth not in the current plans?”

In his tactfully worded response to the Councillor, LTC General Manager Larry Ducharme referred to such things as return on investment and population growth projections, etc.

Allow me to provide my own interpretation of the situation.

Public transit, and many other necessary public services in London, is inadequately funded. That is why there are insufficient numbers of buses in operation, necessitating unacceptable wait times by transit users, and negatively impacting ridership. That’s also why we continue to see increases for monthly passes, tickets, and cash fares. And those increases, combined with poor service, further negatively impacts ridership.

Why don’t our elected representatives put their supposed concern for the environment where their mouths are? For years I have advocated 100% government funding of public transit. Increased individual taxes to fund the public service could be more than offset by individuals who abandoned their private automobiles and who would then realize many associated costs. At the same time, the LTC would undoubtedly realize substantial savings from no longer having to collect fares, manufacture and sell passes/tickets/transfers, etc. The municipality would realize substantial savings in maintenance to our roadway infrastructure from reduced traffic, reduced numbers of vehicle collissions, a reduced need for police traffic enforcement, etc.

The biggest obstacle to increased funding for public transit, or any other public service for that matter, is Councillor Paul Van Meerbergen. More than any other current local politician, he has consistently argued for reduced municipal taxes.

It’s a popular position to take, especially as election time approaches. But why don’t I ever hear Councillor Paul Van Meerbergen talking about the downside? Why doesn’t he ever refer to the impact upon those members of our community who depend most upon public services?

It was with considerable interest that I recently read of the Councillor’s request for walkway lighting in Byron, following the recent regretable attack in that community. And I wonder, does Councillor Paul Van Meerbergen not make any association between the inadequate funding which is being earmarked for pathway lighting in London, and his own political posturing at budget time?


Mr. Greg Fowler.

A Rate Hike for LTC?

September 2, 2005

Isn’t London’s public transit system in bad enough shape already?

According to an article in today’s newspaper (LTC ponders higher fares“; London Free Press; Hank Daniszewski and Megan O’Toole), the 2006 LTC budget “already suggested a fare hike of 6.1 per cent — a figure likely to rise, although Ducharme wouldn’t say by how much.”

Don’t our civic so-called “leaders” realize that increased fares only drive away riders which results in decreased revenues and subsequent service reductions which results in even fewer riders?

The LFP article misleads it’s readers into thinking that this is a healthy transit system, by stating that “Since 1998, the LTC has led the nation in ridership growth, with a 46-per-cent increase.” What the article ignores however, is that there were years of ridership decline preceeding that growth, and that really there was nowhere else for ridership to go.

But let’s not kid ourselves! That growth was more likely a result of desperation on the part of dependant citizens, and NOT a reflection of good service.

Anybody who thinks that London ratepayers receive good service from the LTC should read my previous comments on this subject.