News   Apr 23, 2024
Avontuura's Wanderer Guides Designed For Architecture Buffs to Geek-out in Toronto, and Worldwide
 17     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
Queen's Cross Food Hall Brings Global Flavours to Toronto Eaton Centre
 539     0 
News   Apr 23, 2024
News Roundup for April 23, 2024
 398     0 

London Rapid Transit (In-Design)

W. K. Lis said:
London may end up following the Ottawa path with their BRT. Ottawa is upgrading to LRT now only after they built their BRT and found it wasn't enough.
Click to expand...
seems that Ottawa got over 30 years of real good use out of their BRT/Transitway before they found that out.
 
Haljackey said:
By going BRT only, it's still just bus service in my mind. There's a certain sigma about riding the bus, and I think despite having a more efficient bus system, it will make London look paler compared to other cities compared to LRT.
Click to expand...

True. Even if London instead downgraded the "LRT" portion to a short stretch of streetcars operating in mixed traffic, it'd still give the city more clout than any BRT or BRT-lite plan. IMO at least. I don't care for buses, and I think it'd be wise for a city like London to at least lay the groundwork for a small section of LRT. A bus system will never put a city on the map no matter how good it is. Street rail will.
 
I don't think the 'everyone else in Ontario is getting LRT so London should too" is a valid argument. You don't build rapid transit for recognition, ribbon cutting ceremonies, or to keep up with the Jones. You build transit to best serve the needs of the city now and into the future and ego should not be part of the conversation.

That said the hybrid seems to make the most sense. The LRT will be the much busier of the two lines and connect the city's largest employment, shopping, and entertainment districts. London is the only major city in Canada without some form of rapid transit and yet it has enviable ridership levels which speaks volumes about Londoners willingness to take transit when it is a viable option.,

The good ridership projection for the LRT and the logistical problems of Richmond & Oxford requiring a tunnel, I think the hybrid option is the best for the travelling public and future growth plans.
 
TOareaFan said:
seems that Ottawa got over 30 years of real good use out of their BRT/Transitway before they found that out.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can compare Ottawa to London as they are very different. Even taking in the population difference of when Ottawa started the Transitway and London starts construction of it's system, the are very different animals.

Ottawa had the Rideau Canal, 417, NCR Parkways, and a more open public realm to take advantage of to make the Transitway a success. London has none of those things. Despite sprawling like all other cities, London has a very solid built urban form. There is no open spaces, old rail corridors, river paths, or urban freeways to take advantage of.

London's lack of freeways have left the city in tact without the scars that come with freeways ie Kitchener but it's not just freeways that London lacks. London roads are quite thin and there are few roads that actually cross the city. No road that enter the downtown from one side continues on the other. This has left London with horrific traffic problems but has also help make it's transit system quite successful..............if you are going downtown or to Fanshawe/UWO, driving isn't much faster than taking the bus. London has so many traffic choke points I couldn't name them all but Oxford & Richmond is probably the worse due to being 2 very busy inner city roads that have solid built forms and yet cannot be widened backed up by the CN level rail crossing.............a tunnel must be built there to maintain speed and a schedule.

It is for this reason that an LRT with a tunnel is the best bet and the before mentioned points explain why Ottawa and London are not comparable.
 
TOareaFan said:
seems that Ottawa got over 30 years of real good use out of their BRT/Transitway before they found that out.
Click to expand...
As a kid growing up in Ottawa, I used the Transitway quite often to get around, and it was far by the quickest way to go to the movies, at places like St. Laurent shopping centre, downtown, and other places...

That said, I really think London should go the LRT route, given their metrics.

An LRT without a tunnel is possible, with good traffic signal priority systems. Before they began building their LRT, Kitchener-Waterloo doubled the speed of their express bus by installing traffic priority in their buses.

Does London use any traffic priority systems installed in their buses, to allow them to whoosh through green lights?
 
ssiguy2 said:
...
London's lack of freeways have left the city in tact without the scars that come with freeways ie Kitchener but it's not just freeways that London lacks. London roads are quite thin and there are few roads that actually cross the city. No road that enter the downtown from one side continues on the other. This has left London with horrific traffic problems but has also help make it's transit system quite successful..............if you are going downtown or to Fanshawe/UWO, driving isn't much faster than taking the bus. London has so many traffic choke points I couldn't name them all but Oxford & Richmond is probably the worse due to being 2 very busy inner city roads that have solid built forms and yet cannot be widened backed up by the CN level rail crossing.............a tunnel must be built there to maintain speed and a schedule.

It is for this reason that an LRT with a tunnel is the best bet and the before mentioned points explain why Ottawa and London are not comparable.
Click to expand...

I would not say that the freeways of KW scar the city. In fact I think they have allowed KW not to build a car-centric downtown that would have been required if they were not built. Imagine the congestion if everyone going to UW had to drive along King/Charles/Weber.

London also has their share of highways (and a lot more 4 or 6 lane roads than Kitchener). The only difference is that the highways abruptly end while Kitchener's also serve through traffic (to Stratford and west or St Jacobs and north).

Kitchener and London have about the same number of annual riders for their bus service. London grew this when UWO was farsighted and gave everyone a transit pass before it was common at universities.

The problem with London is that they let the Dundas corridor die. It should be the main street of the city yet I can't remember when I've shopped there or even wanted to be on the road. Now they have nodes of high transit needs all over the city. How do you connect them all? How do you limit the number of transfers to get from point A to B? A BRT may be able to help that by allowing feeder routes to use this express system to get downtown (while a LRT system would require an extra transfer)
 
ssiguy2 said:
I don't think you can compare Ottawa to London as they are very different.
Click to expand...

Good thing I did not compare them then ;)

All I did was respond to someone who said

London may end up following the Ottawa path with their BRT. Ottawa is upgrading to LRT now only after they built their BRT and found it wasn't enough.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I took that wrong but it seemed to suggest that Ottawa realized early on that BRT was not the right choice and replaced it with LRT.

You know London better than me.....so I have not reason to debate your points...but the fact remains that city staff studied the numbers and came to the conclusion that, based on projected ridership, BRT is the right choice for them and that it can handle the ridership and, as I said before, if every municipality that makes that sort of evidence based decision is going to be met with the same level of criticism (and in some places scorn) then we should just take buses off the table and plan for LRTs everywhere.
 
London can certainly use priority light systems but Richmond and Dundas are 4 lanes but no room to spare so there are certainly constraints. Even if London created the world's best priority system, Oxford and Richmond still have to deal with the level CN crossing on Richmond near that dreaded corner.

I hope London does it hybrid plan as the lines and the areas they serve are quite different. The LRT also works into the Downtown London Plan which is going to do a complete remake of Dundas downtown and get rid of all the buses on that section. With LRT taking over the very heavy routes to Fanshawe/Dundas East/downtown/ Richmond Row/UWO/ and Masonville, there is a real possibility they could do it. If they use BRT for that route and it is successful that could mean even more buses downtown than there are now.
 
drum118 said:
Very sad

City council dropping light rail
Click to expand...

As a Western student I'm very disappointed - if we're going with BRT I'd love to see trolley busses, however unlikely as it may be. Can anyone speak to the additional costs of trolley busses?
Vancouver_E40LFR_trolleybus_2214.jpg
 
alexanderglista said:
As a Western student I'm very disappointed - if we're going with BRT I'd love to see trolley busses, however unlikely as it may be. Can anyone speak to the additional costs of trolley busses?
Click to expand...
Buses are going for a Million plus each and you need to add the cost of the overhead and substations.

At the end of the day, you are saving only about $4-$5 million per bus not going to LRT and this excludes any tunneling. Then there is the carhouse vs bus garage cost.

Again, it boils down to $$, not the best option since roads are free for buses. Once you start putting them in their own ROW, then cost of that ROW starts getting up there to LRT cost.

New Flyer is the main supplier of these buses today.

Be very surprise to see Trolley buses in London and more like Electric Buses since this is the next generation coming. London could gone for Battery LRT that will be far cheaper to buy and not having an overhead system to worry about.
 
I'm upset but not because they choose bus based rapid transit.

I'm upset because the city didn't demand the $800 million for rapid transit regardless. For the extra $300 million they extend the BRT to the airport in the east and Byron in the West and be able to build a line from downtown to Westmount.
The has just forgone $300 million that it didn't have to.

Also this system will not include a needed tunnel at Richmond &Oxford so when the train rolls by the entire system come to a screeching halt.

The city seems to have picked the worse possible options.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top