muller877
Senior Member
When you look at absolute dollars it will always be the case. But you have to consider the time value of money. Look at the long-term cost of debt for these projects at around 6%. You would expect it to cost 5.7x more.
|
|
|
London Rapid Transit (In-Design)
- Thread starter Midtown Urbanist
- Start date
When you look at absolute dollars it will always be the case. But you have to consider the time value of money. Look at the long-term cost of debt for these projects at around 6%. You would expect it to cost 5.7x more.
crs1026
Superstar
We should look at it from the other end of the telescope. What is the payback period for BRT.....ie when will it be paid off so if it is changed to LRT we haven't wasted capital?
Ottawa is a good case study. They started BRT in the eighties, and only now made the move to LRT. Perhaps they will do it differently next time, but Ottawa certainly got good use out of its BRT investment before the switch.
Hamilton and London may be missing a lesson, but perhaps it takes that long to transition from a car based city to a transit based city. The 'tough love' will come in five years when Ottawa, KW, and Mississauga are all in operation and London's Council says "oops". Will we forgive them, or do they have to pay off the BRT before we offer funding to upgrade?
- Paul
Ottawa is a good case study. They started BRT in the eighties, and only now made the move to LRT. Perhaps they will do it differently next time, but Ottawa certainly got good use out of its BRT investment before the switch.
Hamilton and London may be missing a lesson, but perhaps it takes that long to transition from a car based city to a transit based city. The 'tough love' will come in five years when Ottawa, KW, and Mississauga are all in operation and London's Council says "oops". Will we forgive them, or do they have to pay off the BRT before we offer funding to upgrade?
- Paul
kEiThZ
Superstar
Disagree. This completely ignores both the tube value of money and demand. Put it this way: you're single and you know you'll have a family someday. Do you buy a 4-bedroom house to start?
The BRT is more than adequate for London. The only really value of LRT was a sense of permanence with transit. On the other hand as BRT has shown in Ottawa. Build it right and you can get smaller cities loving transit. Ottawa's BRT was absolutely maxed out before they switched to LRT. And despite the core being LRT, most of Ottawa still has BRT service. The Express service concept was also very popular. London could have similar services with their BRT which would be quite transformative for London.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Often ignored in Ottawa's case is the fact that BRT allowed them to expand rapid transit with local funding and the odd provincial and federal dollars. Didn't always require huge committments. Just slow and steady expansion. All while BRT was protecting many corridors for LRT expansion eventually. This is why Ottawa only needed a tunnel of a few kms in the core with surface running elsewhere. It's also why construction outside the core has been painless and will be largely completed within 2 years.
Mississauga and Hamilton are right to build LRT if other governments are throwing money at them and the ridership is there. Doesn't make Ottawa's BRT a bad idea. I think Ottawa's a great example on how to build and scale rapid transit with a smaller budget.
TOareaFan
Superstar
What if they look at then and say "wow, our BRT is serving us well and some of those other LRTs are hurting for ridership and costing too much to operate" will we then practice tough love or will we allow the overbuilt LRT(s) to convert to BRT
crs1026
Superstar
What if they look at then and say "wow, our BRT is serving us well and some of those other LRTs are hurting for ridership and costing too much to operate" will we then practice tough love or will we allow the overbuilt LRT(s) to convert to BRT
Well, converting to LRT to BRT would save money, so yes, it would be worth it ;-)
But yeah, the joke may be on Queens Park. One would expect the GTA to make astute use of a mixture of heavy rail, light rail, and BRT, choosing what's best for each part of the network. "LRT everywhere" is as dumb as "Subways, Subways, Subways".
I'm more passionate about LRT in Hamilton than in London. Hamilton has real leverage to become a cool, liveable urban core. LRT does do a little to stimulate that kind of development and I do think LRT could be transformational there. London is always going to be a sleepy, sluggish provincial burb with no real urban vision.... BRT may be quite enough to move people efficiently. No point in polishing the cannonball there.
- Paul
Haljackey
Active Member
Tunnel on Richmond may be scrapped, creating a level crossing for RT.
Mega Project Deja Vu
http://www.lfpress.com/2017/05/12/l...years-ago-over-a-freeway-that-was-never-built
While reading, listen to
Mega Project Deja Vu
http://www.lfpress.com/2017/05/12/l...years-ago-over-a-freeway-that-was-never-built
While reading, listen to
syn
Senior Member
I have a few friends that've moved to London - they really enjoy it. Housing prices seem to be rising quite quickly too.
Definitely seems like a city that needs some serious transit investment.
Definitely seems like a city that needs some serious transit investment.
kEiThZ
Superstar
What's crazy to see to is how much people like BRT in Ottawa. I went to few consultations. People love their one seat ride on the Express buses. The public loathed the idea of a transfer.
I used to wish London picked LRT. Wife's from there. And it's on the list of a future home once my military career ends. But the more I think about it, I think Ottawa shows why BRT would do well in London. A lot of one-seat rides would dramatically bolster ridership. And eventually, they'll be able to convert to LRT easily.
I used to wish London picked LRT. Wife's from there. And it's on the list of a future home once my military career ends. But the more I think about it, I think Ottawa shows why BRT would do well in London. A lot of one-seat rides would dramatically bolster ridership. And eventually, they'll be able to convert to LRT easily.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
So the City Hall finally agreed to pass the BRT rapid transit plan last night.
The most contentious issue was the 900 meter Richmond tunnel. It was needed as Oxford & Richmond is amongst the most congested corner in the city made much worse by the fact that 100 meters from it is a level crossing CP track used 8 times a day including rush hour. London has been trying to get CP off the track for decades but CP has been it's usual diplomatic self and has constantly balked at the idea. The local merchants also didn't want it as it would have required land acquisition on vibrant Richmond Row.........the city's premier and high end shopping, café, nightlife, and restaurant mecca backed up by a wealthy populace and very politically powerful lobby. The downtown core section also seems a bit odd but will probably be tweaked.
In a nutshell it's a $500 million {$120 million from the City and the rest from Ottawa & QP} project being 24 km in 2 "L" shaped routes with exclusive road ROW, modern articulated low-floor buses, far fewer stops, POP, modern stations, frequent service, and will connect the largest centres of employment, education, medical, and office in the city including all 3 hospital, downtown, Richmond Row, Western, Fanshawe, high population density areas, and terminate at the 2 largest malls in the city..............Masonville in the north and White Oaks in the south. In will connect busy and high density population centre of Oxford & Wonderland in the west and Fanshawe in the east with a proposed further eastbound extension to the airport.
No one got everything they wanted but seems like a solid plan and for London to do anything at all on the transportation front is miraculous in itself.
The most contentious issue was the 900 meter Richmond tunnel. It was needed as Oxford & Richmond is amongst the most congested corner in the city made much worse by the fact that 100 meters from it is a level crossing CP track used 8 times a day including rush hour. London has been trying to get CP off the track for decades but CP has been it's usual diplomatic self and has constantly balked at the idea. The local merchants also didn't want it as it would have required land acquisition on vibrant Richmond Row.........the city's premier and high end shopping, café, nightlife, and restaurant mecca backed up by a wealthy populace and very politically powerful lobby. The downtown core section also seems a bit odd but will probably be tweaked.
In a nutshell it's a $500 million {$120 million from the City and the rest from Ottawa & QP} project being 24 km in 2 "L" shaped routes with exclusive road ROW, modern articulated low-floor buses, far fewer stops, POP, modern stations, frequent service, and will connect the largest centres of employment, education, medical, and office in the city including all 3 hospital, downtown, Richmond Row, Western, Fanshawe, high population density areas, and terminate at the 2 largest malls in the city..............Masonville in the north and White Oaks in the south. In will connect busy and high density population centre of Oxford & Wonderland in the west and Fanshawe in the east with a proposed further eastbound extension to the airport.
No one got everything they wanted but seems like a solid plan and for London to do anything at all on the transportation front is miraculous in itself.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Hard to tell from your post....did the tunnel get scrapped or is it included in the final plan?
Haljackey
Active Member
Yes, tunnel was scrapped.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Sorry, it could have been clearer, the tunnel was scrapped due to the political pressure and the cost estimate has skyrocketed by 60%. If the City would have demanded a tunnel be part of the proposal to vote on the entire system would have been voted down.
Haljackey
Active Member
One of the reasons why LRT was ditched in London was because Western University said there would be vibrations during construction that could affect some sensitive equipment and whatnot. And maybe some from the trains themselves when operating.
I thought... okay.
Then I visited York University station where they tunneled below the freaking centre of the university, right below some buildings too! What gives, Western?
I thought... okay.
Then I visited York University station where they tunneled below the freaking centre of the university, right below some buildings too! What gives, Western?
Haljackey
Active Member
Large article on the London Free Press today regarding the tunnel kill
http://www.lfpress.com/2017/06/11/b...uring-which-londons-brt-tunnel-plan-collapsed
In a nutshell the tunnel went from 90 million
to 220 million
to potentially 300 million+
Cost for the tunnel would be almost as much as the rest of the system, and would be 'expected' to be covered by the province / feds. The city thinks some of that cost would be 'shifted' back to them which is one reason why they backed out.
That damm railroad!
http://www.lfpress.com/2017/06/11/b...uring-which-londons-brt-tunnel-plan-collapsed
In a nutshell the tunnel went from 90 million
to 220 million
to potentially 300 million+
Cost for the tunnel would be almost as much as the rest of the system, and would be 'expected' to be covered by the province / feds. The city thinks some of that cost would be 'shifted' back to them which is one reason why they backed out.
That damm railroad!