London Rapid Transit (In-Design)

[Kyle Campbell]

Just read the article, as i haven't been following along closely to London, and read the part about Chengs plan for bus bays. Bus bays are pretty 1970s, Ottawa has been busy removing all of them anytime they rebuild a road. They're for prioritizing cars over transit, which is old fashioned these days.

 

[ssiguy2]

Exactly right but it makes him look like he is doing something for transit for political gain. Inner London also has thin roads so even he wanted bus bays there would be no where to put them but he of course didn't bring that up.

London simply doesn't have the road capacity for exclusive bus or LRT lines and, as the city now admits, where there is room it would require the destruction of hundreds of inner city trees and dozens of homes. Needless to say in the Forest City with many lovely old historic homes and neighbourhoods that didn't go over well. It was an ill conceived plan and communication from City Hall was poor from the beginning which has left a bad taste in everyone's mouth.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

That's not really unique to London, but if the political will isn't there then you'd have to go underground, maybe with Mr Subway as premier they should try that approach. While it sounds crazy in North America, it's not that unusual in Europe to have smaller cities with light rail in a tunnel in the historic core, like Rouen France.

 

[Towered]

Just make one of the main streets in downtown London LRT only like in Calgary. Tunneling in a city that size would be crazy.

 

[micheal_can]

What London really needs to do is a semi BRT system. Express limited stop buses to/from major destinations and downtown. This will show the public and the politicians that LRT could work.

The city also needs to change it's plans to allow higher density construction.

 

[ssiguy2]

The original design included a tunnel of about half a km down Richmond to avoid the at-grade rail crossing and the terminally backed up Richmond & Oxford intersection. That however didn't fly as it with the bus-only lane would have brought crucial Richmond down to one lane in each direction, required the permanent destruction of many buildings and trees, as well as played havoc on the road during construction.

Richmond is the only route that goes from downtown to the north of the city and connects downtown, Richmond Row, a hospital, a high density student ghetto, Western, Masonville {which is the largest and busiest mall in the city}, and to the fastest growing urban area of the city in an already fast growing city. If part of a rapid transit system is also a way to help create livable and transit friendly environments then this would have decimated much of it. This is particularly true along downtown's Richmond Row which is the city's premier shopping, restaurant, entertainment, nightlife, and especially restaurant district.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

So what would you suggest, because then for all the same reasons you couldn't provide more space for cars either.

Taking a lane away seems scary, but it has worked in larger cities.

 

[muller877]

The original design included a tunnel of about half a km down Richmond to avoid the at-grade rail crossing and the terminally backed up Richmond & Oxford intersection. That however didn't fly as it with the bus-only lane would have brought crucial Richmond down to one lane in each direction, required the permanent destruction of many buildings and trees, as well as played havoc on the road during construction.
t.

Underground will not work for either Bus or LRT because of a underground river. This river added I recall $100m to a tunnel.

If the city talked with the retired city engineer they would have known it before the proposal. Instead they didn't talk to the "old timers" and realized their folly too late.

 

[micheal_can]

Underground will not work for either Bus or LRT because of a underground river. This river added I recall $100m to a tunnel.

If the city talked with the retired city engineer they would have known it before the proposal. Instead they didn't talk to the "old timers" and realized their folly too late.

Better tell that to another London with another Thames River flowing through their city.... They should have been warned.....

 

[ssiguy2]

What London really needs to do is a semi BRT system. Express limited stop buses to/from major destinations and downtown. This will show the public and the politicians that LRT could work.

The city also needs to change it's plans to allow higher density construction.

I agree and that's what should have been proposed in the first place.

Take the 6 or 7 busiest routes in the city and create BRT-lite along all of them. Large well lite shelters with time display and ticket vending machines, POP, all door exit/entry, articulated and easily identifiable buses, que jumping lanes at key intersections, limited stops, and high frequency all day so schedules are not needed.

This would have served dozens of other key destinations and tens of thousands of more Londoners. It also would have gotten rid of some transfers as many Londoners would have actually seen their commute times INCREASE with the proposed BRT plan due to having their single trip downtown bus now requiring a transfer to the BRT. Such a system could have been introduced quite quickly and very importantly wouldn't have taken away road lanes and resulted in the destruction of hundreds of trees, expensive land acquisition, and the tearing down of heritage homes.

 

[drum118]

London's bus rapid transit project 'pausing' to review heritage property impact

 

[ssiguy2]

Hardly surprising. That section of Wellington was one of the prime areas of concern along with Richmond. Even if they can mitigate some of the heritage concerns {and there are a lot along the route} the destruction of scores of trees will have to happen and Londoners take their trees very seriously.

From the very beginning it was an ill conceived idea. London`s urban fabric is quite dense and very solid combined with a very poor road network with no cross-town routes thru the inner city, thin roads, no urban expressways, the Thames river meandering thru it, and rail lines with many at-grade crossings even on very busy roads such as crucial Richmond. London does not, thank God, have KW`s sprawling urban form nor, due to traditionally being a white collar city, has any underused inner city industrial areas. This later point is why London probably has the fewest {along with Ottawa & QC} warehouse renovations...…….it never had any warehouses.

 

[micheal_can]

I am beginning to think that there would need to be a major outside push for an LRT to be built in the city. A GO train to/from London would be a good push. So, with the skyrocketing housing prices, how soon till that happens?

 

[Bureaucromancer]

From the very beginning it was an ill conceived idea. London`s urban fabric is quite dense and very solid combined with a very poor road network with no cross-town routes thru the inner city, thin roads, no urban expressways, the Thames river meandering thru it, and rail lines with many at-grade crossings even on very busy roads such as crucial Richmond.

That it's difficult is well established, but do you have a better proposal? We aren't going to be building a subway anytime soon and something is needed.

I am beginning to think that there would need to be a major outside push for an LRT to be built in the city. A GO train to/from London would be a good push. So, with the skyrocketing housing prices, how soon till that happens?

Agreed. The LRT proposal was nice, but even I'll grant was largely a status symbol and probably closer to a high end streetcar than LRT. I'm fine with this as a BRT project, and suspect it's a better fit than rail. Waterloo Region is, among other things, different in that it so well supports a single spine with feeders.

As for GO, I mentioned in another thread that I suspect there will be real talk of that if HSR gets killed. I'd rather see HSR, but an all day two way EMU on the NML to Toronto would be a pretty good service and leaves the door open to things like interim shuttle service London - Kitchener (and being cut back to such if HSR happens eventually). GO on the NML, possibly with a transfer in Kitchener or Guelph and VIA on the southern line (redirect Sarnia trains that way and maybe allow GO fares on VIA trains between Brantford and Aldershot ) would make a lot of sense structurally.

 

[kEiThZ]

I am beginning to think that there would need to be a major outside push for an LRT to be built in the city. A GO train to/from London would be a good push. So, with the skyrocketing housing prices, how soon till that happens?

I think London is the kind of city that might make a move after they see how well smaller cities do with LRT. Waterloo and Hamilton deploying LRT would give them the push.

The big issue in Canada has always been that transit is seen largely as the purview of big cities. Particularly rail transit. Trains are something you build for Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. Heck, I saw so much resistance to LRT in Ottawa, when it was being debated there. And largely along the lines of, "Ottawa is a small city. We don't need fancy trams." It's frustrating as hell. This is why I Waterloo, Hamilton and Mississauga are really necessary to spark that transit renaissance.

It's a long shot with the PCs in power. But I hope Waterloo is able to move on their next phase, because that will really how well LRT works in less urban areas. And no city will truly be as instructive for London as Hamilton. I think watching Hamilton get LRT is what would change minds in London. Similar size. Both have large universities that are increasingly anchoring tech sectors there. Hamilton is further along in its transformation into Toronto exurb.