micheal_can
Senior Member
And yet that is what you suggest for more than half of London.
I tried using VIVA to the subway and it would have been longer than the "slow" bus. So, that is what I am suggesting.
And yet that is what you suggest for more than half of London.
Trust me, it would've probably been slower as an LRT.I tried using VIVA to the subway and it would have been longer than the "slow" bus. So, that is what I am suggesting.
It is going the wrong way for it to have worked.. Also, it was not close enough to me for it to have worked as well. There are things like this that you need to accept about suburbia. That is why focusing on the downtown and the closer parts and the parts that are large fare generators is the key.Trust me, it would've probably been slower as an LRT.
I noticed you have not said you were from or lived there and whether you used transit or not in London.The fact that you think transit planning for a city of half a million should be based entirely on your commuting experiences (mostly in the GTA) and the opinion of a few relatives in London, says a lot.
What other multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects should we just ignore good engineering and design practices for?
San Francisco is 10x more walkable and a lot more aesthetic than London, Ontario is, and is one of the most aesthetic cities on the continent...No it isn't. Abandonment is the major sign of urban decay. Even the ugliest of ghettos are still a representation of life, its less of a question of existence as much as it is a question of how much of a city they take up. San Francisco is a massive L when it comes to ghettos and being ugly when it comes to the amount of Ghettos - and even then the last thing I'd call san francisco is in a state of "urban decay" or "lifeless". On the other hand, when most of your offices are abandoned and unused - that's a much bigger sign that something is truly wrong with your city. It means your city no longer holds any economic power, and is reliant on external forces to remain sustainable.
Define what you mean. Fine is definitely underselling it. Its definitely an extremely usable local transit network - and is a great example for the rest of North America to follow, the importance of service compared to infrastructure.
???
What route doesn't have enough frequency for the demand? The only thing I can think of is maybe certain streetcar routes, but even then we just ordered 60 new streetcars in addition to the existing 20 we have.
?????????????????????????????
I have absolutely NO idea what you're trying to say here.
A lot of cities were leveled, and while it did do a lot to improve transit, it in no way is a requirement - and those cities are proof of that. Most european cities already had massive transit networks prior to WW2 - especially cities like Vienna, Berlin, London, and Paris. They were building tons of transit even before they were leveled, and post WW2 only saw a moderate increase of transit construction overall.
This has nothing to do with the war...
I noticed you have not said you were from or lived there and whether you used transit or not in London.
Actually, my commuting experiences are all over Canada, well, at least in 3 provinces.....and 7 different places.So, no I don't have a vast experience, but I have a good grasp on the challenges commuting by transit in Canada.
The fact that you don't get there's a world of transit systems (usually better) beyond Canada says a lot.
I already discussed my personal experience with transit in London. But I've also lived in 4 countries on two continents, lived in 4 provinces, and been to 9 provinces. Including traveling to a dozen countries on 4 continents. I've had my fair share of interaction with both good and bad transit. And here's what I say: I'm not a transit engineer. I listen to the guys that do this for a living and try and understand their rationale to have informed discussion.
Edit: Forgot New Zealand. Make that 5 continents.
I have yet to get to Africa, Europe, Asia and Oceania.
The problem is that the politicians do not listen to transit engineers, but instead listen to their base. So, if your base is car centric, you are not going
You've basically never experienced quality transit then. And especially not in a city the size of London.
Just because a city has a rail system doesn't mean it has a good transit system. Rail also does not equate to better service or faster speeds. Torontonians are about to discover that when Eglinton & Finch LRTs open up and they find that they aren't moving any faster than the bus they replaced.
Londoner want good transit and the BRT system will provide that. One also has to look at the cost advantage of BRT. Is it better to have a small LRT serving fewer people or a much larger BRT system for the same price serving tens of thousands of more people and hundreds of more destinations? Also, the LRT/streetcar advantages over buses have been greatly reduced it the last few years.
BRT systems now offer the fast boarding of LRT with low floor accessible entry/exit, advance stations, and real time arrival. The vehicles are also vastly superior as they are completely wheelchair accessible, smoother riding, and very importantly electric which offers far faster acceleration, a much quieter ride, no pollution, and better ability to climb steeper grades than the traditional. Due to being electric the cost savings of electric LRt and diesel buses has been greatly reduced. Due to larger buses, they also have the carrying capacity of streetcars. China has deployed electric double articulated buses on their many BRT systems and the buses are 28 meters.