News   Sep 30, 2022
 3.8K     1 
News   Sep 30, 2022
 3.4K     7 
News   Sep 30, 2022
 1.4K     0 

London Rapid Transit (In-Design)

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
1,478
Yes, there is the old London-Port Stanley Railway and it is in OK condition as it still used by the VERY occasional freight train and would be good for a commuter line but is only one track and more importantly doesn't come close to the Amazon plant.

I think if they work out a deal with London/STT/Elgin, it should be run by London Transit. It's a natural extension of the Wellington Gateway BRT. The corridor will have very good service and even every, for example, 3rd bus continuing past the White Oaks terminal onward to ST would still offer service of every half an hour all day. It also would have the benefit of serving the huge industrial/commercial employment area south of the 401 in London itself which London is planning to serve with a circular route anyway.

The route would serve Amazon and continue 2 km until downtown ST. They hopefully have full integration and LT receive a subsidy of some kind for offering the service. This plant will be running 24 hours a day and ST simply doesn't have the fleet, infrastructure, and money to run such a service 7 days a week all day and into late-night while London certainly does including those essential articulated buses. The new articulated BRT buses are also going to be electric.
 

Haljackey

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
636
Reaction score
428
Location
London, Ontario
Looks like the city put the final nail in the coffin yesterday for the west leg of the BRT route. They are choosing to use the money to instead build a new transit HQ, and build infrastructure for electric buses.

 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
1,854
Looks like the city put the final nail in the coffin yesterday for the west leg of the BRT route. They are choosing to use the money to instead build a new transit HQ, and build infrastructure for electric buses.

So, it is more important to run a diesel fleet and BRT than it is to switch over to an electric fleet?
 

Bureaucromancer

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
599
Reaction score
615
So, it is more important to run a diesel fleet and BRT than it is to switch over to an electric fleet?
Is the priority improved service and ridership or shrinking the impact of providing the service? Making it either/or ends up with an obnoxious apples/oranges comparison that there’s probably no realistic way to create a meaningful quantitative analysis of.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
1,854
Is the priority improved service and ridership or shrinking the impact of providing the service? Making it either/or ends up with an obnoxious apples/oranges comparison that there’s probably no realistic way to create a meaningful quantitative analysis of.
When you have limited funds, it has to be an either/or. I am guessing someone did the math and felt it was better to do the conversion now. Besides, hasn't it already been discussed that this council is anti RT?
 

Bureaucromancer

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
599
Reaction score
615
I am guessing someone did the math

hasn't it already been discussed that this council is anti RT?
That’s exactly my point; I suspect the math hasn’t been done, and that there isnt all that meaningful a set of math to be done given the multiple layers of modelling needed. The second issue is, in other words, a far bigger part of the decision.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
1,854
That’s exactly my point; I suspect the math hasn’t been done, and that there isnt all that meaningful a set of math to be done given the multiple layers of modelling needed. The second issue is, in other words, a far bigger part of the decision.
This could be the excuse they were looking to use to delay. Why would you or anyone be surprised?
 

Bureaucromancer

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 7, 2010
Messages
599
Reaction score
615
This could be the excuse they were looking to use to delay. Why would you or anyone be surprised?
Who said I was surprised?

a bit frustrated, but my expectations of this project have never been all that high, let alone since dropping the tunnel and letting the university limit frequency.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
1,854
Who said I was surprised?

a bit frustrated, but my expectations of this project have never been all that high, let alone since dropping the tunnel and letting the university limit frequency.
I misunderstood it for shock.
There is a fall election, so things may change.
 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
3,571
Reaction score
1,478
I would have preferred the city go ahead with the Western BRT but this is still a very good investment and one that is way overdue.

The current facility is old, small, and decrepit and will not be able to provide maintenance and recharging for the city's new electric fleet which is wants to be 100% by 2035. The LTC has been pleading with the city for a new and modern facility for decades so this is a desperate move to spend infrastructure money at the last minute.
As the city continues to expand it's service {BRT, regular, and express} this facility is not optional.

Yes, sending the funds to these new facilities was politically expedient so the Mayor and Council don't have to relive the BRT debate but that doesn't change the fact that this is a vital piece of infrastructure that London desperately needs
 

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,337
Reaction score
6,406
So, it is more important to run a diesel fleet and BRT than it is to switch over to an electric fleet?

I would choose BRT over electrification any day. BRT increases ridership and reduces car dependency across the city. Electrification, though great for the environment, and for managing costs, doesn't do much to grow ridership. This decision to forego the Western leg of the BRT is going to effectively lock in car dependency and sprawl along that corridor for another generation.


When you have limited funds, it has to be an either/or. I am guessing someone did the math and felt it was better to do the conversion now. Besides, hasn't it already been discussed that this council is anti RT?

I doubt they did much analysis. And if they did any, it was basically to come up with a justification on why their choice was cheaper. I doubt ridership was a major concern.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
1,854
I would choose BRT over electrification any day. BRT increases ridership and reduces car dependency across the city. Electrification, though great for the environment, and for managing costs, doesn't do much to grow ridership. This decision to forego the Western leg of the BRT is going to effectively lock in car dependency and sprawl along that corridor for another generation.

You would, but what about the citizens on a whole?
Would it be smart to buy your new electric buses outside of a massive contract in a much smaller contract?

I doubt they did much analysis. And if they did any, it was basically to come up with a justification on why their choice was cheaper. I doubt ridership was a major concern.
Assuming a BRT in the city will see drastic changes in ridership and as such is the reason it should be chosen over electric buses is a false equivalency.
 

kEiThZ

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jul 31, 2008
Messages
11,337
Reaction score
6,406
You would, but what about the citizens on a whole?

Where did the citizens of London get a say? Council is deciding this before the next election.

Would it be smart to buy your new electric buses outside of a massive contract in a much smaller contract?

They are buying the buses in multi year contracts either way. Nowhere does it say any buses are being retired early. And nowhere does it say that buses have to be paid for upfront. That's not how rolling stock contracts work anyway.

Assuming a BRT in the city will see drastic changes in ridership and as such is the reason it should be chosen over electric buses is a false equivalency.

So you're saying there's no returns on building higher order transit? If that's the case, guess all the train lines you keep talking about are pointless.....
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
1,854
Where did the citizens of London get a say? Council is deciding this before the next election.

Are you saying the last election did not count? They voted in these anti transit councilors. So,yes, they did have their say. This next election may change that, but it also may not. What will you say when they get roughly the same city council?

They are buying the buses in multi year contracts either way. Nowhere does it say any buses are being retired early. And nowhere does it say that buses have to be paid for upfront. That's not how rolling stock contracts work anyway.

The difference is that the BRT will be an additional cost. With everything going up and governments strapped for cash at all levels, like it or not, the council is doing the prudent thing.

So you're saying there's no returns on building higher order transit? If that's the case, guess all the train lines you keep talking about are pointless.....
I am saying that when you have finite funds, it is smarter to go all electric to save on fuel costs than to go all electric and build a BRT at the same time.
 

Top