|
|
|
London Rapid Transit (In-Design)
- Thread starter Midtown Urbanist
- Start date
dowlingm
Senior Member
Lolz at Edinburgh. An implementation that the locals have moaned about since forever due to costs and practicality. But sure, it has a nice look and no one has Google these days.
nfitz
Superstar
No LRT for London.
BRT or bust!
http://www.lfpress.com/2016/04/29/l...jected-the-880-million-bus-rail-hybrid-option
BRT or bust!
http://www.lfpress.com/2016/04/29/l...jected-the-880-million-bus-rail-hybrid-option
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
Not very ambitious are they?
The $200 million difference would have been covered by another level of government, the Province has promised every other city and their mother LRTs already, and the Federal government is willing to open its pocketbook. And if all else failed, London could always have reverted back to the cheaper BRT plan.
The $200 million difference would have been covered by another level of government, the Province has promised every other city and their mother LRTs already, and the Federal government is willing to open its pocketbook. And if all else failed, London could always have reverted back to the cheaper BRT plan.
Forgotten
Active Member
Somewhere ssiguy2 is crying in the rain.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,566
- Reaction score
- 9,597
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
It was exciting to see London contemplate LRT, and I'm disappointed that the idea was dropped. But the reason why it makes more sense in Waterloo Region and less sense in London is because most of the major trip generators are on a linear path - Conestoga, UW, WLU, Uptown, Downtown, Fairview Park (and eventually, Galt). The urban area is centred on this line, and only Conestoga College is left off.
London is more difficult. The main hospital campus and White Oaks Mall is to the south, Fanshawe is to the east, UWO and Masonville to the north. There's a need to revitalize Dundas Street East. Traffic is worst on Wellington Street South. Sprawl spreads from all directions from Downtown. I can see why they went back to a BRT-only plan.
London is more difficult. The main hospital campus and White Oaks Mall is to the south, Fanshawe is to the east, UWO and Masonville to the north. There's a need to revitalize Dundas Street East. Traffic is worst on Wellington Street South. Sprawl spreads from all directions from Downtown. I can see why they went back to a BRT-only plan.
44 North
Senior Member
It's unfortunate, and I think many saw this coming. I wouldn't say London isn't ambitious, rather pragmatic. From looking at other LRT costs in the region, their proposal appeared to be a very low-balled estimate that no doubt would've crept up substantially. Another issue is their population growth, which iirc was something like 70k to ~2030. Maybe that's big for SW Ont, but really it's peanuts when compared with the GTHA. So I doubt there would've been much development dollars, political donations, or (hypothetically) much of an organized criminal element behind the plans. And plus, London and area is only a few ridings, so it's probably not very valuable for the Prov or Feds to offer any major infusion of vote-winning transit dollars - whether promised, or actual. This is again unfortunate, seeing that they do have strong and stable transit usage, particularly when compared to many areas in the GTA.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I find it a refreshing change to see a municipality actually look at potential ridership realistically and say "yeah, we could go hat in hand and ask for more money to build more than we need just because the other guys got that...but, you know what, dedicated lane BRT will serve our needs well in to the future"......this is what evidenced based planning says we should do....and if we are going to be disappointed every time someone rejects LRT (even for good reasons) then lets take all other transit options of the table and save time and money and just place LRT all over the place!
Buses are perfectly viable transit options, in the right setting with the right infrastructure built around them they can, and do, move a lot of people....let's not forget that!
Good on ya London!
Buses are perfectly viable transit options, in the right setting with the right infrastructure built around them they can, and do, move a lot of people....let's not forget that!
Good on ya London!
W. K. Lis
Superstar
London, Ontario wants "Underground, Underground, Underground"!!
ssiguy2
Senior Member
How sweet of you to think of me. I can't help but be touched.
I would strongly disagree with this but not for the reasons you think. I happen to be a strong supporter of BRT and I think it is far more useful and pragmatic than many LRT proposals such as the Finch LRT which will be no faster than a bus but cost twice as much. I find most LRT systems, especially, in the US are nothing more than candy for politicians who's sole purpose for wanting one is because "everyone else has one" and the travelling publics needs are irrelevant. Also many LRT systems do not get the kind of ridership that is needed to come close to justifying their operational costs which means cuts have to be made elsewhere.
What I am ticked off about is that London deserves it's full funding of the money it has requested more than KWC, Hamilton, or Brampton do as London has higher total and per=capita ridership levels than any of those cities. If London decides it should go BRT then fine but it should still go for the same $800 million and make the system larger.
I am also concerned about some real logistical problems particularly Oxford & Richmond. London has no urban freeways and is crossed by disjointed roads, railway tracks, and of course the Thames River. In short, London's traffic is a nightmare. It has, by far, the worst traffic problems of any comparable size city in the country, it's not even a competition and anyone who has ever driven in London in rush hour knows that that is not hyperbole.
Oxford and Richmond is not only an incredibly busy intersection but just one block south of it towards downtown is a busy level rail crossing and when the train goes thru it brings the entire area to a screeching halt and there are no viable alternative routes.. This is why they were going to build the tunnel there with an underground station. I don't see that happening with a BRT system and it will bring the system to a dead halt.
Also, politicians are usually less keen to give up a complete ROW along a street for a bus than they are an LRT. This means that often full BRT get downgraded to BRT-Lite and eventually nothing more than a bus with fewer stops.
If London thinks that BRT is a better choice then it should go for it but the same amount of money should be offered regardless, the entire ROW must be preserved thru the entire corridor like the LRT proposal, the system should compensate by being larger, and they still will have to create an underground/tunneled bus station at Oxford & Richmond.
salsa
Senior Member
Not true. The Finch bus averages 17 km/h. The LRT would be 23 km/h. But more importantly, LRT has higher capacity than buses.
Midtown Urbanist
Superstar
ssiguy's point still remains though. 23km/h is rather slow and something easily achievable with buses on our other suburban routes.
Could we have increased the speed of the Finch bus to comparable levels with the LRT through simple use of bus lanes or queue-lane jumping?
TOareaFan
Superstar
Based on the Finch LRT's web page, it is a valid question to ask could the volume of people have been moved with a less expensive option? The page says:
So is there another option than LRT that can handle 2,800 pph at peak? I think that is what London looked at and said ....yep, BRT.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I don't want this to turn into a Toronto thread. My point about Finch was simply that if you give a bus the same POP, stations, ROW as an LRT it's just as fast and even more reliable as it can maneuver around accidents etc while LRT just sits there.
The problem is that often when lines are created a BRT they often get down graded to BRT-lite and then just a bus with fewer stops. If London thinks BRT would be better than the LRT then fine but the design and application should be exactly the same.
Also London should still get it's $800 million and they can create a larger BRT system.
There also remains the logistical problem with BRT at Oxford & Richmond. There were 2 main reasons why London wanted LRT for the one corridor................it connects fast growing Masonville to UWO to Downtown. to Fanshawe with a potential extension to the airport. The other reason is due to Oxford & Richmond where the level rail crossing is and where the tunnel neede3d to be put. They figured if they were going to have to build an underground section for 4 blocks and an underground station then they might as well make it LRT from the start.
The problem is that often when lines are created a BRT they often get down graded to BRT-lite and then just a bus with fewer stops. If London thinks BRT would be better than the LRT then fine but the design and application should be exactly the same.
Also London should still get it's $800 million and they can create a larger BRT system.
There also remains the logistical problem with BRT at Oxford & Richmond. There were 2 main reasons why London wanted LRT for the one corridor................it connects fast growing Masonville to UWO to Downtown. to Fanshawe with a potential extension to the airport. The other reason is due to Oxford & Richmond where the level rail crossing is and where the tunnel neede3d to be put. They figured if they were going to have to build an underground section for 4 blocks and an underground station then they might as well make it LRT from the start.
salsa
Senior Member
1. Metrolinx is misleading us when they say the capacity of LRT is 15,000 pphpd. The Finch LRT is not designed for that kind of ridership. Even with complete grade separation, that is pushing the limit.
2. "A peak point demand of 2,800 people per hour would require a vehicle about every 2 minutes, 45 seconds." That's the headway using Light Rail Vehicles. To even attempt to handle that with buses is a recipe for bunching and unreliable service.
3. Ridership projections often do not take into account latent demand. Regardless, when was the last time these Miller era projections were updated? In 2014 the Finch bus all-day ridership was 43,952 (source), about the same as Spadina and Queen streetcars in fact. Over regular service hours, that works out to be almost 2,500 per hour on average - a number that is certainly even higher during peak periods. If all this is true, 2031 might be happening today as we speak.
4. Speaking of 2031, by the time the LRT is built, that date will be only 10 years away. However the design life of LRT is at least 30 years. During that time, the city will continue to grow. Humber College and York University will continue to expand. Car ownership will continue to decline. Connecting bus routes will continue to get higher ridership and more frequent service. I fully expect that ridership on Finch will only go up as time goes on. The ability of LRT to accommodate future growth is a benefit that should not be understated.
I'm not sure about London, but thank goodness Toronto did not settle for inferior BRT that would be mostly full on day one, let alone in the future. Not to mention better development potential, no more diesel buses, a completely rebuilt streetscape, higher ridership for lower operating cost, longer lasting vehicles, a ride that is smoother, quieter and more spacious. Too bad Brampton will be missing out on the benefits of LRT (at least for the time being). Would have been paid for by the province too. Shame!
Sure, but you get what you pay for.
From the EA: "The Etobicoke-Finch West Corridor does not have sufficient space for a 3.5 metre by-pass lane while at the same time providing standard facilities for sidewalks, bicycle lanes, four through lanes and left turn lanes for general traffic."
Attachments
Last edited: