[miketoronto]

Click on the link below and let me know what you think of my idea for a Light Rail system for London, Ontario.

Do you think the corridors make sense, etc?

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=102251676755671311847.00045fb3499392a1e5816&ll=42.981544,-81.199608&spn=0.127341,0.307617&t=h&z=12

Please note that the red line uses Worthley Road, because that is the heart of Old South London and is a real street retail urban district.

Your ideas on this.

[manny_santos]

Not a bad plan, although I really question how much use the system would get outside of when Western and Fanshawe classes are on. It just seems to be a waste of railway tracks that would get much less use during four months of the year plus on weekends.

I would use articulated buses on bus lanes and bus roads much like in Ottawa, although few dedicated bus roads would be needed in London compared to Ottawa. Existing corridors like Richmond would just need to be widened one lane in each direction. That way there are roads that can be used by high-occupancy vehicles in addition to articulated buses at all times of year.

There should also be some sort of regional public transit system connecting St. Thomas, London, and other areas or the immediate region. This could include use of railway tracks. How about a return to passenger service on the old L&PS?

[vid]

I made the argument a while back that London wasn't built for LRT and the Londoners yelled at me...

[DHLawrence]

If you mean one Londoner in particular, he seems to yell at everybody. Don't take it personally.

[worldwide]

i like the idea oh having a westbound train going to wortley/commissioners but i also think that any kind of transit we build should go to oxford and wonderland. theres at least 50 high rises in that section of oxford. i always thought the cp rail tracks would make a good corridor through the west side

[MolsonExport]

My preference would be north-south axis of Richmond (from Masonville)-UWO-Downtown-Wellington-White Oaks, and an east-west axis along Oxford street, from Wonderland to Highbury.

[Stevo26]

I'm new here, but I'll weigh in with my two cents' worth since I live in London. Warning - a bit of a rant follows.

In some ways, London is a natural for light rail - two of its busiest arteries, Wonderland Road and Oxford Street, are wide enough to accommodate a LRT line without needing much in the way of further widening.

On the other hand, Wharncliffe and Wellington Road are where LRT is most desperately needed, but both will require substantial widening. Particularly Wharncliffe, which has two bottlenecks created by railway overpasses - one at the intersection of Horton, and the other just north of Oxford Street.

I can understand why city council has no appetite for light rail. The amount of land that would need to be expropriated to accommodate LRT would be fairly large. This alone would cost some pretty serious money. Then on top of that, you'd have the obligatory environmental and countless other studies to do.

Then there would be the endless rounds of consultations with citizens, special-interest groups, developers and business owners, and these alone could take years to complete.

Finally, even if you could get the political will to drive the first shovel into the ground, city council itself would cause delays. After all, London has always been known as a city whose government is glacially slow to move on anything that could be considered even remotely controversial. With the end result that opportunities that need to be taken and taken soon, don't get taken, things don't get done and in the end nobody ends up happy.

Remember that it took the city the better part of a decade to dither over what to do about the historic Talbot block building. By the time the city got around to doing anything, the building was in such an advanced state of disrepair that it couldn't be rehabilitated. For a time, the 'save-heritage-buildings-at-any-cost' crowd was placated, but in the end they ended up with nothing. And now all that the city has to show for its refusal to make some tough decisions, is a replica facade of the Talbot Block gracing part of the John Labatt Centre, and this makes a total mockery of what made the Talbot Block so important.

More recently, the city has taken nearly two years to make a firm decision on the Sifton Bog deer cull, effectively paralyzed by the well-meaning but ignorant 'save the deer' faction. Like it or not, culls are both good and necessary facets of proper wildlife management. Had the city acted sooner, fewer deer would have needed to be culled.

The city is at a crossroads, and really doesn't have the luxury of delaying a decision on meaningful public transit much longer. It has a choice to make: either make the necessary investment in LRT and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lines, or see London relegated to being an economic backwater, accept increasing problems with gridlock and allow downtown traffic to become totally unmanageable (it's almost all the way there as it is).

To manage the cost of a LRT project, the city would be well advised to start with installing a LRT line on one major artery, then start another one as funds become available, and so on.

To throw up one's hands and say, 'London can't afford LRT lines' is not an acceptable excuse. The Kitchener-Waterloo region found a way to come up with $300 million to start a LRT line, so why can't London do the same? The K-W region isn't that much bigger than London.

The city's plan to create a number of BRT lines seems weak and half-hearted. As far as the city is concerned, a target date of 2024 seems quite acceptable, and it's almost entirely dependent on funding from higher levels of government, which is to say the BRT lines will never get built unless upper-tier governments take the lead and do the job city council should be doing.

Not long ago, I had the chance to chat with Peter Langan, the founder of High Speed Rail Canada. He remarked that in most parts of Europe, cities with populations as small as 100,000 have LRT lines. In many instances, he added, European cities start LRT lines sooner rather than later, realizing that accommodating the inevitable reality of population growth is not a luxury, but a crucial necessity.

[ldoto]

:previous: Welcome Stevo26 to the London local forum hope to hear from you again.

Btw you have some good points on your thread at you posted:D


Thanks Ldoto

[eternallyme]

Considering its size and design, I think a heritage trolley-style LRT would make most sense. A comparable example I can find for a similar-sized city is in Little Rock, Arkansas (based on their plans and build-outs).

[Stevo26]

Considering its size and design, I think a heritage trolley-style LRT would make most sense. A comparable example I can find for a similar-sized city is in Little Rock, Arkansas (based on their plans and build-outs).

eternallyme,

I think you've got a very valid point - a heritage style LRT line running along Oxford Street (where we had the original streetcar line) would be an excellent idea, and probably all that city council could be convinced to attempt now.

Make the service really frequent - should be easy to do - and you'll have no shortage of riders.

[SlickFranky]

The first thing LT needs to do is identify where such lines should/would go. Up to now road widenings and improvements have not factored in space for LRT/BRT because those lines have not been identified. At that point they can start adapting the bus system (funnelling transit to those routes and providing them with high frequency bus service), and adjusting zoning and construction along said routes. Council may not think LRT is prudent now, but they need to acknowledge that some day it will be. If we start planning for that future now we can severely reduce its cost when the time comes to start laying track.

[QuantumLeap]

link doesn't seem to work for me?

[Koolfire]

I'm new here, but I'll weigh in with my two cents' worth since I live in London. Warning - a bit of a rant follows.

In some ways, London is a natural for light rail - two of its busiest arteries, Wonderland Road and Oxford Street, are wide enough to accommodate a LRT line without needing much in the way of further widening.



I agree that London has to do something to keep the city moving. But I would be hesitant to think vehicular will convert into LRT ridership. The problem with Oxford as I see it is that it is the only East-West road in the north until Fanshawe Road. To reduce traffic on Oxford they need to connect Huron to Sarnia or Windermere to Gainsborough. As for Wonderland, I'm not as familar were the congestion is excatly, but it is possible that if you reduce congestion on Oxford, Wonderland might improve in that area.

The real irony that I see is that because London did not imbrace freeway/expressway building model in the 60s, there is no good corridors for the LRT to exploit.

The best thing that is a resonable cost to implent to improve transit would be to:
Close Dundas from Rideout to Ontario (Well maybe not that far) to all non transit traffic. Widen the sidewalks for patios and store displays by removing on street parking.
Do the same with Clarence from Central Ave to at least York. I would connect it directly to Richmond. And I would consider a transit only underpass south of York.
Then add HOV lanes and priority signals for transit on Wellington, Richmond, Dundas.


In the long term, if they are serious about becoming a transit hub for Southern Ontario. I would start to negotiate with CP and CN about building new container yards near the 401/402 and new lines to serve them. The hitch being that we get to take over some of the existing lines running through London so that they can be repurposed for LRT. It also could have the added bonus of stimulating grow south of the 401.

[SlickFranky]

link doesn't seem to work for me?

me neither

[Stevo26]

I agree that London has to do something to keep the city moving. But I would be hesitant to think vehicular will convert into LRT ridership. The problem with Oxford as I see it is that it is the only East-West road in the north until Fanshawe Road. To reduce traffic on Oxford they need to connect Huron to Sarnia or Windermere to Gainsborough. As for Wonderland, I'm not as familar were the congestion is excatly, but it is possible that if you reduce congestion on Oxford, Wonderland might improve in that area.


Realistically, the only way car drivers will move over to LRT is when LRT gets them where they need to go faster than a car will, or with considerably more convenience and preferably both. For given distances covering a one-way trip, and considering how typically slow London traffic is at peak times of the day, this might prove feasible.


Connecting Huron Street with Sarnia Road (and similarly linking Windermere Road to Gainsborough) isn't likely to happen. The well-heeled ratepayers in both neighbourhoods (and UWO in the case of a Huron-Sarnia linkage) are likely to strongly object. Although you are correct in stating that linking both roads will take a lot of pressure off of Oxford street.



The real irony that I see is that because London did not imbrace freeway/expressway building model in the 60s, there is no good corridors for the LRT to exploit.

You're right. For decades, London has consistently 'dropped the ball' on transportation planning. It is now reaping the consequences. In spades. These are likely to get worse as London continues along the path of emerging as a metropolitan centre.

I'm at a loss to know why successive city councils in London have persistently shied away from proper transportation planning. Cost can't be the issue; I'm thinking that politics are playing a very big role - as in, how can we possibky expropriate land without losing votes?



The best thing that is a resonable cost to implent to improve transit would be to:
Close Dundas from Rideout to Ontario (Well maybe not that far) to all non transit traffic. Widen the sidewalks for patios and store displays by removing on street parking.
Do the same with Clarence from Central Ave to at least York. I would connect it directly to Richmond. And I would consider a transit only underpass south of York.
Then add HOV lanes and priority signals for transit on Wellington, Richmond, Dundas.


Good idea. We're thinking on the same wavelength here, because I've long thought that Dundas Street between Talbot and Wellington Streets should be closed off and turned into a pedestrian mall, like the Sparks Street Mall in Ottawa. Failing that, definitely dedicate that part of Dundas to transit only.

If you've ever seen how congested that part of the street gets during even daytime non-peak hours, youcan easily see that having cars continue to share it with buses is quite asinine. Yet the city, wiith its unslakeable thirst for revenue, throws common sense out the window and puts parking spaces with meters along those parts of Dundas where they shouldn't exist.



In the long term, if they are serious about becoming a transit hub for Southern Ontario. I would start to negotiate with CP and CN about building new container yards near the 401/402 and new lines to serve them. The hitch being that we get to take over some of the existing lines running through London so that they can be repurposed for LRT. It also could have the added bonus of stimulating grow south of the 401.

Now there's an idea. Again, I too have always thought that if the city assumed the CN/CP tracks that run through the city, they would have a virtually ready-made solution for LRT. I wonder why they haven't pursued this option. The tracks are capable of taking the pounding dished out by miles-long freight trains, LRT should be many magnitudes less brutal.

It would be interesting indeed, to see what kind of 'quid pro quo' CN and CP would want for such an arrangement. Methinks it would be money, or a break on taxes for a while - either way, a whack of cash the city might not be prepared to hand over. But if the city wants those lines, it's going to have to
pay for them, one way or another.

You mention 'stimulating growth south of the 401'. What kind of growth did you have in mind? I ask because London is already pretty spread out and we really should be focusing on intensifying housing density to combat the problem of urban sprawl.

[Koolfire]

You mention 'stimulating growth south of the 401'. What kind of growth did you have in mind? I ask because London is already pretty spread out and we really should be focusing on intensifying housing density to combat the problem of urban sprawl.

Industrial mainly. I some how doubt that a container yard is going to attract residents, but it will attract manufacturers that want quick access to multiple tranportation options.

But it is nuts not to consider residental communities as well to service new stimulated industrial area. Letting people live closer to were they work makes senses economicly and envoirmentally.

Now you have two ways to intensify, new infill housing and dictated housing density by area design.

[ldoto]

:previous: One day it will happen!!!!:rolleyes:

[SlickFranky]

I imagine the main reason those lines have not been relocated is that both companies also have fairly large rail yards within the city as well. Routing the lines themselves would be fairly inexpensive (factoring in the gained efficiency), but building new yards would be pricey. There's also the issue of the various businesses in London that use those lines eg. Kellogg, GM
On the plus side, should those lines be converted for LRT, those sites would be prime for TOD, especially the area off Quebec St.

[ssiguy]

The map link didn't work for me either.

Yes, London has done a lot of things right. Yes London does move at a glacial speed which is partly city hall and also Londoners in general. London is not a city where people like drastic changes. London's transportation policies has been one of its most solid..............avoid it and just let everyone wallow in traffic.
London does {contrary to popular belief} have quite a good transit system and its ridership levels are high compared to other similar sized cities. LRT could work well. LRT down Richmond into UWO and back to Masonville and possible on Fanshaw Park Road over to Adelaide. The line at UWO could split with half the trains heading north and the other further west to Sherwood Park.
Use the damn rail ROW paralle to Wellington down to White Oaks. It also goes right thru the new Vic Hospital. From downtown thru Wortley Road to Commissioner and then over to Westmount.

Where I disagree with most here is that I do NOT support an Oxford Street LRT. Go to Fanshaw via Dundas to Highbury and then north to Fanshaw. Dundas is a busy corridor that needs to be served, as well as the up and coming Old East.

[ilp]

I'm new here, but I'll weigh in with my two cents' worth since I live in London. Warning - a bit of a rant follows.

In some ways, London is a natural for light rail - two of its busiest arteries, Wonderland Road and Oxford Street, are wide enough to accommodate a LRT line without needing much in the way of further widening.

On the other hand, Wharncliffe and Wellington Road are where LRT is most desperately needed, but both will require substantial widening. Particularly Wharncliffe, which has two bottlenecks created by railway overpasses - one at the intersection of Horton, and the other just north of Oxford Street.


I wholeheartedly agree with that statement, but it's not all true. Wellington does narrow once you pass Baseline Road (about a 36m ROW) heading towards the downtown, but in that area you can have a Shared Lane (LRT/Tram mixed with vehicle traffic to use the same lane, much like TO's streetcar system). From Baseline up to White Oaks, there is a 40m ROW, which can allow for a dedicated LRT/Tram line down the centre of the road, and still keep 4 lanes of traffic.

You can see from this image that it could work (still a work in progress!)
http://wellingtoncorridor.moonfruit.com/#/photos/4534521458


The real irony that I see is that because London did not imbrace freeway/expressway building model in the 60s, there is no good corridors for the LRT to exploit.


I beg to differ! Many major cities are now tearing down their once beloved freeways and making them into something completely different! A great article can be found on the Infrastructuralist (http://www.infrastructurist.com/2009/07/06/huh-4-cases-of-how-tearing-down-a-highway-can-relieve-traffic-jams-and-help-save-a-city/)

You can integrate LRT/Tram onto basically any road; people just have to be willing to see change.

:notacrook:

----------------
Now playing: Black Mountain - Night Walks (http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/black+mountain/track/night+walks)
via FoxyTunes (http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/)

[GreatTallNorth2]

I am not sure if the problem in London regarding transportation (and everything else) is a leadership problem or a problem with the citizens of London. It's probably both. We have had many years of no vision in the mayor's chair (Diane Haskett and Anne Marie). And with Anne Marie planning to run for mayor until she's 90, it's going to really suck to live in London. Kitchener now has LRT approved and we haven't really even considered it. The way things are run at city hall is the problem. Anne Marie would never question the planners at London Transit. If they say horse and buggy, then that's what we'll do. I can't believe that London Transit is saying we are building BRT. Real BRT would be fine with me because real BRT has dedicated roads and ROW (OC Transpo). Our BRT plans are for lane jumps and express buses. BIG DEAL! What also sucks is that the government would probably pay for us to have an awesome transit system and the city just doesn't have the desire to build one. This is the 1970's all over again when we lost out on a freeway. When we finally see the light (rail), it will be too expensive to build. Welcome to London, Ontario. Who can we blame except for us idiots who keep voting them in?

[SlickFranky]

While it's true LRT can be adapted to work in a variety of situations, Koolfire does make a point. Freeways provide a nice wide, clear ROW along established travel routes. This is even more true in places that are converting the expressway back to alternate uses.

As for London, I don't think we should be looking at surface LRT. The issues we have are with speed, service hours, and operating cost. Streetcar/trolley style LRT does little to help any of these, though it does provide higher capacities and a better ride. Also, anything that removes precious lanes would never fly in this city.
My dream system for London would more closely resemble Vancouver's. Elevated, automated LRT with a decent bus system feeding the lines. We'd need massive support from the province to get it going of course, as the initial costs are quite high.

[ssiguy]

Those are VERY expensive systems and provide little in return for the billions spent. SkyTrain is only for true mass transit.
BRT can work well especially down Wellington rail ROW at LHS @ Commissioners and along Dundas to Highbury up to Fanshawe and UWO via Wharncliffe/Westtown to Masonville.

First things first thou.......London has got to get some late-night buses.

[SlickFranky]

Oh yeah, I understand. VERY, VERY expensive. A simple N-S line could easily top $1B...that's why it's my dream system, not the one I expect we'll ever see. Our density pattern doesn't come close to making this worthwhile. And as much as people complain about our traffic, this kind of investment is not warranted.
We really do need to address some of the simple things first...extended hours being the first on the list.

[ldoto]

High-speed rail: Area drivers being surveyed

Thu, July 16, 2009



The Ontario government is looking hard at London as it eyes a possible high-speed rail service.

Debated and studied for more than 30 years, high-speed rail in the Windsor-Quebec City corridor isn’t a new idea.

But now there are signs the provincial and federal governments are taking the concept more seriously — and London is in the mix, transportation observers say.

While such a system would cost billions of dollars to build and maintain, it could relieve highway congestion, help the environment and extend the reach of Ontario commuters.

“We are seeing some positive signs,” Grant Hopcroft, the city’s director of intergovernmental and community liaison, said Thursday. Hopcroft has been working with the province and believes the idea is getting serious attention.




“We know there have been concrete steps taken . . . there has been supportive talk around making this happen,” he said.

One sign of the new attention the idea is getting is now landing in the mailboxes of some London drivers, with the province’s Transportation Ministry sending out survey letters on high-speed rail to those who’ve recently used Hwy. 401.

“That is a concrete first step when it comes to planning,” said Jeff Casello, associate professor in the school of planning and department of civil engineering at the University of Waterloo, who’s written on the issue.

“They are capturing user perception to get a sense of who is traveling in the corridor for whom this service may be attractive,” he said of the government.

High-speed rail in the London area was the subject of a recent conference organized by the London Economic Development Corp. The Richard Ivey School of Business at the University of Western Ontario also looked at the issue in a transportation policy workshop last year.

“It is good news to me — they are obviously doing research and likely to do more,” Dianne Cunningham, director of the Lawrence National Centre for Policy and Management at the business school, said of the ministry survey.

“This is the way of the future and we have not been efficient in how we provide transportation,” she said.

Studies have placed the cost of a high-speed, Windsor-Quebec rail link anywhere from $18 billion to almost $30 billion. Annual maintenance costs would also be high, since the track would have to be kept in meticulous condition, said Casello.

In Europe and Japan, high-speed rail has been used for years.

There have been some suggestions a Canadian system, which could take 10 years to build even if a decision was made now, would start small, in the Toronto-Montreal corridor, the Greater Toronto Area or Edmonton-to-Calgary, before expanding to smaller cities such as London and Windsor.

But the cost of repaving and rebuilding roads is also high. Hwy. 401 is under reconstruction from Woodstock to Kitchener-Waterloo and studies suggest it’s at full capacity, needing another upgrade soon.

It costs $200,000 a km to repave a two-lane stretch of the 401. To build a section of city road is about $5 million per km for four lanes, and the 401 — which uses different asphalt and concrete — is “much, much more expensive,” said John Lucas, city manager of transportation planning and design.

The survey letter tells drivers: “We are conducting a traffic survey along the Windsor-Quebec corridor. We want to determine whether there is enough demand for high-speed rail along the corridor.”

The questions centre around where drivers begin and end trips, number of passengers, driving costs and income levels.

The Ontario, Quebec and federal government are doing a $3-million study of high-speed rail from Windsor to Quebec, and will review studies done in the 1990s, said Hopcroft.

“They know we are interested and supportive and that we want a station here,” said Hopcroft.

Several issues are converging to create a receptive environment for high-speed rail, including federal-provincial stimulus spending, environmental concerns that favour rail over roads, Hwy. 401 congestion and because President Barack Obama is expanding high-speed rail service in the U.S.

In southern Ontario, high-speed tracks would free existing tracks for freight only, so more could hauled, said Casello.

He said the downside of high-speed rail isn’t its heavy upfront cost, but its very expensive maintenance.

[MolsonExport]

studied for 30 years...and now, more studies. at some point, you need to graduate to some action.

[Northern Light]

If K-W can support LRT there is no reason London can't.

From an economic stand point, from a population standpoint, from a political/ideological standpoint.

London is comparably sized, maybe still a bit larger, it has comparable financial resources and is not inherently more car-friendly than K-W, which is not a historic bastion of transit users!

The issue, to my mind is 2 fold.

First is show that there is latent demand and to build up transit ridership, this was the K-W strategy.

First they introduced I-Express, a spine corridor service with fewer stops, running every 15 min or better all day.

Then as ridership climbed, the argument for LRT became more apparent and easier.

You have a large number of transit riders, and motorists see more benefit from less traffic.

London needs the same strategy. A network of 'spine' services/routes that are faster, more frequent and run 6am-1am 7 days a week without fail.

London also needs to somehow draw in a car-share service which is part of that cultural-shift that allows a portion of residents, even middle-income residents near downtown to choose a car-reduced or car-free lifestyle.

That's much harder to obtain w/o a car-share service. Somehow K-Ws Grand River Car share is up at 10 or more locations after just a few years, and they are now growing into Hamilton! Again, if it can be made to work there, then it can be made to work here.

***

Once the City is more ready for LRT, maybe in 4-5 years all going well, the key is where to put it. My firm belief is that linking UWO to Downtown is the highest priority as this demographic is your largest group of current and potential transit users; after which you grow the line(s) to serve other key trip generators such as major shopping areas or hospitals, along routes that make sense.

[ilp]

Hi guys/girls,

Some friends from class are working on their undergraduate thesis project and need the public's help regarding transit satisfaction with LTC.

Here are the links:
http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=119956330688
http://spreadsheets.google.com/viewform?formkey=cnB0TlUtLXlLa0FnLW5wQXlkYnFscnc6MA

[SlickFranky]

Size isn't everything. As has been brought forward several times (though still up for debate), London is not particularly well suited for higher order transit in its current state. These types of systems seem to work best in alignments with either corridors or nodes, and London doesn't fit either of these. London is mostly low density, with seemingly randomly placed chunks of transit friendly-ish development sprinkled throughout the city. There is no single path to unite these mini-nodes, and even though they all share a single draw (downtown), none are significant enough to pull in higher order transit or massive development.

K-W-C, although similar in size, has a much more lrt-friendly alignment. The three major centers line up pretty well, and there is decent travel between all three. We have one center, with dozens of minor draws radiating outward. Our layout demands a dozen minor routes, while theirs can run one major route with a few minor routes as feeders.

That said, our city could easily be pushed into a more logical pattern. The N-S line seems the logical starting point (Whiteoaks-DT-UWO-Masonville), hitting the three medical centers, three shopping centers, and the heart of the transit-friendly youth market. We should be cranking up bus service on that line, bending nearby routes to feed it, and encouraging further development (particularly at commissioners/wellington...that empty space really bugs me, especially with a grocery store right across the street). I'm not a huge fan of our tower-in-a-park commie blocks, but if we must build them, we could at least place them where they can be properly served by more efficient transit.

[ldoto]

'It is a different way of thinking'

A four-line streetcar route shaped like a cross, with downtown London in the centre and the arms reaching north, south, east and west.

Two rectangles of bus routes intersecting those streetcar lines. GO trains heading east and west, and light rapid transit rail heading to smaller centres.

And all along the routes, people-friendly streets with commercial, retail and residential development built at key connections.

An ambitious plan unveiled yesterday at city hall turns the idea of London's transit system on its head.

Instead of buses and streetcars being an afterthought to development, the transit system would actually determine where and how the city grows.




"It is a different way of thinking," city planning and development manager John Fleming said yesterday after a short presentation to politicians. "We use transit as a way for sparking growth and attracting investment."

The plan, called an urban structure plan, is a long way from being implemented.

The city's planning committee merely commented on the plan and referred it to several other city agencies, such as the London Transit Commission, for comment.

"I like what we're trying to do, but most of us won't be around when it happens," Cont, Bud Polhill said.

"We are just beginning the discussion," agreed city planner John Fleming.

But it's a discussion Londoners should have, he added.

Cities across the U.S. are using the same principals to guide development in their major activity centres and residential neighbourhoods, and link the two, said London's urban designer, Sean Galloway.

In Toronto, all you have to do is look down from the CN Tower to see where the thriving, mixed-density neighbourhoods rise -- at the subway stations that lead to the core, he added.

Mixed residential-retail and commercial neighbourhoods would thrive in London where the streetcar, bus and rail lines intersect, Galloway said.

In London, the major centres of activity include the downtown, the University of Western Ontario, Fanshawe College, the hospital campuses, the airport, Innovation Park and, at the centre, the downtown.

The transit system would move people within London, and to London.

"Downtown should be the centre of Southwestern Ontario and we need transportation that allows that to happen," Galloway said.

[Stevo26]

Interesting idea. Not the first time I've seen a Utopian proposal for London's urban environment. Nor will it be the last. I say 'Utopian' because city council seems to have a persistent lack of vision and political will to actually try to realize such proposals.

As proof, I offer the fact that we'll have Bus Rapid Transit lines in London no sooner than 2024, but only if an upper level of government agrees to provide 100% funding.

At that rate, cities slightly smaller or roughly the same size as London's CMA (Census Metropolitan Area) will be way ahead of London when it comes to advanced public transit.

For example, Kitchener-Waterloo-Cambridge is already getting started on at least one LRT line and should have the beginnings of it in place by 2012.

As an aside, it's interesting to note that the population of K-W-C is expected to grow to 729,000 sometime in the next fifteen to twenty years. When it hits that point, it will become Ontario's next major urban centre, second only to Missisauga in size and population.

If London wants its downtown core to be the heart of southwestern Ontario, then it had better get a move on now, not in 2024!

[MolsonExport]

All talk and no walk. At least, no walk that is straight. just drunken meanderings like timothy best

[Stevo26]

All talk and no walk. At least, no walk that is straight. just drunken meanderings like timothy best

Or, as I like to put it, 'Money talks, and bullshit walks!' :D

[SlickFranky]

The new proposal sounds like something like this (http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=107956137300909335075.0004741fbb07cd72fd41f&z=10)(?).

Why streetcars? Don't get me wrong, I love them. I use the Queen, Dundas, Bathurst, and Carlton lines on a regular basis. Streetcars can improve comfort, capacity, reliability (in some cases) and air quality. Those are all great, but with London's roadway issues I think LTC should be trying to complete on speed. That of course means separate ROW, which means money, which means it's not happening. Without ROW all they can really do is ramp up frequency and run some express routes, and you don't need streetcars for that.

And sorry to be a downer, but GO? GO to where? I assume by GO they mean commuter rail, and London is WAY too small/isolated for that. It's a fairly sprawly city, but not nearly to the point where commuter rail has a place.