London Roads

[haljackey]

Basically London needs big capital projects to get its road network up to 'snuff. A little widening here, an intersection improvement there will not be enough anymore.

Getting all the major arterials to 4 lanes will really help with traffic and transit flow. BRT works if done well, but I say just skip and go right to LRT like Waterloo Region in a pipe dream. London can do BRT right if it was smart.
-If the city manages to get CP to build a bypass rail line, the route through the city would make an excellent busway.

A lot of the growth happening now is medium/high density development, and thus they need more than the road and transit services of low density development.

[Blitz]

The city, thankfully, declined the freeway route that has destroyed many similar sized cities but the problem was that they never used those saved funds for transit.

What similar sized cities have been destroyed by freeways? Just speaking from Ontario, the freeways in Kitchener, Windsor, and Hamilton have only helped traffic flow in those cities. The fact that London is the largest city in North America without a freeway is not something to be proud of.

[Honest Scientist]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

I think the culture needs to change. Traffic issues will be addressed when the city builds a better transit culture and people think different and change their habits.

Who are you to tell me/us what to change the culture to? I will NEVER give up my car and I will NEVER take a bus. Just HATE them. Filled my quota on those back in my University days standing freezing my ass all winter for 50 minutes once every week after my night class waiting for my transfer. Done for life.

Transit works in Toronto because if you are downtown you can only go north, west or east. Almost all transit from downtown goes north. Transit is VERY frequent and it works!

London SHOULD have a ring road and should have had cross-town freeways ages ago. Look at Lubbock Texas: full ring expressway with full service roads on both sides, full N-S freeway, and brand new billion dollar freeway from downtown W to Texas Tech, and then SW out of town. Lubbock is a little dry and sleepy but is NOT even close to being ruined and has a beautiful campus chock-full of nice Southwest architecture.

Oh, and while I'm at it, I like sprawl - I means you don't have to infill every spec of empty land in the city. I say infill make a urban area feel overcrowded!

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by Honest Scientist

Who are you to tell me/us what to change the culture to? I will NEVER give up my car and I will NEVER take a bus. Just HATE them. Filled my quota on those back in my University days standing freezing my ass all winter for 50 minutes once every week after my night class waiting for my transfer. Done for life.

Transit works in Toronto because if you are downtown you can only go north, west or east. Almost all transit from downtown goes north. Transit is VERY frequent and it works!

London SHOULD have a ring road and should have had cross-town freeways ages ago. Look at Lubbock Texas: full ring expressway with full service roads on both sides, full N-S freeway, and brand new billion dollar freeway from downtown W to Texas Tech, and then SW out of town. Lubbock is a little dry and sleepy but is NOT even close to being ruined and has a beautiful campus chock-full of nice Southwest architecture.

Oh, and while I'm at it, I like sprawl - I means you don't have to infill every spec of empty land in the city. I say infill make a urban area feel overcrowded!

I guess that's the difference between you and me. I would prefer London to follow the example of European cities, which have been building smart cities for many years. You want London to be the next Lubbock Texas.

You want to build a ring outside of the city limits (because it won't go inside the city limits) and I want fast transit to move people IN the city. Your vision is one of yesteryear. It will cost much, much more to build and maintain your vision and will cause much more sprawl. My vision would build up the city and cause infill and smart development. The old boys network has run London for too long.

[MolsonExport]

Lubbock as a role model. Lubbock?

wikipedia


eeewww,

[haljackey]

I guess I'm a fan of a hybrid model. Use both roads and transit.

Transit works great in denser areas and short trips (ex I want to go downtown for the night) but London does not get it right because the timings are too far apart and bus service stops at midnight.
-If the LTC focused on core routes it would see better ridership, but it least it's starting to look at it now with BRT plans.

But remember sometimes transit is only as good as the road network. If the roads are inefficient and clogged with traffic, transit will not be a viable option... What's the point of being in a packed bus in congestion when you can just be in a car in congestion?

I've mentioned that London needs big capital projects for its road and transit system. Building a ring road (or half-3/4 ring) and BRT will solve many of London's woes and it will also create a lot of jobs which even though are just temporary its something the city needs right now.
-Just about every other major city in Canada got at least 1 major capital work project since the 2008 recession.

[Honest Scientist]

Wow! Don't you realize that your choice of terminology, specifically denoting YOUR viewpoint as 'smart' belies a very closed-minded attitude, and an arrogant, holier-than-thou, set of beliefs. Sounds like University didn't give you the open-minded curiosity it did me. You dismissed my ideas as being from 'yesterday' and that only YOU and EUROPE know the better way. Take a step back and think about that.

And what is wrong with Lubbock? I saw the pic in the post you posted above of the downtown - you take away a few of our tallest buildings and the trees (and don't ding them for being in a much more arid climate type than we are here - they do tend to have less trees) and the down town looks a little like London. We have the fantastic Peter McGregor tower, and Park Place on King, The Royal Bank tower from 1965, and the fab Courthouse (and don't forget our gazillion 12 story commie-blocks - in fact they have NONE of those)!

I would then ask what is your point (I think I know what is really behind your zeal on this issue, but that would be another discussion). :^)

Their freeway system is fabulous, and as a result the other surface streets flow well (all the major roads are four lanes and Texas is forward thinking with intersections and dedicated U-Turn lanes every time you come off the Loop that let you get going the other way with out stopping at a red). They are orders of magnitude better than London.

I don't have a problem with an improved transit system here, like crosstown busses that have limited stops and "smarter" scheduling. But the roads and cars should always come first!

And European cities are NOT smarter, they were just laid out a long time ago when we didn't have cars. Cars are here, and are a GOOD thing, so it is SMARTER to have cities that are built for cars!

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

I guess that's the difference between you and me. I would prefer London to follow the example of European cities, which have been building smart cities for many years. You want London to be the next Lubbock Texas.

You want to build a ring outside of the city limits (because it won't go inside the city limits) and I want fast transit to move people IN the city. Your vis one of yesteryear. It will cost much, much more to build and maintain your vision and will cause much more sprawl. My vision would build up the city and cause infill and smart development. The old boys network has run London for too long.

[Honest Scientist]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Lubbock as a role model. Lubbock?
eeewww,

Nice cherry pick..

Here are some other pics of Lubbock - hell on earth because of their good freeways...

[MolsonExport]

Hey there Mr. 15 posts, how about not SHOUTING at those with different opinions? You love Lubbock's lanes of freeways. Good for you. Some of us may have different opinions. You are unlikely to gain adherents to your perspective by having a temper tantrum.

I didn't cherrypick the photograph (but thanks for the accusation); in fact, it was the first that came up in a google search (from wikipedia).

[GreatTallNorth2]

What was it like growing up in Lubbock? I heard they have some amazing freeways...so jealous.

If you want to think that building massive concrete highways around London and maintaining them is smart, go ahead. I think it's far smarter in invest inside the city in a system that can move lots of people quickly.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

What was it like growing up in Lubbock? I heard they have some amazing freeways...so jealous.

If you want to think that building massive concrete highways around London and maintaining them is smart, go ahead. I think it's far smarter in invest inside the city in a system that can move lots of people quickly.

The cities that succeed in the future are the ones that embrace walkability, cycling, and public transit, in addition to roads. CBC Radio's The Sunday Edition had a great discussion on the topic yesterday, and it repeated what I've heard over and over in the last couple of years: Millennials are more interested in walkability and public transit in deciding where to live than their parents and grandparents when they were the same age; they valued the car, and still value it.

By the way, to echo MolsonExport, there's no need for using all-caps.

[Honest Scientist]

I apologize to all for the caps - I didn't mean to shout, just wanted to be emphatic. Probably would be better to use *asterisks*. I always want to keep discussions focused on facts and never get personal or abrasive.

That said, you probably could have looked a little further for Lubbock pics and avoided the derisive comment based on the one pic you found. Fair? And the number of posts I have made should not diminish my right to have an opinion. We should both agree to disagree and keep respect for each other.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Hey there Mr. 15 posts, how about not SHOUTING at those with different opinions? You love Lubbock's lanes of freeways. Good for you. Some of us may have different opinions. You are unlikely to gain adherents to your perspective by having a temper tantrum.

I didn't cherrypick the photograph (but thanks for the accusation); in fact, it was the first that came up in a google search (from wikipedia).

[Honest Scientist]

Well a billion dollar freeway project would produce a heck of a lot of jobs (it was a poster's comment about London lacking a major capital project that prompted me to post).

Lubbock (ruined by freeways!) has an unemployment rate of 5.2% What accounts for the difference between Lubbock and London? Here are the top 10 major employers:

Texas Tech University
Covenant Health System
Lubbock Independent School District
University Medical Center
United Supermarkets
City of Lubbock
Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center
AT&T
Convergys
Lubbock County

London has suffered from the reliance on manufacturing and the heavy losses in that sector. Ironically, take away the manufacturing and London's top employer profile starts to look a lot like Lubbock's (Education, Healthcare, Government). London probably has more Financial/Insurance while Lubbock also supports the heavy cotton production that surrounds it.

Bottom line is the freeways have *not been* a detriment to the city. And Lubbock has a Transit system that includes a Downtown Transfer Station that takes up a *whole city block*: http://www.citibus.com/images/loaded...d45f8e61e5.pdf - and it costs only $1 per ride.

I am *not* against transit, but I am concerned that a focus by some on *only* transit is a mistake. Transit works well under certain geographic conditions. Toronto and other cities with their downtown on a coast have less directions to send people, so the numbers moving in each direction are magnified. Cities like KW will do well with frequent and fast service between nodes (e.g. each of the downtowns) and their extensive freeways aren't going away any time soon.

I think London will do well with frequent and fast transit between Western/Fanshawe and downtown, and one some major cross-town routes (Oxford, Richmond, Wellington, Highbury, Fanshawe Park, Hamilton, and maybe a couple of others.)

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

What was it like growing up in Lubbock? I heard they have some amazing freeways...so jealous.

If you want to think that building massive concrete highways around London and maintaining them is smart, go ahead. I think it's far smarter in invest inside the city in a system that can move lots of people quickly.

[Honest Scientist]

Gotta call on this... who says "cities that succeed in the future are the ones that embrace walkability, cycling, and public transit, in addition to roads."

And how do we know they are right? It may be a popular opinion for Millennials, but it doesn't make it necessarily true. I still contend the degree of suitability of 'walkability and public transit' are directly related to the specific geography of any given city. One size does not fit for all.

And I still do not see a connection between the amount of 'walkability, cycling, and public transit' a city has and the guaranteed success in the future. Those factors may make a city more attractive for those who have the luxury of being able to make their choice of cities based on that - but that is *not* most people. Most people will go where the jobs are and, the degree of 'walkability, cycling, and public transit' is going to be pretty far down the list of where the jobs are for corporations making siting decisions (taxes, labour cost/relations, proximity to resources/other related industries/education, etc all will come first).

Mercedes, Honda, and BMW aren't building cars in the US Southeast because of the number of bike paths in those communities.

Originally Posted by manny_santos

The cities that succeed in the future are the ones that embrace walkability, cycling, and public transit, in addition to roads. CBC Radio's The Sunday Edition had a great discussion on the topic yesterday, and it repeated what I've heard over and over in the last couple of years: Millennials are more interested in walkability and public transit in deciding where to live than their parents and grandparents when they were the same age; they valued the car, and still value it.

By the way, to echo MolsonExport, there's no need for using all-caps.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Honest Scientist

Gotta call on this... who says "cities that succeed in the future are the ones that embrace walkability, cycling, and public transit, in addition to roads."

And how do we know they are right? It may be a popular opinion for Millennials, but it doesn't make it necessarily true. I still contend the degree of suitability of 'walkability and public transit' are directly related to the specific geography of any given city. One size does not fit for all.

And I still do not see a connection between the amount of 'walkability, cycling, and public transit' a city has and the guaranteed success in the future. Those factors may make a city more attractive for those who have the luxury of being able to make their choice of cities based on that - but that is *not* most people. Most people will go where the jobs are and, the degree of 'walkability, cycling, and public transit' is going to be pretty far down the list of where the jobs are for corporations making siting decisions (taxes, labour cost/relations, proximity to resources/other related industries/education, etc all will come first).

Mercedes, Honda, and BMW aren't building cars in the US Southeast because of the number of bike paths in those communities.

There's obviously no guarantee of success, but consider this: according to the person interviewed on The Sunday Edition, fewer young people than ever before have drivers licenses. And sure enough, among my peers in their 20s, very few drive. I made a personal choice to drive, but I don't use my car to go to work. It was not like that in my parents' generation in the 1970s, where owning a car was a lot more of a status symbol. It's not the status symbol it once was, at least in North America.

Where there's young talent, new businesses start up. Cities that can't attract young people are not going to foster innovation very well, as these people are starting their own businesses and hiring people. Those jobs count for something.

I work in marketing - opinion and perception are everything. If young people perceive a city or a neighbourhood to not meet their needs, they're less likely to live there.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Looks like Southdale is going to be getting worse, construction wise.

http://london.ctvnews.ca/you-ve-been...mmer-1.1324695

While it's good they're fixing up a lot of these bad, potholed roads, gonna be total bullshit getting east-west in the south end for a while. Commissioners is still torn up west of Wellington, getting new asphalt and now add Southdale also west of Wellington will be just as bad.

That Bradley extension looks awfully good right now, if it were done. Apparently it's scheduled to happen either 2018 or 2028 from what I've seen.

[Wharn]

Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac

Triangle of doom at Wonderland/Wharncliffe/Exeter IMO would be a great candidate for a massive roundabout, say 3 lanes encompassing the whole triangle. Though knowing London driver it would be overwhelming...

Having driven on multi-lane roundabouts in Europe, I can't decide which is worse, the Triangle of Doom or one of those suckers.

You all have too little confidence in North American drivers, or at least drivers from this part of North America. Oxford County set up a couple of roundabouts around Woodstock, and people have no problem using them. I beep fewer people there than I do at a traditional intersection on Highway 2 near London

Originally Posted by Honest Scientist

Mercedes, Honda, and BMW aren't building cars in the US Southeast because of the number of bike paths in those communities.

I think they're building them in those communities because Southerners don't take too kindly to communistical organized labour trying to contaminate their precious bodily fluids.

Originally Posted by manny_santos

There's obviously no guarantee of success, but consider this: according to the person interviewed on The Sunday Edition, fewer young people than ever before have drivers licenses. And sure enough, among my peers in their 20s, very few drive.

A lot of my peers spend good money on alcohol rather than cars. Like, we're talking double what I lay out for insurance, maintenance and fuel just going downtown and ordering overpriced drinks at bars. I feel like something is wrong with me for not wanting in on that.

[haljackey]

CAA's 2012 worst roads list: http://caaworstroads.com/home/index/9

Warncliffe South is #7.

I drive this stretch a few times a week. I never drive in the right lane because its just that bad. This makes things slow as there is no centre turning lane which can cause backups in the left lane when someone wants to turn.

I'd love to see a centre turn lane on Warncliffe for it's entire route since many businesses are located on it. Sadly I bet the city will just repave it, which is scheduled for 2015.

http://london.ctvnews.ca/wharncliffe...ario-1.1330362

Maybe this news will help fastrack the project and hopefully do something to tell the city that they need to do something here to help with traffic flow.

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by haljackey

I drive this stretch a few times a week. I never drive in the right lane because its just that bad. This makes things slow as there is no centre turning lane which can cause backups in the left lane when someone wants to turn.

I'd love to see a centre turn lane on Warncliffe for it's entire route since many businesses are located on it. Sadly I bet the city will just repave it, which is scheduled for 2015.

How amazing would it be to see Warncliffle 2 lanes the entire way with a centre turn lane...any idea when the overpass rail is set to be widened as that intersection is a joke.

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by MrSlippery519

How amazing would it be to see Warncliffle 2 lanes the entire way with a centre turn lane...any idea when the overpass rail is set to be widened as that intersection is a joke.

I remember seeing it on the table for 2020+.

Its like every time this is brought up both Warncliffe's CN and CP underpasses are just thrown to the end of any fiscal chart in the hope that someone else will fix it later.