Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy
Stevo26......... you note that the feds & QP want to spend megabucks on transit infrastructure which is true especially QP with an up coming election in battleground London. That said, there is no money from anyone unless the City makes a formal application for funding of a specific plan and that can only be done by the City which requires it to be passed by City Hall.
<snip>
The City must look outside the box and be realistic and an cost effective elevated rail system looks like the best bet especially down Richmond using the parking/laneway corridor and the LPS rail corridor instead of Wellington. I was quite surprised how he genuinely seemed impressed with the idea and it maybe the only option that gets thru the Nimbyism and City Council.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssiguy
Stevo26......... you note that the feds & QP want to spend megabucks on transit infrastructure which is true especially QP with an up coming election in battleground London. That said, there is no money from anyone unless the City makes a formal application for funding of a specific plan and that can only be done by the City which requires it to be passed by City Hall.
<snip>
The City must look outside the box and be realistic and an cost effective elevated rail system looks like the best bet especially down Richmond using the parking/laneway corridor and the LPS rail corridor instead of Wellington. I was quite surprised how he genuinely seemed impressed with the idea and it maybe the only option that gets thru the Nimbyism and City Council.
|
Sure BRT ROW is going to be a hard sell. Substantively improving public transit in London has always been a hard sell because some people have hardened attitudes that say only students and the poor use public transit.
Whether we like it or not, to make an omelette, we're going to have to break a few eggs and this is something that has always been true of any major infrastructure project anywhere in the world.
The problem now confronting us is that the SkyTrolley system that was discussed earlier is an unproven technology and isn't even being manufactured yet. It would be hugely risky for the city to attempt to a acquire new technology like this that has no track record.
Adopting the suspended trolley system in Wuppertal might be a feasible choice. However, exploring whether this system should be utilized is going to force the city to start all over from scratch and do new environmental assessments.
That's a process that is easily going to take 3 - 5 years at a minimum. This, of course, would cause delays in implementation of a RT system, and by then, the opportunity to acquire funding from upper levels of government may well be gone as new governments might be in power by then and they might be unwilling to finance any public infrastructure improvements anywhere.
Plus, none of us has any idea how much a Wuppertal-style system will cost to build. I can't see it being cheaper to build than BRT because of all the metal support structures needed to suspend the trolley cars.
In fact, building such infrastructure would be equivalent to constructing something like a railway bridge that runs all the way from Masonville to White Oaks. At this stage, we've not even closely examined how much the stations will cost to build. Nor do we know how much property will have to be expropriated to accommodate such a system, nor the overall costs involved.
With the BRT system currently being proposed, we have a very good idea of what kind of financial commitment we are looking at.
BRT is still by far the cheapest and simplest way to go and offers the least amount of risk and complexity. At-grade stations would be cheap to build as well, as they sit on concrete pads, and the actual stations themselves need not be elaborate or particularly expensive to build.
BRT also involves a simple process of widening roads and placing two dedicated lanes in the middle of them, with coloured asphalt and paint markings to delineate the BRT ROW.
A news article I saw earlier today seems to suggest the city is seriously considering scrapping the Richmond tunnel and just leaving the rail crossing on Richmond largely as is, even though it will gum up the BRT system.
Well, that won't be anything new, as the rail crossings in London already gum up all kinds of traffic pretty badly. The article does point out that the real purpose of BRT isn't necessarily to speed up public transit, but to increase the frequency of busses and thus improve reliability.
Those who favour an elevated RT system should consider the experience of Curitiba, Brazil. Brazil is a poor country, yet Curitiba managed to build an advanced BRT system. Here's a link to a Youtube video that shows more:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B9YJ4xDRIiA
Note how simple the stations are in terms of construction. If a relatively poor place like Curitiba can build a BRT system, then it should be a piece of cake for London to do the same.
All that's standing in the way in London is NIMBY-ism and class-based warfare where a few don't think that tax money should be spent for something they personally won't use, even though many more would actually use it.
I still think the city should be entering into talks with CP Rail to build an underpass for the rail line that crosses Richmond.
I think they should also approach the federal government for help on this, as the federal government regulates rail systems and could put a bit of pressure on CP to cooperate, even if it means that London, the province and the feds have to pay for the construction of the underpass. An underpass would be vastly more feasible than a 900-metre tunnel. An added bonus is that the underpass gets built now and we don't have to wait until 2030.
Prev
Linear Mode
