Shift: London's Rapid Transit Initiative

[jammer139]

Sorry Ed.

There is ZERO chance CN and CP will move their main lines out of London or share a single line.

Why some people keep wasting time bringing this up is beyond me.

Focus on what the City can control and do and that is eliminating level crossings with under and over passes. Filling in the gaps on the road network. Eliminating the choke points where 2 lanes goto 4 lanes and visa-versa.

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

Ed Holders plan is to try to amalgamate the CN and CP lines which would open up the CP tracks for potential LRT. He is against the BRT as it is currently and let’s be honest, the plan is crap. We went from a hybrid plan with tunnel to BRT only and no tunnel. If Holder could work with CP and CN, we would get better traffic flow in the city and LRT.

[ssiguy]

What line belong to whom and specifically the London/Pt.Stanley and the infuriating one that crosses Richmond at Oxford?

[Dupcheck]

Originally Posted by MrSlippery519

I have always felt the same way, London NEEDS RT of some kind however I feel this BRT plan is lacking in so many ways it really doesn't benefit many riders and I do not see it attracting new riders as a result.

I would rather them run a single LRT line East to West as that seems like the easier of the 2 and have it run from the Airport to Oxford/HydePark and then work off that by either having some express routes North/South and long term another LRT line.

I think it is a great idea. LRT on Oxford from Hydepark to the Airport is a good option I hope the city considers it.

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by Dupcheck

I think it is a great idea. LRT on Oxford from Hydepark to the Airport is a good option I hope the city considers it.

Oxford is the only good E-W route in central London. Canibalizing a lane from one end of the city to the other for LRT or BRT would never work. There are places where you can widen the road (part of the current plan) but areas such as east of Adelaide and west of Wharncliffe are fully built up on each side of the road.

[Dupcheck]

Originally Posted by haljackey

Oxford is the only good E-W route in central London. Canibalizing a lane from one end of the city to the other for LRT or BRT would never work. There are places where you can widen the road (part of the current plan) but areas such as east of Adelaide and west of Wharncliffe are fully built up on each side of the road.

You are still able to drive on the LRT tracks and lane. Toronto does it.
If we keep saying no to every new idea than nothing progressive will ever be implemented.
Actually E and W line would be utilized by people that go to work everyday across town, students from Fanshawe, and travelers going to the Airport. That should reduce traffic as people prefer LRT better than BRT and would actually use it to go to work. Currently it takes 45 minutes (rush hour) to drive from East London to West on Oxford st. That is a 15 km stretch... ridiculously slow and unhealthy for the drivers sitting in traffic fumes crawling home. So the case of the ridership should not be a problem. N and S can be on Richmond, that one is a more complicated issue due to rail tracks.

[Djeffery]

LRT is different than streetcars. You share the road with the streetcars in Toronto. The LRT (such as on Spadina) is on it's own right of way in the middle of the road. I don't see streetcars being any kind of improvement. I very much support the idea of an LRT from one end of town to the other on Oxford (although I would put the west terminus at West 5), but I would want to see the Gainsborough-Windermere-Killaly links put in.

[GreatTallNorth2]

An hour delay on the CP tracks today. Richmond basically became a parking lot. Ed Holder and Paul Cheng both want something done about this. Can they do it? I’m not sure, but it certainly won’t hurt them to make this an issue. At what point will we say enough is enough and push the upper levels of govt to do something?

[Djeffery]

It will take a Lac Megantic type tragedy to get the Federal government involved in fixing our rail issues. The railways just don't give a shit, and even if we did come up with the cash, I doubt they would agree to move. I don't think it would take a billion dollars though, because I don't think we need to move both lines out of town, as nice as that would be. We just need to convince CP to run on the CN line through the city, and they are side by side to the west of the city already, so joining up should be pretty easy on that side. And then they either run together until the lines meet up again at Woodstock, or a spur line is built east of the city to join back up to the main CP line. At some point east of the city, a new CP yard would have to be built for them, maybe in conjunction with that new line to join up to their main line.

Then instead of Adelaide and Richmond, we build over/under passes at Egerton and Clarke. Whether that CN track can handle all the CN, CP and Via traffic, I have no idea though.

[Dupcheck]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

An hour delay on the CP tracks today. Richmond basically became a parking lot. Ed Holder and Paul Cheng both want something done about this. Can they do it? I’m not sure, but it certainly won’t hurt them to make this an issue. At what point will we say enough is enough and push the upper levels of govt to do something?

Here is the scoop:
https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...-stalled-train

I agree 100%, something needs to be done about it. Gov officials need to solve this. There must be some examples elsewhere in the world where similar situations were solved in a smart way. This is a must, it is crippling our city and no rapid transit will ever solve that.

[haljackey]

The LRT / BRT tunnel under Richmond would solve this for transit and emergency vehicles.

An (expensive) alternative is to elevate or sink / bury the CP line through town from Oxford Street to the CP freight yard between Adelaide and Quebec.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Dupcheck

Here is the scoop:
https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...-stalled-train

I agree 100%, something needs to be done about it. Gov officials need to solve this. There must be some examples elsewhere in the world where similar situations were solved in a smart way. This is a must, it is crippling our city and no rapid transit will ever solve that.

I read that this morning and was wondering why the guy who said he was riding his bike was an hour late to work. All he had to do was ride over to Talbot, go under the tracks and back over to Richmond. Sure, it's a pain, but it would have taken 10 minutes.

[warpus]

Originally Posted by MrSlippery519

I did not questions the routes, just extending to the airport and not being an L shape, rather a N-S / E-W. The routes are fine as they are however I feel the airport should be a key factor as London continues to grow.

The problem is that there is not that much density or prospects of densification between Fanshawe college and the airport. They didn't build that part of the route (yet) because it would be an overall money loser, and would detract from the potential success of the overall system. There will be express buses running to the airport from what I understand.

Originally Posted by MrSlippery519

"all alternatives" come on now, LRT was the preferred option with a tunnel and it running through UWO. We for some reason did not want to ask for funding for that option, as a result it was scaled back a number of times switching to BRT, then no tunnel, etc.

I mean the best routes were studied i.e. the best corridors for RT. I agree we should have gone with LRT for the L route, but you were around when all of this was going down.. Downshift and other groups like that make the tunnel and LRT not really that feasible. The city had to go with a cheaper solution, which is what we're getting now.

Originally Posted by MrSlippery519

I do not see where this plan will improve anything for vehicle traffic however

Rapid Transit systems are implemented with the goal of traffic reduction always as one of the parameters. But that's a long term goal. Short term drivers will have more lanes to drive in overall, once the system is in place.

Originally Posted by Djeffery

The more I listen to the BRT proponents in the media, the more I realize this is simply about fixing the underground infrastructure with shared funding of senior governments. Money that otherwise wouldn't come without the transit system on top of the ground. The number of times Jesse Helmer said "this is money we would have to spend anyway" this week was crazy.

Which I guess explains the BRT routing, because the outer reaches of the city are new enough that sewer lines don't need to be replaced yet.

I mean, if you looked through some of the documents they have online explaining why they picked the routes they did, you wouldn't have to wonder about this. It has nothing to do with tricking us to replace sewer lines or whatever.

Originally Posted by jammer139

I doubt Kingston needed over half a Billion $$ to do this.

https://tvo.org/article/current-affa...transit-advice

They're running express buses, not Rapid Transit buses, which is a huge difference. Obviously implementing express buses does not cost as much as a brand new Rapid Transit system would. Both systems also have completely different benefits short and long term, they're not really equivalent.

A city of our size needs Rapid Transit (with dedicated lanes). We are growing. If we don't do this now, we are going to be spending a lot more to implement a RT system at some point in the future.

That's why Rapid Transit is at the core of the London Plan.

[tyeman200]

Originally Posted by warpus

I mean the best routes were studied i.e. the best corridors for RT. I agree we should have gone with LRT for the L route, but you were around when all of this was going down.. Downshift and other groups like that make the tunnel and LRT not really that feasible. The city had to go with a cheaper solution, which is what we're getting now.

It's stupid the city listens to a bunch of whiners. I say, they should've just done it anyways. I'd rather piss off a few people to please a bunch more and make the city easier to travel through. Sometimes it's just better to say, 'You don't like it? Well too bad we're doing it anyways.' We would have no progress anywhere if we listened and heeled to everyones complaints.

[haljackey]

Cool map
https://londonbrtmap.ca/

You can click on each of the green icons to see renderings, and click those to see the full size images.

[jammer139]

Food for thought from TVO on the cost overruns of projects.

https://tvo.org/article/current-affa...ly-over-budget

[jammer139]

If BRT and SHIFT-F plan makes no sense with diesel or diesel-hybrid buses how does using EV buses make more sense??



https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...-transit-buses

[UpstairsCranberry]

Originally Posted by jammer139

If BRT and SHIFT-F plan makes no sense with diesel or diesel-hybrid buses how does using EV buses make more sense??

https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/...-transit-buses

Not sure where the "plan makes no sense with diesal or diesal-hybrids" is coming from. However, electric buses are quieter, run smoother and don't smell and their energy costs are 1/3 that of diesal. I don't understand why you are having trouble with this or where you got the "makes no sense" from? It is not in the article. What an odd comment...

[jammer139]

EV buses make sense as the oldest buses in the fleet are retired and replaced. Part of normal annual capital budget. The article seems to imply that BRT brings EV buses. Smells of desperation as the proponents of BRT are trying to equate BRT to EV buses. Pathetic really.

Originally Posted by UpstairsCranberry

Not sure where the "plan makes no sense with diesal or diesal-hybrids" is coming from. However, electric buses are quieter, run smoother and don't smell and their energy costs are 1/3 that of diesal. I don't understand why you are having trouble with this or where you got the "makes no sense" from? It is not in the article. What an odd comment...

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by jammer139

EV buses make sense as the oldest buses in the fleet are retired and replaced. Part of normal annual capital budget. The article seems to imply that BRT brings EV buses. Smells of desperation as the proponents of BRT are trying to equate BRT to EV buses. Pathetic really.

I guess I'm confused at what your issue is. They are talking about electric BRT buses, which would be new from the outset. They aren't talking about converting the entire LTC fleet to electric. In fact the article doesn't make any mention at all about the regular LTC fleet.

[Spoofy]

.