Shift: London's Rapid Transit Initiative

[ssiguy]

While it is true London's transportation planning is short sighted nd the traffic horrid, I am glad London didn't follow the KW route of an inner city freeway. This is one of the primary reasons why London has a solid built urban form where you can walk from one neighbourhood to the next with few gaps. You can walk from Fanshawe Park Road to downtown to Ridout to White Oaks and never see more than one empty lot. Same goes for basically anything from Highbury to Byron. Few cities can claim such a thing and it makes the city feel whole and pedestrian friendly.

You also haave to remember that KW is not the combination of 2 cities but 5......Kitch/Wat/Preseton/Hespler/and Galt. There was a lot of open land between them and endless lots in which to build freeways and much wider roads as most connecting them were wide arterials and not urban streets like London.

Yes, London's tepid steps can be infuriating but it's hesitancy has left the city with a solid and attractive built form.

[haljackey]

At least London has a grid pattern when it comes to it's roads.

Without freeways, Kitchener-Waterloo would be hell to navigate. Odd angle roads that just stop and start in the older areas of town. Blame the German settlers for that!

-----

With Canada's credit rating the way it is right now, I think it's a great time for the country to build some mega-projects. Best to do it when you can afford it or at least approve some as make-work projects when the next recession comes.

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I still think London should have gone to the upper levels of government with the full LRT proposal. It would then be compromised into the hybrid or full BRT projects from there.

[jammer139]

Very good point.

We have the river and some tributaries creating some natural barriers. But they have been reasonably used for parks and trails.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

While it is true London's transportation planning is short sighted nd the traffic horrid, I am glad London didn't follow the KW route of an inner city freeway. This is one of the primary reasons why London has a solid built urban form where you can walk from one neighbourhood to the next with few gaps. You can walk from Fanshawe Park Road to downtown to Ridout to White Oaks and never see more than one empty lot. Same goes for basically anything from Highbury to Byron. Few cities can claim such a thing and it makes the city feel whole and pedestrian friendly.

You also haave to remember that KW is not the combination of 2 cities but 5......Kitch/Wat/Preseton/Hespler/and Galt. There was a lot of open land between them and endless lots in which to build freeways and much wider roads as most connecting them were wide arterials and not urban streets like London.

Yes, London's tepid steps can be infuriating but it's hesitancy has left the city with a solid and attractive built form.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

despite being a collection of (bickering) cities, KWC has all the goodies and London, none.
Freeways? KWC 1 London 0
LRT? KWC 1 London 0

heck the University of Waterloo is threatening Western...the former was once a satellite campus of the latter.

London aims for mediocrity, it seems.

What metrics do you consider most important for a university? UW's budget and endowment are smaller than UWO's, but the number of students is probably a tiny bit larger than at UWO. This isn't including Laurier, of course (also a former satellite of UWO's).

I think you'd have to be a real Waterloo partisan to claim that Waterloo is now a more important research school than UWO.

ssiguy, your comment about London having a "solid and attractive built form" is a head-scratcher to me. It's a relatively small area of London that is attractive and urban, and a relatively huge area that is sprawling suburbs. I guess it's true that there's relatively little undeveloped space within the city (Waterloo has at least five cores, and Cambridge is separated from the other two cities by undeveloped land of course).

You mention being able to walk from Highbury to Byron. In the case of the latter, it was until recently separated from the rest of the city by greenspace and in some cases even farmland (on Commissioners until very recently). Now, I guess it's all built-up, but I wouldn't characterize the stuff on Commissioners West between London and Byron to be "attractive" or "walkable."

[MolsonExport]

As a tenured faculty member of UWO (with absolutely no connections whatsoever to the triple-headed urban area 100 kilometers to the East of us), believe me when I say that I am not a Waterloo partisan!

[GreatTallNorth2]

I would have to disagree with the statement that London is better off because we don't have a freeway. I travel a lot for business and visit cities big and small and I would say 99 out of 100 cities have a full fledge freeway system in their city - most U.S. cities have freeways that run very close to their downtown. I don't see anything negative about it. The most charming cities in the U.S. like Savannah, Charleston, Portland, Maine all have freeways.

Instead in London we now have streets that will constantly have to be expanded, where drivers speed and still you can't get from A to B quickly.

London's biggest problem is that it doesn't have the will to be a better city. Everything the city does is mediocre and puts "low price" as the first priority whereas cities that are great put quality and functionality as their first priority and then seek the best price to build that quality.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

Everything the city does is mediocre

my biggest beef with London.

[tyeman200]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

The more I travel, the more frustrated I am with London as a city. Why on earth can we not have light rail, the transit tunnel or even a freeway for that matter? Why is every decision based on what is the cheapest option? Why not for once: what is the best option? We have never and are not currently building for the future. Sorry for the rant, but if the gov't can give K/W and Hamilton money for light rail and freeways, why are we so shy to ask for the same?

It's because our council will always suck up to the residents of this city, at least I believe that's the main problem. This council was supposed to bring out some real change for this city, instead we really haven't gone nowhere. Look what happened to BRT, we had a decent plan for it and thanks to the bitchy Londoners we will now have a pretty shitty BRT system that defeats the purpose of having it. We need city staff who don't always listen to the ignorant residents we have and get shit done. It may piss off some people but who cares? That's why I wish we could get some more millennials into council, to bring out the change this city needs and fast.

[biggoalie]

http://www.lfpress.com/2017/07/24/ra...ks-master-plan

Master Plan for rapid transit approved by council

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by biggoalie

http://www.lfpress.com/2017/07/24/ra...ks-master-plan

Master Plan for rapid transit approved by council

This needs to be submitted to the province to get approved before election season hits. They'll dangle it over our heads as a campaign promise if they delay much longer.

[haljackey]

Talks to resume with Western.

http://www.lfpress.com/2017/07/31/bu...ern-university

-----

No more than 8 BRT busses per hour?
Umm. If it's supposed to run every 5 mins at peak times that's 12 per hour.

No LRT ever?
That's progressive.

[MolsonExport]

goddamn western. keeps talking about being green, LEED, and all that jazz, but really, it is cutting down all the mature trees (all those beautiful evergreens in front of University College have been chopped down), and keeping the car culture.

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by haljackey

Talks to resume with Western.

http://www.lfpress.com/2017/07/31/bu...ern-university

-----

No more than 8 BRT busses per hour?
Umm. If it's supposed to run every 5 mins at peak times that's 12 per hour.

No LRT ever?
That's progressive.

One thing that will settle the university's hash in a real hurry is if the province step in and tell them to give London what is needed to run BRT properly, or see the university's funding cut.

Nothing settles things faster than being reminded of what side your bread is buttered on, and who's buttering your bread.

If Western succeeding in forcing the LTC to run only eight busses per hour when it needs 12, I can guarantee you the whole concept of BRT will fail, and fail miserably.

I know Western want to hang on to this cutesy ideal of an idyllic, cozy little campus that is far removed from the madding crowd. Problem is, Western haven't been that idyllic little place far removed from the bustle of the city for decades, uh, like since the 1920's at least.

The University of Toronto have a campus that is spread out through the downtown core, and I have never heard of anyone who studied there complaining about busy streets, traffic noise or city busses running through the campus. I remember when I was studying at Western from 1984 - 87. Tons of busses ran through the campus and I don't ever remember the noise bothering me to the point that I couldn't concentrate on my coursework.

Put very indelicately, Western need to smarten the fuck up and stop being so whiny and obstructive. More to the point, do Western's administrators not understand that prospective students will study elsewhere if they can't get access to good, reliable public transit via the campus??

[MrSlippery519]

I just wish I could understand Westerns standpoint and what the reasons for thinking this way.

They should be embracing rapid transit running through the campus and should have been pushing for the city to go light rail.

Odd to say the least, the city should really come up with an alternative route that does not run through the university and then go to the province and get them to step in.

[Truenorth00]

If Western doesn't budge, they should by pass the University and just go down Richmond. The students can walk to the other end of the campus. And they can blame the university for the crap service they got.

[kaiserLDN]

I don't like how it says never LRT and not over 8 buses per hour. That bugs me.

[MolsonExport]

If only they would let cars pass though western only 8 times per hour.

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If Western doesn't budge, they should by pass the University and just go down Richmond. The students can walk to the other end of the campus. And they can blame the university for the crap service they got.

I have a feeling that this is exactly what will happen if the university continues to be obstructive and uncooperative. The city will not want to delay the BRT project very long just to accommodate the university's wishes.

Both students and the university will lose, and lose big if this happens.

[haljackey]

Master plan can now be reviewed

http://www.shiftlondon.ca/master_pla...ce=shiftlondon

[MolsonExport]

should be called shaftlondon, as they took the usual, mediocre route. I am not voting for baldy again.