Shift: London's Rapid Transit Initiative

[GreatTallNorth2]

I remember how LRT was pushed in K/W, but from my memory it was the politicians who were doing the pushing. In fact, I was in Kitchener the day it was first brought forward and I remember that Kitchener Mayor Carl Zehr was the major proponent behind LRT.

Contrast that to London, where it was the transit system who was completely writing off LRT and bringing forth different variations of BRT, and for the most part the politicians spoke little about it, at least not much until the last year or so.
Fast forward to January 2015 where Matt Brown mentioned for the first time "Rapid Transit" and not mentioning bus or light rail.

So in each city it has been a different story. I have to applaud K/W for pushing it through. It wasn't easy as they had the election where politicians were campaigning against it, but voters voted pro-LRT people in office.

The timeline of London's system will be interesting as we are so much farther behind Hamilton, Mississauga, K/W, Ottawa and Toronto. I don't see how we have shovels in the ground for several years. Wait until plans come forth and the city has to deal with NIMBYs from all angles - and to be fair they should be listened to in a major ordeal like building rapid transit.

If London ever had a chance for massive transit improvement, it is now and it is with the group of progressives we voted in.

[haljackey]

No matter how much you sugarcoat BRT, it's still bus service.

There are many people / demographics that simply won't use it because it's a bus. LRT is at least somewhat similar to subways, where there is more of a mix of a city's classes / social demographics.

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by haljackey

No matter how much you sugarcoat BRT, it's still bus service.

There are many people / demographics that simply won't use it because it's a bus. LRT is at least somewhat similar to subways, where there is more of a mix of a city's classes / social demographics.

I tend to agree with this as well, granted anything "rapid" at this point would be great but I really do feel LRT is essentially required for those main corridors outlined. Also to have LRT to the airport would be amazing, right now you take a $30+ cab ride to get downtown which is less than ideal. We have vendors flying in often and its not a convenient place to get in/out of at the moment.

You can then have some BRT mixed into connecting points at the main hubs as well as standard services.

I also agree with what GreatTall says about "If London ever had a chance for massive transit improvement, it is now and it is with the group of progressives we voted in" glad to see a plan getting put into place, and not at a snails pace. Keeping the public informed and urging people to participate is great to see.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by haljackey

No matter how much you sugarcoat BRT, it's still bus service.

There are many people / demographics that simply won't use it because it's a bus. LRT is at least somewhat similar to subways, where there is more of a mix of a city's classes / social demographics.

This. Very much. Grade-separated LRT is going to be swifter, more comfortable and less stigmatized, albeit far more expensive. BRT is busing.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Not to preach here, but I would say that now is the time for people who are interested in LRT to attend the Shift Meetings and make it known that we want LRT for the city. It's the people who attend these meetings and give input that will make the difference.

I know I have talked to city hall's top planner "off the record" and he is very much supportive of LRT over BRT. A year ago we were basically stuck in BRT mode, but with the new council, LRT could be a reality.

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

Not to preach here, but I would say that now is the time for people who are interested in LRT to attend the Shift Meetings and make it known that we want LRT for the city. It's the people who attend these meetings and give input that will make the difference.

I plan to be at one of these on Thursday.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by haljackey

I plan to be at one of these on Thursday.

Ha, right after I wrote that post, I went to Williams on Dundas to have a coffee and John Fleming (Head of Planning), Edward Soldo (Shift) & Kelly Paleczny (GM of LTC) were sitting at a table discussing rapid transit.

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

Ha, right after I wrote that post, I went to Williams on Dundas to have a coffee and John Fleming (Head of Planning), Edward Soldo (Shift) & Kelly Paleczny (GM of LTC) were sitting at a table discussing rapid transit.

And did you overhear anything haha??

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by MrSlippery519

And did you overhear anything haha??

Talking a lot about transit and the London Plan. Also were talking about a hybrid system - part brt and lrt. I was too far away to get details and it would have been awkward to sit at the same table.

[jaradthescot]

I'm good with a hybrid. Lays the foundations for the future. I'll be at the Saturday Shift meeting. I agree about the current city staff sentiment. Privately, they all know LRT is the way to go. The problem is how to sell it to the public.

[HillStreetBlues]

For those who have a strong a priori preference for LRT over BRT and are interested in transit, I recommend Jared Walker's book "Human Transit," and his blog of the same name. It is a great discussion of the basics of transit, and has some really thought-provoking arguments about technology agnosticism, and the need to look at goals before deciding on a technology to use.


To my mind, the main distinguishing characteristics of LRT as opposed to BRT are that some people seem to like it a lot more, and that it is a lot more expensive. The former is not really a characteristic, and I’m tempted to believe that mainly follows from the latter.

Assuming that there is a limit to the amount of money that can be spent on London’s rapid transit system, which there is, choosing LRT means choosing to serve fewer riders and cover less area. LRT may well be the right technology for the areas that need better service, but if it is, the price tag will not be $300 million. And to assume LRT is the right choice because “BRT is just buses” and “people like LRT more” seems rash.

What happens if, with the budget that is politically supportable, you can do BRT on both a 9-kilometre Oxford line and a 15-kilometre Richmond/Wellington line, or LRT on just the first? Would the right choice be LRT, even if it serves half the riders? Ultimately, that’s the choice that’s being made- to serve fewer riders- when a more expensive technology is chosen.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

For those who have a strong a priori preference for LRT over BRT and are interested in transit, I recommend Jared Walker's book "Human Transit," and his blog of the same name. It is a great discussion of the basics of transit, and has some really thought-provoking arguments about technology agnosticism, and the need to look at goals before deciding on a technology to use.


To my mind, the main distinguishing characteristics of LRT as opposed to BRT are that some people seem to like it a lot more, and that it is a lot more expensive. The former is not really a characteristic, and I’m tempted to believe that mainly follows from the latter.

Assuming that there is a limit to the amount of money that can be spent on London’s rapid transit system, which there is, choosing LRT means choosing to serve fewer riders and cover less area. LRT may well be the right technology for the areas that need better service, but if it is, the price tag will not be $300 million. And to assume LRT is the right choice because “BRT is just buses” and “people like LRT more” seems rash.

What happens if, with the budget that is politically supportable, you can do BRT on both a 9-kilometre Oxford line and a 15-kilometre Richmond/Wellington line, or LRT on just the first? Would the right choice be LRT, even if it serves half the riders? Ultimately, that’s the choice that’s being made- to serve fewer riders- when a more expensive technology is chosen.

Well, I would say that since LRT is a more permenant mode of transportation than say buses, the city will get more benefit because land uses around transit stations will be of higher order. Also, in my opinion, it is much more comfortable, quieter and more desirable to ride a train vs a bus. Would you personally rather ride on a Via train or bus to Toronto? I do agree that some areas might lack if we heavily invest in LRT, but I would rather start building the right solution rather than builidng the wrong technology and therefore not benefiting from the increased ridership we would see with LRT.

Lastly, I wish the city would stop throwing around the number $300 or $380 millon as a total cost. Let's price out LRT for both routes and choose LRT as the technology we want. Then we go to the Ontario government for funding. I would rather ask for $800 million and get $500 million than set our sights too low and wish we had asked for more. Hamilton today got $1 billion for their system Why not ask for a similar amount? I can assure you that future governments will not be spending this kind of money on transit in the future so we get "one kick at the can" at this. Let's do it right the first time rather then regret it.

[haljackey]

Interesting posts!

Luckily, we can look at K-W as they are the guinea pig of LRT construction in a city of similar size.

My beef with the LRT-BRT argument is that if other cities are getting LRT (Kitchener, Hamilton, Mississauga, etc.), why should London miss out? Sure the urban geography and demographics are factors, but surely we can fight for it if we had the political willpower, surely?

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

To my mind, the main distinguishing characteristics of LRT as opposed to BRT are that some people seem to like it a lot more, and that it is a lot more expensive. The former is not really a characteristic, and I’m tempted to believe that mainly follows from the latter.

Assuming that there is a limit to the amount of money that can be spent on London’s rapid transit system, which there is, choosing LRT means choosing to serve fewer riders and cover less area. LRT may well be the right technology for the areas that need better service, but if it is, the price tag will not be $300 million. And to assume LRT is the right choice because “BRT is just buses” and “people like LRT more” seems rash.

What happens if, with the budget that is politically supportable, you can do BRT on both a 9-kilometre Oxford line and a 15-kilometre Richmond/Wellington line, or LRT on just the first? Would the right choice be LRT, even if it serves half the riders? Ultimately, that’s the choice that’s being made- to serve fewer riders- when a more expensive technology is chosen.

No question both have pro's and con's for me the main difference is up front cost vs long term benefit and cost. No question BRT is the cheaper in up front costs, however long term they end up being pretty close after you factor in employees, running costs and ridership.

In the long run I just see LRT as a much better solution for London, that said the study will answer what "they" feel is the better long term solution for London.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

Well, I would say that since LRT is a more permenant mode of transportation than say buses, the city will get more benefit because land uses around transit stations will be of higher order. Also, in my opinion, it is much more comfortable, quieter and more desirable to ride a train vs a bus. Would you personally rather ride on a Via train or bus to Toronto? I do agree that some areas might lack if we heavily invest in LRT, but I would rather start building the right solution rather than builidng the wrong technology and therefore not benefiting from the increased ridership we would see with LRT.

Lastly, I wish the city would stop throwing around the number $300 or $380 millon as a total cost. Let's price out LRT for both routes and choose LRT as the technology we want. Then we go to the Ontario government for funding. I would rather ask for $800 million and get $500 million than set our sights too low and wish we had asked for more. Hamilton today got $1 billion for their system Why not ask for a similar amount? I can assure you that future governments will not be spending this kind of money on transit in the future so we get "one kick at the can" at this. Let's do it right the first time rather then regret it.

It’s not true that LRT is inherently more comfortable than BRT. Buses are getting better and better and more and more comfortable. If your LTC route has had thirty-year-old buses on it, you can be forgiven for thinking that it’s not the case, but the new buses (and especially on their own well-maintained rights-of-way) can be very comfortable rides. It’s also not true that LRT is more permanent- quality BRT has attractive stations and rights-of-way that are significant capital investments, too, and unlikely to be picked up and moved once implemented.

To answer your question, when I lived in London I took Greyhound a lot more often than Via when going to Toronto. The reason was they had twice as many departures and were about half the price!

[GreatTallNorth2]

Ok we can agree to disagree.

[eemy]

I actually think that it makes a lot of sense to have both BRT and LRT. I believe that a full-fledged BRT system like what was built in Ottawa would likely be a mistake; however, upgraded limited-stop routes occupy a useful niche between full rapid transit and regular bus routes. The success of the iXpress has increased the certainty that Ion will be a success here in KW, and the expansion of the iXpress is a key part of the transit strategy here.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Ok, just for fun let's say that London gets funding for 1 BRT line and 1 LRT line. Out of the 2 proposed RT routes, which one gets BRT and which one gets LRT? I am guessing the Northeast (Masonville to Downtown to Fanshawe) gets LRT.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

Ok, just for fun let's say that London gets funding for 1 BRT line and 1 LRT line. Out of the 2 proposed RT routes, which one gets BRT and which one gets LRT? I am guessing the Northeast (Masonville to Downtown to Fanshawe) gets LRT.

You guessed the way I would (well I live in the North[west], so there's that too).

[ssiguy]

I would guess the same thing.