Shift: London's Rapid Transit Initiative

[tyeman200]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

London has no urban freeway and never will and while that has certainly made London a driving nightmare it has also left Londoners with an enviable city. It has left London with a solid built form, no disconnected communities, a wealth of older homes and neighbourhoods, and a charm that freeways can devestate.

I really do hope London gets one in my lifetime at least. It would suck to have to expropriate tons of houses but it is something we will need eventually. I would say the best bet being either Wharncliffe, Wonderland or Highbury.

[database]

The Shift Happens group now has a Facebook page FYI

https://www.facebook.com/ShiftHappensLdn/

[kaiserLDN]

Glad to see western students getting behind rapid transit!! Would be nice if the lfpress interviewed merchants that are pro rapid transit instead of just against it for the publicity.

http://www.lfpress.com/2017/03/22/we...d-transit-plan

[Underground100]

Today at noon, the Civic Works Committee meets to debate 3 things for city staff to do:

• develop one alternative east-west corridor and one alternative north-south corridor, with a cost analysis
• business impact analysis study due to construction downtown
• a public participation meeting on the alternative corridors

If it passes, it goes to full council next Tuesday, on April 4.

[Dupcheck]

The root of all London's problems is the Railway. Get rid of the railway and the problems will be easily solved!

That railway is trespassing on our city. We have put up with it for decades. Divert it outside of the city limits then we can widen our roads with no need of tunnels and expensive solutions.

[GreatTallNorth2]

^Totally agree. Remove the trains and all of a sudden you have tons of land to build whatever you want.

[go_leafs_go02]

LTC to debate whether or not they can ask the City for Dundas Place to be put on hold so the BRT / Cycle Track routes through downtown can be figured out as Queens is one of the routes where transit improvements were incorporated into the cycle track design.

http://www.lfpress.com/2017/03/25/lo...ntil-next-year

[jammer139]

The railways have been here a very long time. The city did nothing in the way of planning around them. I don't blame the railways.

quick search shows the following.

CP rail was here 1890
CN rail was here 1853

Originally Posted by Dupcheck

The root of all London's problems is the Railway. Get rid of the railway and the problems will be easily solved!

That railway is trespassing on our city. We have put up with it for decades. Divert it outside of the city limits then we can widen our roads with no need of tunnels and expensive solutions.

[Underground100]

Originally Posted by Underground100

Today at noon, the Civic Works Committee meets to debate 3 things for city staff to do:

• develop one alternative east-west corridor and one alternative north-south corridor, with a cost analysis
• business impact analysis study due to construction downtown
• a public participation meeting on the alternative corridors

If it passes, it goes to full council next Tuesday, on April 4.

The committee voted for all three recommendations unanimously. The city manager and city engineer talked for a bit about route alternatives.

In the land use planning context, it was shown that people and jobs in the Wharncliffe/Western corridor option now vs. 2034 was 3,695 -> 3,913. The proposed north corridor option? 21,918 -> 25,876. The Wharncliffe part also had problems with heritage properties, floodplain, low redevelopment potential, downtown north of King shut out of RT, and inability to convert to LRT down the road.

For alternative downtown routing, they showed both routes having a couplet; NE would be on Clarence and Wellington and SW would be on King and Queens. The lines would intersect twice at Queens and Clarence and King and Wellington.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by jammer139

The railways have been here a very long time. The city did nothing in the way of planning around them. I don't blame the railways.

quick search shows the following.

CP rail was here 1890
CN rail was here 1853

In fairness, I don't think CN or CP have been particularly cooperative with the City over the years. There was a proposal to divert the tracks around the city in the 1970s, with a provision to maintain freight service to the east end, but it went nowhere.

It's good that CN has stayed put as that's where VIA Rail runs, and those tracks are mostly grade separated throughout the city, especially now that Hale-Traflagar is done. I'd like to see something done with CP though. Perhaps a third track could be added to the CN corridor to accommodate CP freight traffic.

[Dupcheck]

Originally Posted by jammer139

The railways have been here a very long time. The city did nothing in the way of planning around them. I don't blame the railways.

quick search shows the following.

CP rail was here 1890
CN rail was here 1853

Times change, because things have been a certain way before it does not mean that they can not be done better now.
Diverting the trains out of London should be on the table as an option for future BRT/LRT discussions. Imagine how much more freedom our London would have without the trains interrupting everyone's way of life and commute.

We could even utilize the same tracks for the Light Rail Transit! Look at it on the google maps, the rails are well located to support half of LRT.
Downtown would flourish even more without train tracks in the way.

[jammer139]

It comes back to a lack of vision and planning for the future that our early town planners didn't have. (Doubt we even had anyone even thinking of town planning anyway) The right of ways for the Rail lines and later for hydro transmission lines should have been considered so that no development was allowed with 50 yards/meters of them. Sadly this sort of urban planning is not novel or new in any way as the Romans were already doing this 2000 years ago. Uprooting the current CN and CP right of ways is next to impossible as they exist with special property rights under legislation. I don't think either of them is about to go out of business soon making their right of ways available.

[manny_santos]

An issue with building new railway tracks outside the city is the land aquisition that would be required.

It's unfortunate that other railway rights of way through St. Thomas and Lucan/Parkhill are no longer in use. Thirty years ago, either of those could have been great alternate routes for CN and CP.

[kaiserLDN]

Other rapid transit debates in Ontario

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/canada/h...sday-1.4042953

Hamilton RT is a delayed a little more

http://www.citynews.ca/2017/03/28/ci...way-alignment/

Scarborough subway is moving forward

I hope whatever alignment we agree on for London's RT we keep moving forward not delay any further then the June meeting. We need some shovels in the ground. I like john torys style that keeps pushing and pushing to get the job done.

[Dupcheck]

I think choosing the Wharncliffe (1b) route would be better for the city downtown core integrity and the pedestrian culture of walking on Richmond st.. Londoners identify Richmond st. with its downtown very much.

If you deface Richmond st., might as well crap on the whole downtown fascia too.

Having buses zoom in and out of Richmond could be an eye sore and too industrial feeling for a downtown. Richmond st. reminds me of Younge St. in Toronto. If you add painted bus lanes and tunnels on Richmond, it would look like a highway. Do you think that the painted bus lanes would last very long with our winters and salt on the roads? It would look very bad worn out. Look at Sarnia road, the fresh painted bus only lanes are already worn out.
Also wide streets are not very pedestrian friendly they remind us of highways and fast roads. Highways should not go thru downtown, but on the edges of it.

Downtown needs to have patios where people could enjoy the nice cheerful atmosphere that should not have noise pollution by loud buses.

What happens to the rapid transit through Richmond when we have so many festivals at Victoria park? Would the massive crowds disrupts the flow of buses? Would the noise of the rapid transit disrupt the festival gatherings and enjoyment?

Why does not New York city put a highway or fast BRT through their Central Park? Come on guys lets not deface our downtown for the sake of a transit route. Choose Wharncliffe and you still keep the integrity of our city.

Take Ottawa for example, their Rapid Transit does not go through the middle of downtown. It goes on the edges of it.

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by Dupcheck

I think choosing the Wharncliffe (1b) route would be better for the city downtown core integrity and the pedestrian culture of walking on Richmond st.. Londoners identify Richmond st. with its downtown very much.

If you deface Richmond st., might as well crap on the whole downtown fascia too.

Having buses zoom in and out of Richmond could be an eye sore and too industrial feeling for a downtown. Richmond st. reminds me of Younge St. in Toronto. If you add painted bus lanes and tunnels on Richmond, it would look like a highway. Do you think that the painted bus lanes would last very long with our winters and salt on the roads? It would look very bad worn out. Look at Sarnia road, the fresh painted bus only lanes are already worn out.
Also wide streets are not very pedestrian friendly they remind us of highways and fast roads. Highways should not go thru downtown, but on the edges of it.

Downtown needs to have patios where people could enjoy the nice cheerful atmosphere that should not have noise pollution by loud buses.

What happens to the rapid transit through Richmond when we have so many festivals at Victoria park? Would the massive crowds disrupts the flow of buses? Would the noise of the rapid transit disrupt the festival gatherings and enjoyment?

Why does not New York city put a highway or fast BRT through their Central Park? Come on guys lets not deface our downtown for the sake of a transit route. Choose Wharncliffe and you still keep the integrity of our city.

Take Ottawa for example, their Rapid Transit does not go through the middle of downtown. It goes on the edges of it.

There are a few important factors to RT, one being of course the speed at which we can get from point to point, the other equally important aspect is the route and the potential ridership in that given area.

I do not understand most of your arguments, have you been to NYC? They have buses running all over the place, along with below and above grade rail depending on the area. I do not understand the relationship with our RT running on Richmond and NYC running a line through Central Park?

I do appreciate many of the downtown business' concerns however if I was a business owner the short term pain would be worth it as the amount of people downtown is only going to increase along with my potential sales.

While running RT down Wharncliffe may fulfill the speed portion of RT's intent I feel it misses the mark on getting people downtown. You will now be asking people to either get on another bus or walk 15 minutes to the core which fine in the summer but not in the winter.

All the above said I still think BRT is ridiculous and the city should only be exploring LRT even if it was at a compromised single line for now which would be expanded later...but that is for another lifetime unfortunately.

[Blitz]

^ Also, isn't Ottawa expanding their rapid transit system into downtown?

I don't think London has the density or ridership to warrant LRT (yet) so BRT should be fine for the next few decades anyway. I've used BRT in Ottawa and it's quite efficient and serves its purpose well.

[Dupcheck]

Originally Posted by Blitz

^ Also, isn't Ottawa expanding their rapid transit system into downtown?

I don't think London has the density or ridership to warrant LRT (yet) so BRT should be fine for the next few decades anyway. I've used BRT in Ottawa and it's quite efficient and serves its purpose well.

LRT, sure that is no problem, classy and clean. Buses they suck. Ottawa removed most of the buses in favour of LRT.

[jammer139]

I keep coming back to the epic failure of a bus only underpass below the CP tracks at Richmond. Pedestrians, bikers, cars, trucks still get to wait for the dozen CP trains to roll thru every day. On this single part of the plan i would vote NO.

Transit times would be improved with full access underpasses at both Richmond and Adelaide St.

Spending a few million on replacing the traffic light management system with one that actually works to improve traffic flow intelligently would be a far better use of money. Reducing the time idling buses, cars and trucks spend at every Red light would reduce green house gases and shorten travel times more then dropping half a billion on BRT.

[kaiserLDN]

Ottawa still has many buses. I have been on the buses many times. That being said I wish we were building LRT but BRT is what is chosen. There will be no BRT on the surface of Richmond downtown. Richmond is a way better option being that it's a main strip of the downtown. Also dupchecks arguments sound a lot like down shifts arguments which they don't make sense. Jammer I agree we need something under the CP tracks. They should build the underpass and the tunnel. We have to remember all this money is spread out over 10 years. The federal and provincial government should help a lot more for grade separations at busy rail crossing like Richmond and Adelaide.