Shift: London's Rapid Transit Initiative

[inimrepus]

Richmond was the best place for the busses to go because thats where there are people and businesses. There is also a hospital on Richmond that they wanted to have connected to the BRT system. Going up Wharncliffe also would have required the redevelopment of 2 bridges along with the purchasing a large number of homes along Wharncliffe since they are build so close to the road there.

Going up Richmond had a lot of problems, but Wharncliffe had many more problems with fewer benefits.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by bolognium

Regardless of what you think about the bars, clubs, nightlife, shops, etc on Richmond, it's still the most vibrant corridor in the city.

Slapping a big ugly overpass at the tracks, expropriating buildings, and ruining the pedestrian experience would have been a major loss. Sure the tracks can be annoying if you're stuck at a train for 15 minutes, but when the tracks are clear there is basically no physical or psychological barrier. Richmond isn't wide enough for a 4-lane tunnel to have worked, and a 4-lane overpass would have been a massive step backwards as far is vibrant downtown urban planning is concerned. I think it makes sense why the 2-lane rapid transit tunnel was what was ultimately proposed.

I wonder why it isn't feasible to put the CP tracks in a trench through downdown, so that there can be grade separation at major intersections.

[GreatTallNorth2]

It was literally going to be like a subway, it was not a bridge or over/underpass.

[haljackey]

Bringing in a BRT discussion on the Highway and Road Improvement thread https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/sho...6#post10196696

-----

I discussed the possibility of routing the West/North BRT routes via Talbot instead of Richmond. It would either use Talbot the whole way from Queens or Ridout, or deviate from Richmond on a road south of the CP tracks.

To get to Oxford, either the Talbot Street Underpass would have to be widened and deepened, OR a BRT only road could intersect Oxford between it's Thames River Bridge and CP underpass. This may require expropriation around where the Belfort Night Club is, but it would likely be cheaper.

Once you hit Oxford, the west route can continue on that route to Wonderland. The north route would use Wharncliffe/Western. This would avoid the mixed traffic BRT routing on Wharncliffe between Riverside and Oxford that was the main reason for killing the west leg in the first place.

Super rough diagram

[Snark]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I wonder why it isn't feasible to put the CP tracks in a trench through downdown, so that there can be grade separation at major intersections.

If for a moment, imagine the rail crossing at Richmond were to have the tracks lowered 10 meters in elevation (at a minimum) at that location to allow a bridge crossing of Richmond Street passing overhead of the rail tracks (I believe that’s what you are suggesting). The elevation of the rail crossing at Richmond Street (whether that’s at the current at-grade elevation or 10 meters below grade) is tied to the elevation of the rails on the rail bridge structure crossing the Thames to the west (a fixed elevation). The distance from the east end of that rail bridge structure at Talbot Street (a fixed location) to Richmond Street is about 400 meters. A 10 meter drop in elevation over that distance results in a 2.5% grade slope of the track over that distance. A 15 meter change in elevation would result in a 3.75% grade. Both grades would be considered poor for slow travelling heavy freight trains (too steep). The other issue would be the transition of the rail grade from essentially 0% (flat) at the east end of the Thames rail crossing to a 2.5% - 3.5% slope. That transition cannot be immediate (i.e. – sharp change of angle), but rather gradual. That gradual transition would eat into that 400 metre gap between Talbot Street and Richmond Street, shortening the length of the slope run to Richmond, and steepening the grade considerably more.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

I wonder why it isn't feasible to put the CP tracks in a trench through downdown, so that there can be grade separation at major intersections.

Originally Posted by Snark

If for a moment, imagine the rail crossing at Richmond were to have the tracks lowered 10 meters in elevation (at a minimum) at that location to allow a bridge crossing of Richmond Street passing overhead of the rail tracks (I believe that’s what you are suggesting). The elevation of the rail crossing at Richmond Street (whether that’s at the current at-grade elevation or 10 meters below grade) is tied to the elevation of the rails on the rail bridge structure crossing the Thames to the west (a fixed elevation). The distance from the east end of that rail bridge structure at Talbot Street (a fixed location) to Richmond Street is about 400 meters. A 10 meter drop in elevation over that distance results in a 2.5% grade slope of the track over that distance. A 15 meter change in elevation would result in a 3.75% grade. Both grades would be considered poor for slow travelling heavy freight trains (too steep). The other issue would be the transition of the rail grade from essentially 0% (flat) at the east end of the Thames rail crossing to a 2.5% - 3.5% slope. That transition cannot be immediate (i.e. – sharp change of angle), but rather gradual. That gradual transition would eat into that 400 metre gap between Talbot Street and Richmond Street, shortening the length of the slope run to Richmond, and steepening the grade considerably more.

Never mind the exorbitant cost involved. Which would have to be publicly funded, with construction that does not affect CP's operations.

In an ideal world, railways would be trenched or buried completely within our growing central-cities. But the world is not ideal.
(and there are still issues with urban development vs. rail operations where such is the case)

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Snark

If for a moment, imagine the rail crossing at Richmond were to have the tracks lowered 10 meters in elevation (at a minimum) at that location to allow a bridge crossing of Richmond Street passing overhead of the rail tracks (I believe that’s what you are suggesting). The elevation of the rail crossing at Richmond Street (whether that’s at the current at-grade elevation or 10 meters below grade) is tied to the elevation of the rails on the rail bridge structure crossing the Thames to the west (a fixed elevation). The distance from the east end of that rail bridge structure at Talbot Street (a fixed location) to Richmond Street is about 400 meters. A 10 meter drop in elevation over that distance results in a 2.5% grade slope of the track over that distance. A 15 meter change in elevation would result in a 3.75% grade. Both grades would be considered poor for slow travelling heavy freight trains (too steep). The other issue would be the transition of the rail grade from essentially 0% (flat) at the east end of the Thames rail crossing to a 2.5% - 3.5% slope. That transition cannot be immediate (i.e. – sharp change of angle), but rather gradual. That gradual transition would eat into that 400 metre gap between Talbot Street and Richmond Street, shortening the length of the slope run to Richmond, and steepening the grade considerably more.

Ok, thanks for the math on this. I figured it might be a slope issue, also given the proximity to the Thames bridge crossing.

London is a big city now, and the presence of at-grade rail crossings needs to be resolved at some point.

[Snark]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Ok, thanks for the math on this. I figured it might be a slope issue, also given the proximity to the Thames bridge crossing.

London is a big city now, and the presence of at-grade rail crossings needs to be resolved at some point.

The crossing at Richmond is a difficult problem with no easy solutions. The traditional solution is for the street to go under the railway.

For a street such as this, it would likely mean that Richmond would begin deviate from its existing grade to a lower elevation approximately 125 meters north and south of the hypothetical underpass under the rail tracks. This means that all properties fronting onto Richmond from north of Piccadilly Street to Mill Street would have access to Richmond cut off, and Piccadilly Street very likely cut off. Adding to that, the visibility for those retail businesses fronting onto Richmond for street traffic would be non-existent, as traffic would essentially be in a “canyon” crossing under the tracks. One answer to this would be to buy or expropriate any properties that would be made non-viable by the underpass. That would likely be necessary anyway, as building an underpass at this location would be extremely difficult within the confines of the existing road right-of-way, never mind where a temporary Richmond Street bypass around the site of construction of the underpass would go, or construction staging areas would be.

None of this is impossible, but the cost would be very, very high. It would keep law and engineering firms wealthy for a long time. It’s why the idea of constructing a smaller (two lane), dedicated tunnel for only rapid-transit under the tracks was floated for the now-dead rapid transit routes. The RT vehicles wouldn’t be delayed by trains at the level crossing, and Richmond would remain in its current level-crossing configuration. Construction sites would be limited to the two pits for tunnel boring machines at either end of the tunnel. Construction would still be disruptive as hell, but nothing compared to a full blown Richmond Street underpass of the CPR tracks. Alas, it matters not, as it likely will never happen.

Your comment that presence of at-grade rail crossings needs to be resolved at some point is very, very valid. The cost and angst in doing so is extremely daunting however. There have been many comments concerning the cost of constructing the Adelaide Street underpass, or reconstructing the Wharncliffe Road underpass. A similar solution on Richmond at the CPR crossing would be much, much more expensive and intrusive.

The irony is that the confluences of so many major railway lines at London is a major historic reason that it became a significant city. Now, in many ways, it's those rail lines that present many difficult and costly problems to solve.

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by Snark

The irony is that the confluences of so many major railway lines at London is a major historic reason that it became a significant city. Now, in many ways, it's those rail lines that present many difficult and costly problems to solve.

I thought St. Thomas was the railroad city? It's interesting how a lot of the lines there are either underused or straight up gutted today, yet the lines in London are busier than ever.

And ya just look at the amount of earth work it took to make the Adelaide Street underpass a thing both north and south of the tracks. If Richmond ever got that treatment, you might as well bury it under Oxford like the underground station proposal and have 'Upper Richmond' exist as a stub providing access to homes and businesses between the CP tracks and Oxford.

On the south side the only good spot to fit a good underpass approach is at Clarence Street by Vic Park before Central. Ya, right by Joe Kools lol.

Those who came up with the LRT plan were spot on. It's either this giant project on Richmond, or nothing. Else route the BRT to Talbot. That's the only way it can get north thanks to the city allowing a condo tower built where Wellington could have been extended to Oxford via a new CP crossing (possibly BRT/LRT only). That would have been a good choice as well.

-----

In terms of actual BRT construction, Oxbury is turning into a mess as expected. Avoid that intersection if you can.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

It was literally going to be like a subway, it was not a bridge or over/underpass.

Which would be fine, but the cost of it years ago when they finally killed it had grown exponentially. I can only imagine how much it would have ballooned to, probably exceeding the entire forecasted cost of all 4 routes.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Snark

Construction sites would be limited to the two pits for tunnel boring machines at either end of the tunnel. Construction would still be disruptive as hell, but nothing compared to a full blown Richmond Street underpass of the CPR tracks. Alas, it matters not, as it likely will never happen.

If I recall from back then, it was said that they weren't boring this tunnel out, they were excavating it (cut and cover I think was the phraseology used). I think that was the main reason for all the Richmond opposition, was how the street was going to be ripped right open for a couple years from basically Central to St Joe's.