London Roads

[MolsonExport]

any studies on the costs of building new CN/CPR rails to bypass central London? I know there are a few shunting yards, etc., But how much can it really cost, vs. costs of upgrading/maintaining all those overpasses, etc.?

[Pimpmasterdac]

I've read the 1973 LUTS plan, had some great ideas that should've been implemented. The one I most remember was making Wellington & Richmond counter one-way streets from Oxford to Horton would have been amazing for both drivers and public transit. Alas Wellington will permanently be dis-joined with condo at Pall Mall st. and another London traffic plan set to the scrap heap of unused London traffic plans/studies.

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Wharncliffe north of Oxford was supposed to be done by 1992, according to the 1973 London Urban Transportation Study (LUTS). The same study also recommended several scenarios for the railway lines to both bypass London, though spurs would still have existed to service some industrial areas in the east end. The proposal called for a busway or monorail (!) to replace part of the CP line. A major caveat: LUTS assumed London to have a population of 400,000 by 1991 within the then-city limits which London has not yet reached.

There was a call for that in the 80/90s but I don't believe any official study occurred. Would be nice to have a cost of either or.. Althought if anything the ship has already sailing away on that. CP had to throw in a good chunk for $$ for the new Sarnia rd bridge, going to be throwing in for the Hyde Park widening, as the underpass needs some work done, as well as scheduled projects midterm for Wonderland overpass widening to 6 lanes, Platts Lane & Wharncliffe underpass widenings, and now perhaps an Adelaide overpass. I've heard there being talk of CP adding an additional track too..

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

any studies on the costs of building new CN/CPR rails to bypass central London? I know there are a few shunting yards, etc., But how much can it really cost, vs. costs of upgrading/maintaining all those overpasses, etc.?

[Pimpmasterdac]

Looks like some much needed projects are about to/wrapping up soon.

Oxford St. W. will reopen Friday, with four lanes of traffic and left-hand turning lanes all the way to Sanatorium Rd. City has spent $8.9 million on this project alone.

West Brough’s Bridge rehabilitation on Richmond St. has been finished at a cost of $2.4 million, but it the city won't open it to traffic until the New Year. Richmond will still be down to 2 lanes in the area because a new student apartment that needs 2 of the currently closed lanes to for its construction equipment, since it's running late on schedule. Really seems weird that the City would allow this, should grow a pair and tell this developer to move the shit off the streets.

Southdale widening seems to be running past its timetable, construction isn't scheduled to be finished until the end of December. The project has cost $6.8 million so far, hopefully they can finish the project before winter comes out in full force. I drive by this project each day and seems to be done from Wharncliffe all the way west to Andover, all paved and now pouring medians. The rest seems to be a real bitch, seem to have been digging for months with no real progress.

LFPress Article I: http://www.lfpress.com/2013/11/20/the-wild--wider--west
LFPress Article II: http://www.lfpress.com/2013/11/19/city-of-london-asks-motorists-to-show-patience

[haljackey]

Took Southdale today. Looks like all lanes are open between Andover and Wonderland. The rest of it looks nearly ready for opening, road paint is there and everything.

Like the Oxford widening, the final coat of asphalt will come in the new year after the snow melts.

[Pimpmasterdac]

I work around Wonderland & Southdale, glad they're finally getting this widening done! Going to make my commute a lot nicer

Its still not fully open, backed up going eastbound heavily tonight, but I saw construction worked testing out the new traffic lights and painting traffic & bike lanes on the road. Once the snows gone or they plow the rest should be completed, officially (now) suppose to be open by Christmas Eve according to the city.

[manny_santos]

Also drove on Oxford from Sanitorium to Wonderland today. Very well done.

This week is the first time I've tried "suburban" London living in a long time, and it continues to become less and less appealing to me. I can't get over how far one must drive to pick up basic supplies. How people find this lifestyle appealing, I just do not get. I'll take my near-downtown apartment where groceries and The Beer Store are within walking distance, Tim Hortons is within walking distance, and Canadian Tire is only a 4-minute drive.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Also drove on Oxford from Sanitorium to Wonderland today. Very well done.

This week is the first time I've tried "suburban" London living in a long time, and it continues to become less and less appealing to me. I can't get over how far one must drive to pick up basic supplies. How people find this lifestyle appealing, I just do not get. I'll take my near-downtown apartment where groceries and The Beer Store are within walking distance, Tim Hortons is within walking distance, and Canadian Tire is only a 4-minute drive.

Yes, but try talking to your average Londoner about this. They will look at you with the "deer in the headlights" look. People here do not understand community and the values of having smart planning. People like what seems normal to them and if they haven't lived in a place that has better planning. Since coming back from the UK, I have spoken to people how life works there and they say "this isn't the UK so it won't work in London". I don't find it appealing at all, but it's tough to fix.

[Snark]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

This week is the first time I've tried "suburban" London living in a long time, and it continues to become less and less appealing to me.....How people find this lifestyle appealing, I just do not get...

Three reasons:

1) Folks in this part of the world have been brought up to believe that one must own a piece of land as a part of a successful life.
2) No one wants to raise kids in the downtown if they can help it.
3) A downtown apartment the size of a house (say 1800 - 2400 sq.ft.) is prohibitively expensive. A lot of folks (especially families) want to live in something larger than a breadbox.

One can debate the validity of those values, but that's what they are for better or worse.

The reality is that under the current set of North American societal values, the groups that will live in a city core are mainly young 20-somethings, single urban professionals, perhaps a few DINKS, and older empty nesters. In this part of the world, you aren't going to see much if any of the 30 - 60 crowd who are in a long-term relationship or have kids living in a city core.

At different phases in my life, I've lived in a city core, modern apartments that were a 30 minute walk from the core, and a suburban satellite bedroom community that is a 20 minute drive just to city limits. All were/are the right places for me at those different phases in life and I wouldn't change any of it. Ask M.E. why he lives in Hyde Park instead of downtown. Yes, there is a price to be paid for such living arrangements (such as driving to have to get most things), but it is a price that folks who take on that lifestyle are prepared to pay for what they see as the benefits. That said, I realize that it isn't for everybody - but it is (rightly or wrongly) for most folks in that 30-60 age bracket if they can afford it.

To compare the situation here to Europe is isn't all that useful, because they have different values regarding housing and lifestyle. In addition, vast segments of the population in Europe couldn't afford a home in the suburbs even if they wanted to. Many have mortgages on just townhouses that are multi-generational.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by Snark

Three reasons:

1) Folks in this part of the world have been brought up to believe that one must own a piece of land as a part of a successful life.
2) No one wants to raise kids in the downtown if they can help it.
3) A downtown apartment the size of a house (say 1800 - 2400 sq.ft.) is prohibitively expensive. A lot of folks (especially families) want to live in something larger than a breadbox.

One can debate the validity of those values, but that's what they are for better or worse.

The reality is that under the current set of North American societal values, the groups that will live in a city core are mainly young 20-somethings, single urban professionals, perhaps a few DINKS, and older empty nesters. In this part of the world, you aren't going to see much if any of the 30 - 60 crowd who are in a long-term relationship or have kids living in a city core.

At different phases in my life, I've lived in a city core, modern apartments that were a 30 minute walk from the core, and a suburban satellite bedroom community that is a 20 minute drive just to city limits. All were/are the right places for me at those different phases in life and I wouldn't change any of it. Ask M.E. why he lives in Hyde Park instead of downtown. Yes, there is a price to be paid for such living arrangements (such as driving to have to get most things), but it is a price that folks who take on that lifestyle are prepared to pay for what they see as the benefits. That said, I realize that it isn't for everybody - but it is (rightly or wrongly) for most folks in that 30-60 age bracket if they can afford it.

To compare the situation here to Europe is isn't all that useful, because they have different values regarding housing and lifestyle. In addition, vast segments of the population in Europe couldn't afford a home in the suburbs even if they wanted to. Many have mortgages on just townhouses that are multi-generational.

A pedestrian should not have to live in or close to a downtown in order to receive the basics of life. For the most part the problem in London is that it is built for cars and not people. I lived on the edge of Bath, but I could walk and get everything I needed for daily life. There is a large distinct city centre there, but every neighbourhood of the city had it's own "high street" with shops, etc. We all know this isn't Europe, but there is no reason why we can't plan better. Just because we have more land, it doesn't mean we should not consider smart planning. There is no reason to build multiple mega big box stores on the edge of town like they did in Hyde Park. I went there today and it has to be the worst planned area I've ever seen. You drive to the DumbCentre and then once you are there, you drive from store to store. There should be much better integration of housing, business, retail and education within a community. Wortley is an obvious good example in London.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

A pedestrian should not have to live in or close to a downtown in order to receive the basics of life. For the most part the problem in London is that it is built for cars and not people. I lived on the edge of Bath, but I could walk and get everything I needed for daily life. There is a large distinct city centre there, but every neighbourhood of the city had it's own "high street" with shops, etc. We all know this isn't Europe, but there is no reason why we can't plan better. Just because we have more land, it doesn't mean we should not consider smart planning. There is no reason to build multiple mega big box stores on the edge of town like they did in Hyde Park. I went there today and it has to be the worst planned area I've ever seen. You drive to the DumbCentre and then once you are there, you drive from store to store. There should be much better integration of housing, business, retail and education within a community. Wortley is an obvious good example in London.

Even though there are valid arguments people will have for suburban living - after all, not everyone can fit downtown anyways - there is no reason why an area like Byron should be so severely lacking in basic product and service offerings. The demand is there, but there's just way too much land zoned as low-density residential along the major roads that could have been zoned as commercial decades ago. The south side of Byron is even considered a "food desert" by Jason Gilliland's study that has been quoted on this site before. Kingston's suburbs aren't that bad, save for the east end that was developed before municipal amalgamation; at least in east-end Kingston, the residents are fighting for more commercial zoning so they don't have to drive far to shop, unlike suburbanites in London that seem completely satisfied with driving long distances to shop. Two Ontario cities, two very different mentalities among residents about how close shopping should be to home.

My "outsider's" impression of London today, as a visitor from Eastern Ontario who has spent very little time in London in the past year, is that it has very much become a sprawling big box city that is heavily car dependent.

[haljackey]

When people mention car-dependent suburbs, I think of big roads, freeways, few sidewalks and poor transit.

London doesn't have very many big roads, the only 6 lane arterial is a short stretch of Wellington by Victoria hospital. There are no freeways for local traffic. Sidewalks, bike lanes and paths are ok and improving with reconstruction projects. I do agree with poor transit though.

To solve this, I'd love to see transit-oriented development on the main arterials. This is actually possible if BRT is greenlit as will help provide somewhat-sufficient transit in the main corridors. That will help make the surrounding areas a little denser, and hopefully spur more development in the urbanized area opposed to in the outskirts.
-Urban decay is starting to become an issue too. Many parts of town are screaming for redevelopment which in turn will help boost land values for nearby homes and businesses.

One other thing: sprawl may be bad, but at least London is growing. Not the way we think it should even by sprawl standards, but isn't that better than stagnation or a shrinking population?

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by haljackey

When people mention car-dependent suburbs, I think of big roads, freeways, few sidewalks and poor transit.

London doesn't have very many big roads, the only 6 lane arterial is a short stretch of Wellington by Victoria hospital. There are no freeways for local traffic. Sidewalks, bike lanes and paths are ok and improving with reconstruction projects. I do agree with poor transit though.

To solve this, I'd love to see transit-oriented development on the main arterials. This is actually possible if BRT is greenlit as will help provide somewhat-sufficient transit in the main corridors. That will help make the surrounding areas a little denser, and hopefully spur more development in the urbanized area opposed to in the outskirts.
-Urban decay is starting to become an issue too. Many parts of town are screaming for redevelopment which in turn will help boost land values for nearby homes and businesses.

One other thing: sprawl may be bad, but at least London is growing. Not the way we think it should even by sprawl standards, but isn't that better than stagnation or a shrinking population?

I guess in my case, I think of car-dependent suburbs as any suburb where the automobile is required to get from home to purchase basic products/services such as groceries, hardware supplies, and so forth, regardless of whether the transportation facility used is Southdale Road or Highway 403 through Mississauga.

I do also believe that large, wide roads can co-exist with pedestrian-friendly, bicycle-friendly communities. My favourite avenue in the Americas I've seen is Paseo de la Reforma in Mexico City. It has 14 lanes of traffic (!), but also has bike lanes, wide pedestrian right-of-way, and wide medians used for parkland, which often contains public art installations. As it is not an expressway, there are no paved shoulders, and the lanes are a little narrower than expressway standard. The total right-of-way is about 100 metres wide, approximately 20 metres wider than the 401 west of Bayview Ave in Toronto.

I am only opposed to population growth in London if it means destruction of farmland used to feed people.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by haljackey

When people mention car-dependent suburbs, I think of big roads, freeways, few sidewalks and poor transit.

There are a lot of different ways to do things right, and a lot of different ways to do things wrong. London doesn’t have many big roads or freeways, but it doesn’t have very good transit, or more importantly the built form that will facilitate good transit.

Talking about BRT: my sister recently moved to a place in a new development the closest intersection to which is Oxford and Wonderland. In most cities, an intersection of that importance would already have very good transit. In London’s case, however, she is two kilometers walking because the streets in the development are not logical and gridded, but rather cul-de-sacs and crescents. That type of street design makes trips longer, and impractical for pedestrians. She’ll probably never walk to Oxford and Wonderland to take BRT.

Notwithstanding the type of growth happening in Byron, on Wonderland South and Hyde Park, which is absolutely unsustainable and can never be transit-oriented, even within the city proposals are accepted that will hinder the success of transit in the future. I’m thinking again of Oxford and Wonderland: if BRT is implemented at that location, whom will it serve? On and near that corner is a gas station, a car dealership, several strip malls, a Costco. There are some apartment buildings nearby, but most of the residential is nevertheless extremely low-density and configured in such a way as to prevent residents from walking anywhere. No one is ever going to take the bus to that Costco. Exceedingly few people will ever approach it on foot because it was approved with a massive parking lot between it and the street. Very little about this area is walkable, and it shouldn’t exist inside a city.

It could change, if the London Mall is one day redeveloped sensibly and the northeast corner sees a good development. But I wouldn’t hold out much hope: the development just north of Costco will be low-rise big-box style, with 120 parking spaces. Why would we expect the City of London to get things right all of a sudden?

By the way, the London Ontario section should have a Rapid Transit or Bus Rapid Transit thread, if it doesn’t. There are multiple good discussions going on about it and London’s car-centrism in different threads.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Talking about BRT: my sister recently moved to a place in a new development the closest intersection to which is Oxford and Wonderland. In most cities, an intersection of that importance would already have very good transit. In London’s case, however, she is two kilometers walking because the streets in the development are not logical and gridded, but rather cul-de-sacs and crescents. That type of street design makes trips longer, and impractical for pedestrians. She’ll probably never walk to Oxford and Wonderland to take BRT.

Notwithstanding the type of growth happening in Byron, on Wonderland South and Hyde Park, which is absolutely unsustainable and can never be transit-oriented, even within the city proposals are accepted that will hinder the success of transit in the future. I’m thinking again of Oxford and Wonderland: if BRT is implemented at that location, whom will it serve? On and near that corner is a gas station, a car dealership, several strip malls, a Costco. There are some apartment buildings nearby, but most of the residential is nevertheless extremely low-density and configured in such a way as to prevent residents from walking anywhere. No one is ever going to take the bus to that Costco. Exceedingly few people will ever approach it on foot because it was approved with a massive parking lot between it and the street. Very little about this area is walkable, and it shouldn’t exist inside a city.

It could change, if the London Mall is one day redeveloped sensibly and the northeast corner sees a good development. But I wouldn’t hold out much hope: the development just north of Costco will be low-rise big-box style, with 120 parking spaces. Why would we expect the City of London to get things right all of a sudden?

By the way, the London Ontario section should have a Rapid Transit or Bus Rapid Transit thread, if it doesn’t. There are multiple good discussions going on about it and London’s car-centrism in different threads.

From my observations, a large amount of the bus passengers originating at Oxford and Wonderland are transfers from other routes passing through the area, primarily the 17 Oxford West and also 33 Proudfoot and 20 Cherryhill.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Couldn't agree more about poor development. It's ironic that many of the desirable parts of London, Old South for example, have a simple grid system of roads that allows for good flow of traffic and good transit service. However it's the same NIMBY crowd that refuses to allow street to connect in a proper logical manner. London has many missing links that if connected would provide significant relief to the over congested roads. They would rather have crescents and cul-de-sacs to have their peace and quiet, yet the same ones how complain their roads are among the last to be plowed...

From what I've seen of BRT plans, the west route that would go through Oxford/Wonderland is the lowest priority. Not surprised, area is heavily car centric, car centric development, car centric roads. Hell the roads are just getting into the 20th century in that end of town.

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Talking about BRT: my sister recently moved to a place in a new development the closest intersection to which is Oxford and Wonderland. In most cities, an intersection of that importance would already have very good transit. In London’s case, however, she is two kilometers walking because the streets in the development are not logical and gridded, but rather cul-de-sacs and crescents. That type of street design makes trips longer, and impractical for pedestrians. She’ll probably never walk to Oxford and Wonderland to take BRT.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac

Couldn't agree more about poor development. It's ironic that many of the desirable parts of London, Old South for example, have a simple grid system of roads that allows for good flow of traffic and good transit service. However it's the same NIMBY crowd that refuses to allow street to connect in a proper logical manner. London has many missing links that if connected would provide significant relief to the over congested roads. They would rather have crescents and cul-de-sacs to have their peace and quiet, yet the same ones how complain their roads are among the last to be plowed...

From what I've seen of BRT plans, the west route that would go through Oxford/Wonderland is the lowest priority. Not surprised, area is heavily car centric, car centric development, car centric roads. Hell the roads are just getting into the 20th century in that end of town.

We’ve known for ages and ages that a grid is the most efficient street pattern in many ways. Suburban-style (I say “-style” because it can sometimes be approved in inner city neighbourhoods) development is designed specifically not to allow connectivity, so that “your” street is your own and your enjoyment is not disturbed by through traffic (of cars or people on foot). And you’re dead right, it makes everything less efficient, down to garbage pick-up and snow plowing…

Thanks for that info on the BRT plans. Looking at the plans you linked to a while ago, the Oxford West segment would logically be the last stage. Nothing about Oakridge and little about Cherryhill lends itself to higher-order transit.

Interesting thought, manny_santos, about transfers to and from the 17and 33. I’m going to try to look for ridership of specific routes; I don’t want to be negative, I just don’t think London warrants much optimism for a switch to the kind of intensification that would make rapid transit effective.

[manny_santos]

The LFP reports the City is mulling over an EA to widen Wharncliffe Road under the CP overpass north of Oxford Street.

Nice to finally see some progress on this.

[K85]

before the Adelaide overpass....... >< and those dimwits by Veterans Memorial Parkway finally got their wall/fence

Originally Posted by manny_santos

The LFP reports the City is mulling over an EA to widen Wharncliffe Road under the CP overpass north of Oxford Street.

Nice to finally see some progress on this.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by K85

before the Adelaide overpass....... >< and those dimwits by Veterans Memorial Parkway finally got their wall/fence

In this case, however, it is hinted that Western may get involved in this project.

I have no problem with the residents living close to Veterans Memorial Parkway getting some sort of noise barrier, though I think the federal government should be providing funding since it is a National Highway System route.

[Pimpmasterdac]

@HillStreetBlues There's no pleasing anyone in London it seems. There have been recent proposed developments that want to be more intensity and density focused. Local neighbours complain as always, more people, more traffic, "loss" of privacy. Instead more of the same is likely on the ordering block
--
As far as Wharncliffe/CP underpass EA starting, about fucking time! Sounds like it's going to be done right, 4 lanes + centre. If construction is actually going to take place 2017 that would be unexpectedly quick. Would be smart if the city could coordinate it with redoing the 1 lane Platts Lane underpass, since the underpass is the only thing constraining it from being a functioning road.

@K85 I agree Adelaide needs something done ASAP. From what was written in LFPress articles about it the EA for it will start next year. It's not even in any official city plans, so explains why Wharncliffe/CP is done first. Should have been done decades ago, there's plans from 1968 to build an overpass...