The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Maybe we need to go back to building "rapid transit" that actually is grade separated?????

London is way too small to have a fully grade separated RT/LRT line.

If just SOMETHING gets built, it will be a significant milestone for the city.


-----


For arterials, London's are busier compared to a city of similar size due to it's lack of freeways or high capacity roads. Add buses to the mix and you've got a slow moving road.

London's only road with 3 lanes in each direction is Wellington Road near the 401 in the south end of the city. It has a fragmented 6 lane cross section as it heads north toward downtown. BRT is proposed along this route which will likely see it fully 6-laned from downtown to the 401.

Back to LRT/congestion. Richmond Street does not have a parallel route somewhat nearby that has a similar capacity.
-Compare this to Kitchener/Waterloo where there are some. King Street has Weber Street which can help balance traffic demand a bit better. The King Street Bypass (Highway 8) is a 8 lane freeway that soaks up the majority of traffic heading south to the 401 from downtown. The Conestoga Parkway handles crosstown traffic instead of arterials. These routes allow LRT to have a smaller impact on long term traffic congestion.

[Nouvellecosse]

I think having a dedicated lane is really great. It would even be good if it was just a bus lane, even better an electrified trolley bus lane, but a lane dedicated to fully electrified rail service is a home run.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I'm not sure how exactly London plans to separate the LRT from the other lanes, but if it's like what I've seen in Toronto with Spadina Ave or The Queensway, I don't think an ambulance or fire truck could easily move into the LRT lane.

Emergency vehicles do use the streetcar ROWs though.


Based on that above image of the London LRT though, the road certainly looks to have generous enough setbacks to comfortably accommodate another lane of traffic in either direction.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by haljackey

London is way too small to have a fully grade separated RT/LRT line.

If just SOMETHING gets built, it will be a significant milestone for the city.

So I guess Calgary, Edmonton, and countless other cities which have been built either fully grade separated, or mostly full priority grade separated LRT lines were too small when they first started building?

Sometimes you just have to build. Like one of my friends always says. Can you think of the mess we would be in today, if Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Washington D.C., and other cities were starting to build rapid transit today? We would all be stuck on slow moving in the street median LRT lines. Instead of traveling rapidly on a grade separated metro line.

Do it right, or don't waste the money.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Emergency vehicles do use the streetcar ROWs though.


Based on that above image of the London LRT though, the road certainly looks to have generous enough setbacks to comfortably accommodate another lane of traffic in either direction.

That's what Toronto would do but London is putting transit first. Toronto only builds transit in ROW if it has absolutely no reduction in car lanes...........tells you about Toronto's real priorities.

The thing that will make this LRT/BRT successful is that London has the kind of traffic that legends are made from. There is no other city of London's size that even comes close to London's traffic woes. That, however, will work in the rapid transit's favour as these lines will be time competitive with cars which can be said in very few cities.

London's lack of freeways and being an older and established city has given it a solid built form and contributed to the city being one of Canada's nicest. This lack of roads has created hell for drivers but conversely made effective transit a truly viable option.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

So I guess Calgary, Edmonton, and countless other cities which have been built either fully grade separated, or mostly full priority grade separated LRT lines were too small when they first started building?

Sometimes you just have to build. Like one of my friends always says. Can you think of the mess we would be in today, if Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, Washington D.C., and other cities were starting to build rapid transit today? We would all be stuck on slow moving in the street median LRT lines. Instead of traveling rapidly on a grade separated metro line.

Do if right, or don't waste the money.

When Calgary and Edmonton built their LRTs they were both at around 600,000 while London is at 385,000. Also back in the 70's the overall {and especially Alberta} population was growing much faster as opposed to today when London is growing at a steady 0.8 to 1.0% per annum.

You also have to remember that both Calgary and Edmonton were MUCH younger cities than London and had wide corridors, tons of unused inner city land, and unused rail corridors. London has none of these things. All the rail corridors are used, the city has a far more historic and solid downtown built form, has no wide streets, and doesn't have the oil money that Alberta had.

With LRT from the North to Fanshawe via UWO/Richmond Row/downtown/East Village and BRT from West Oxford to White Oaks via Westown, and downtown I don't think the city could have made a better choice for either their routes or technology choices. The city has thought this thru very carefully and this is an excellent proposal and will be very well used.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

That's what Toronto would do but London is putting transit first. Toronto only builds transit in ROW if it has absolutely no reduction in car lanes...........tells you about Toronto's real priorities.

Trying to move as many people as possible whatever their mode of transport? Yeah I'd say that's a pretty good priority.

Though, there are still roads seeing lane reductions to accommodate bike lanes and expanded sidewalks to move more pedestrians & bikes (oh, and streetcar ROWs on St. Clair and Spadina and Queens Quay DID necessitate a reduction of lanes for the record). This however looks to have none of those - just an excessively wide grass setback that could be used to facilitate movement instead.

[haljackey]

BRT is also being proposed in London. Here's a concept on Wellington Road, the main gateway between downtown and the 401:

[Coldrsx]

BRT with ROW which could then become LRT in 20-30 years seems most appropriate.

[ssiguy]

It certainly is for the corridor they chose.

It allows for easier expansion on Oxford West which will probably be needed. It also hits many high density apt blocks and a major hospital but will not serve either Fanshawe or UWO where a good chunk of the ridership will come from.

This is an extremely well thought out plan and the city hasn't allowed local and petty politics to shape it's transit priorities. I couldn't have thought of a better plan if I tried and I know the city extremely well as I am an ex-Londoner.

[eemy]

I'd suggest getting rid of the centre median and putting a barrier between the bus lanes and the general traffic lanes instead.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

I'd suggest getting rid of the centre median and putting a barrier between the bus lanes and the general traffic lanes instead.

In the case of a BRT, I actually support having a painted yellow line rather than a true barrier.

If a bus is disabled ahead, it allows buses behind it to just merge right. It also probably appeases EMS. I also don't think too many drivers will intentionally cross over a yellow line (which is so obviously a traffic violation). Drivers are more disciplined than we think. I've noticed that a leftmost lane will often be jam packed with cars, but people won't merge into the empty HOV lane beside it.

[miketoronto]

Would you guys say the LRT in the following video is rapid transit? It is basically what London would be getting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhsMHwVsfNE

Or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qqKu4FgiSI

[jigglysquishy]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Would you guys say the LRT in the following video is rapid transit? It is basically what London would be getting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhsMHwVsfNE

Or this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qqKu4FgiSI

The Calgary one certainly would qualify. Houston's rail network is poor at best with inadequate spacing and surrounded by a poor built environment.

Low-floor LRT is great if you want a high quality urban community. Grade-separated fast RT is great if you want to bring suburbanites downtown.

Lots of smaller European cities have low-floor LRT and it works wonderfully. The DART in Dublin is amazing, but if you're using it as a long-distance commuting system it's not that great. But for getting around the central areas it is splendid.

We spend far too much money catering to suburbanites and it's time our RT systems change to reflect our growing urban communities.

Both Calgary and Edmonton have issues with that respect for their RT networks. Neither of them service urbanites and are wholly dedicated towards commuters.

[Nouvellecosse]

Neither are rapid transit (aka metro) systems as both have lots of at-grade crossings. But the first one looks pretty nice and would be a good example for London to follow. The second one has a long distance between stops and runs in the median of an overly wide street in an unattractive suburban area. A light rail system can be a great tool to densify and urbanize an area and add TODs but in the second video, they failed at doing any of this.

Despite the convenience of the LRT, I'd hate to have to live in such a setting.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Lots of smaller European cities have low-floor LRT and it works wonderfully. The DART in Dublin is amazing, but if you're using it as a long-distance commuting system it's not that great. But for getting around the central areas it is splendid.
We spend far too much money catering to suburbanites and it's time our RT systems change to reflect our growing urban communities.

London is not a European city, and we have to stop trying to compare cities with much different development patterns.

Some European cities can get away with street running LRT networks, because the distance from the centre to city edge is like 5km - 10km in most cases.
The distances are just not the same. And where the cities extend further, they often have metro or regional rail networks.

Only planning to cater to one group of people is not going to fix your transportation system. You need to cater to the short trips, but also the long trips. If you don't, people will just drive.

No matter how nice the trains look. Residents are not going to get on, if takes forever to get somewhere.

London is so lucky, in that highways do not cross through the city. There is a real chance to build a rapid transit system that is very competitive with the automobile. But building a network in the middle of the street, that stops at red lights, is not going to do that.

[miketoronto]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Neither are rapid transit (aka metro) systems as both have lots of at-grade crossings.

Calgary's is. It may have grade crossings, but the trains have full priority, and never wait. Further, the trains go something like 30 km/h faster than car traffic is allowed to go.

[GlassCity]

I think Calgary's (and Edmonton's for that matter) LRTs are a bad example when discussing LRT because it's so different from what most people have in mind. Most of the system is in large medians or rail right of ways, which allows for higher speed but is pretty atypical of most LRT systems. The sort of LRT that is all the rage to build right now–street-running with dedicated lanes serving dense neighbourhoods–can really not be compared to the systems in Alberta, which when I rode them seemed to almost have more of a commuter rail feel.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by miketoronto

Calgary's is. It may have grade crossings, but the trains have full priority, and never wait. Further, the trains go something like 30 km/h faster than car traffic is allowed to go.

Then most commuter rail systems are metros systems as well.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by jigglysquishy

Lots of smaller European cities have low-floor LRT and it works wonderfully. The DART in Dublin is amazing, but if you're using it as a long-distance commuting system it's not that great. But for getting around the central areas it is splendid.
.

DART is the high floor commuter rail service that runs up and down the coast. Luas is the low-floor LRT service.