Shift: London's Rapid Transit Initiative

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Edit: Maybe someone can explain to me the statement in the article "London is the largest Canadian city without rapid transit." At first, I just thought it was the Free Press saying something that sounded right to them, without checking. How can this statement be correct? Hamilton, for instance, has an express bus (business hours Monday to Friday...). Halifax has MetroLink, but it's essentially a limited-stop route, too. London has limited-stop routes. So how is the Free Press defining "rapid transit"? And how is their statement accurate?

I think they are referring to London being the largest city in Canada without an approved rapid transit plan. Hamilton has an approved LRT line and Waterloo's project is under construction.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by haljackey

City council approve LRT plan.

http://www.lfpress.com/2015/11/09/london...system-with-a-final-vote-set-for-january

A step into the 21st century.

While it's not as 'grand' as I hoped, the fact that this bare-bones LRT is moving is huge. Let's hope nothing derails.

woot woot.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

In the report, it was said that demand in the west was such that LRT there (with its much-higher-capacity vehicles) would likely run only four times hourly for the foreseeable future. That's not good frequency, and it's much more sensible to have buses (in their own lanes with signal priority) running more frequently in terms of ridership building.

I'm surprised to hear the opinion that Wellington couldn't support LRT, though: I would have thought so. But this is great, that hybrid option looks like a great system.

Edit: Maybe someone can explain to me the statement in the article "London is the largest Canadian city without rapid transit." At first, I just thought it was the Free Press saying something that sounded right to them, without checking. How can this statement be correct? Hamilton, for instance, has an express bus (business hours Monday to Friday...). Halifax has MetroLink, but it's essentially a limited-stop route, too. London has limited-stop routes. So how is the Free Press defining "rapid transit"? And how is their statement accurate?

Hamilton also has GO trains and buses (which link to other parts of the Hamilton CMA), and Halifax is smaller than London.

[Innsertnamehere]

another way to state this is that London would be the smallest city in North America with rapid transit if this were to be built.

Also, Quebec City does not have rapid transit, and is far larger than London.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

another way to state this is that London would be the smallest city in North America with rapid transit if this were to be built.

Also, Quebec City does not have rapid transit, and is far larger than London.

Agreed on Quebec City, but you're wrong on the first point. I can think of a city with awesome rapid transit that is a fraction of London's size: Morgantown, West Virginia. I'm sure there are others.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

another way to state this is that London would be the smallest city in North America with rapid transit if this were to be built.

Also, Quebec City does not have rapid transit, and is far larger than London.

Once again, it is talking about cities that have rapid transit or approved plans for rapid transit of which Quebec City (from my understanding) has a BRT plan.

[MolsonExport]

Calgary and Edmonton had LRT systems when they were not much larger than London is today. Besides, it will probably take at least 5 years to become operational, and London CMA could be nearly 550,000 by then (in other words, the same size as Calg and Edm back in the day)

On May 25, 1981, Calgary Transit became one of the first transit systems in North America (behind Edmonton LRT which opened in 1978) to operate a light rail system — the C-Train, on which construction had begun in 1978. The original line (referred to internally as the A Line, and externally as Route 201) ran from Anderson Station (just north of Anderson Road in the south end of the city) to 8th St SW in Downtown Calgary.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

Once again, it is talking about cities that have rapid transit or approved plans for rapid transit of which Quebec City (from my understanding) has a BRT plan.

The line was "London is the largest Canadian city with no form of rapid transit." I think you're right that they may mean no approved plans, though I wish they could have said that. I don't think it's a meaningful statement to have added (what's "rapid transit"? if they mean "approved," why not add "approved"?), but I note that it's the London Free Press.

The sentiment is correct, though: London is a large city for the relatively poor transit it has. It is not at all too small to have rapid transit, rail transit, anything. Other cities much smaller have the above.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Depends what senior levels are willing to give to London in funding. If $125 million is good enough for the municipal share, and senior levels sign a blank cheque for the remainder London might as well go full LRT! If it's a percentage see how much more it would be.

Some of the plans they could incorporate general road infrastructure improvements as well. If they're willing to spend $100+ million on a tunnel under CP tracks at Richmond, why not make it a full grade separation for all traffic for the North-East route. Or finally connecting Riverside to King directly for the South-West route since the existing Kensington &Queens Ave bridges will not be able to handle BRT/LRT as well as 4 lanes of traffic.

[Snark]

Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac

Depends what senior levels are willing to give to London in funding. If $125 million is good enough for the municipal share, and senior levels sign a blank cheque for the remainder London might as well go full LRT! If it's a percentage see how much more it would be.

1) The senior levels of government will be kicking in a percentage of the total cost up to an upset limit. If the initial overall cost of a project is higher, then the city's cost goes up as well.

2) It's not a blank cheque. There are endless hurdles for a municipality to go through in the application process, and then spending a grant from higher levels of government. What grant funding can be spent on is typically very specific and is always meticulously audited afterwards.

3) Any grants from higher levels of government will be towards the capital costs only. The operating costs will however be at least equivalent to the capital costs over the 30 year life of the infrastructure. If the ridership isn't there (at least initially) on some routes, it would be irresponsible to build a system whose operating costs are a gross mismatch to actual ridership. Trains are much more expensive to build, operate, and maintain. The ridership demand has to be there in the demand studies to build a proper business case. Bad business case = no grant from higher levels of government. The runs servicing the downtown with Fanshawe and Western is the low hanging fruit in terms of predictable high ridership demand, therefore the trains go there.

Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac

Some of the plans they could incorporate general road infrastructure improvements as well. If they're willing to spend $100+ million on a tunnel under CP tracks at Richmond, why not make it a full grade separation for all traffic for the North-East route. Or finally connecting Riverside to King directly for the South-West route since the existing Kensington &Queens Ave bridges will not be able to handle BRT/LRT as well as 4 lanes of traffic.

1) Again, what grants from higher levels of government can be spent on is very specific. If the grant is for a transit system, it can't be spent on a bridge unless required directly by the transit system and specified so in the grant agreement. If the higher levels of government want to kick in additional funding for more than what the transit system directly requires, then that's fine, however it's then grants for more then a transit system. That can become a slippery slope, as every municipality has all kinds of infrastructure that needs improvement.

2) The city share is funded through development charges. That funding can't be spent on general infrastructure improvements unless it can be shown (and defended at the OMB) that the improvement is required due to new development. Again, it would have to be shown that the transit system (which can be justified using development charges) requires the improvement, or else the city will have to find additional, separate funding for the portion of the improvement not directly required by the transit system. Of course that's possible, but would then be competing against other potential bridge projects throughout the city.

[MolsonExport]

^excellent post.

[bolognium]

Don't know if I've come right out and said it, but I'm grateful you're a frequent poster here, Snark.

[haljackey]

Conceptual LRT on Richmond. One lane.



Seeing this makes me cringe, but change is usually good. This will take the buses off the road which usually block the right lane. Also left turns will be eliminated which usually blocks the left lane.

As long as taxis / delivery trucks don't randomly stop on the road it might flow somewhat ok. More people will be encouraged to take transit which might help reduce the growth of traffic volume.

[ssiguy]

Great news for London and personally I don't think getting Queen's Park or Ottawa to pay the amount requested will be that hard.

One of the main planks of Trudeau's campaign was infrastructure construction and this an ideal example. It would be almost impossible for Queen's Park to refuse or even delay and they certainly can't cry poverty as Brampton just turned down the LRT money it was offered.

Hamilton, Toronto, Missisauga have all gotten their LRTs paid for 100% and Kitchener not that much but is also benefiting from free GO Rail expansion and Ottawa is getting gobs for it's new tunnel and the province has said it will contribute to the Western LRT expansion so they too are getting their largess.

Wynne could write-off the next election and have a mutiny on her hands if she refused it London it's money. It would have dire political consequences and reinforce what many outside Toronto already think..............that Wynne is not the Premier of Ontario but rather the Mayor of Toronto.

If London is refused it's funding, I really could see it being enough to cause a small mutiny of non-GTAH MPPs and bring the gov't down to a minority and eventually the fall of the government.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by haljackey

Conceptual LRT on Richmond. One lane.



Seeing this makes me cringe, but change is usually good. This will take the buses off the road which usually block the right lane. Also left turns will be eliminated which usually blocks the left lane.

As long as taxis / delivery trucks don't randomly stop on the road it might flow somewhat ok. More people will be encouraged to take transit which might help reduce the growth of traffic volume.

fanfuckingtastic.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Great news for London and personally I don't think getting Queen's Park or Ottawa to pay the amount requested will be that hard.

One of the main planks of Trudeau's campaign was infrastructure construction and this an ideal example. It would be almost impossible for Queen's Park to refuse or even delay and they certainly can't cry poverty as Brampton just turned down the LRT money it was offered.

Hamilton, Toronto, Missisauga have all gotten their LRTs paid for 100% and Kitchener not that much but is also benefiting from free GO Rail expansion and Ottawa is getting gobs for it's new tunnel and the province has said it will contribute to the Western LRT expansion so they too are getting their largess.

Wynne could write-off the next election and have a mutiny on her hands if she refused it London it's money. It would have dire political consequences and reinforce what many outside Toronto already think..............that Wynne is not the Premier of Ontario but rather the Mayor of Toronto.

If London is refused it's funding, I really could see it being enough to cause a small mutiny of non-GTAH MPPs and bring the gov't down to a minority and eventually the fall of the government.

I agree with you that there's no reason for a rapid transit ask to be denied by the provincial or federal governments, but you are really overstating any kind of backlash there might be for them to reject (or, more realistically and let's hope not, delay for three years...) it.

I don't even know where your "small mutiny of non-GTAH MPPs" would originate. It would be small indeed. The Liberals have a lone MPP from London. I can't see the Liberal MPPs from Thunder Bay and the Sault being too outspoken because non-GTA southern Ontario didn't get some money for transit.

Anyway, I don't see why a solid business case would be rejected, especially if the municipality is kicking in part of the funding.

Edit: I also have no idea why this kind of talk about how KW is "getting free" Go expansion, and Mississauga is "getting free" LRT. We're all Ontario and Canadian taxpayers. We have to invest in infrastructure where it makes sense. I don't generally feel like we're the "beggar-thy-neighbour" types around here- do people in Chatham begrudge the fact that some of their tax dollars are being used to support transit infrastructure where it's the efficient choice? I hope not. Shift should be funded because it makes sense for a city of London's size, not as pork paid to the city through political extortion.

[haljackey]

Conceptual BRT on Wellington at Baseline

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Calgary and Edmonton had LRT systems when they were not much larger than London is today. Besides, it will probably take at least 5 years to become operational, and London CMA could be nearly 550,000 by then (in other words, the same size as Calg and Edm back in the day)

I don't think your comparison of London to Cal/Edm is a fair one.

Yes Greater London has 500,000 but it's urban core is only 385,000.........the transit population. When Edm/Cal got their systems their transit/urban cores each had about 600,000. They were also growing MUCH faster than London and all forecasts say that continuing. This was due to the oil boom and Canada itself growing much faster. Now Canada and London have set into population growth rates of around 0.9 to 1.2% and 0.6 to 1.0% respectively.

Alberta had gobs of oil money flowing in and remember both Cal/Edm are much younger cities. Both cities had un/little used rail corridors which London doesn't had large swaths of undeveloped land downtown whereas London has a much more solid and continuous built urban form, and due to being newer cities they had wide blvds to take advantage of which needless to say London lacks.

I don't think demographically or in built urban form it is a fair comparison.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by haljackey

Conceptual BRT on Wellington at Baseline

I wish they had rendered some sort of mid-rise building (or anything) on the southwest corner where the former gas station is. But that BRT looks great.

[Snark]

The backlash against RT in London has started. I was listening to Craig Needles' talk radio show on AM 980 a week or so ago. I generally pass by such drivel, as talk radio is typically a right-wing rage generation machine with clear agendas - which is to trash somebody or something as the topic of each show.

Anyway, I came upon Needles' "round table" discussion during his show. It was a panel discussion comprised of the DJ "Taz" from FM96, a fellow named Stewart Blair who is a local Conservative party insider and realtor, and Cheryl Miller who is a former councilor, local conservative party candidate, and realtor (something of a trend there). The reason it held my attention was that the topic of discussion was the decision of city council to continue with the rapid transit project. All 4 of them savaged the project in the most merciless manner possible. It was a solid hour of totally trashing the idea, and the people behind it.

Listening to their arguments quickly belied the fact that none of them knew much about the topic, but that didn't stop them. Probably their stupidest argument against building a RT system was that due to the current rate of technological change, light rail transit will be obsolete in a decade (!) - so such a system should never be built in the first place. Of course if one follows that mantra nothing will ever get built because there will always be new technology coming out in a future decade, and apparently the TTC and other cities will be junking their existing LRT transit systems, because flying cars or whatever that new technology is apparently will coming in 10 years will replace it.

The "Taz" guy (who is apparently is eminently qualified to discuss the subject by being a radio show morning man), kept hammering away at the idea that any money that was to be for LRT should instead be put into building a ring road. The idea is that no one (other than students and old folks) will use LRT in London because car is king, so all municipal efforts should be poured into servicing automobile transportation - which will of course encourage even more private cars and even more discourage public transit - which is of course is why no one should be investing in public transit because no one will use it. Circular logic.

Cheryl Miller kept hoping that the whole thing is a ruse, intended to get the higher levels of government on the hook for big grant funding. Once such funding is secured, the money could then be diverted to some other "legitimate" project that would actually be worthwhile.

So, in closing, I know that folks here are big supporters of an LRT system in London - but it's not going to be that easy. Now that it's on the public radar the opposition will rise - with the flames fanned by the likes of talk radio, and, typically, more conservative leaning individuals.