Shift: London's Rapid Transit Initiative

[kaiserLDN]

We need this. I'm not sure how these people expect the city to grow. obviously the ones complaining will be louder then the silent majority that's for rapid transit. Need to pass this soon.

http://globalnews.ca/news/3312754/petition-against-shift-bus-rapid-transit-plan-picks-up-steam/

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Underground100

Notes from tonight's CTV News at 11:

• The downtown/Down Shift London petition has "somewhat" been made public (they showed clips of the list of businesses against it, showed clips of Joe Kool's and Accents on Richmond Row)
• EDIT: A clip sample shows Quesada, Hilton Doubletree, City Centre Office Tower, David E White, Moxies, JB Simpson Jewellers, Donohue Funeral Home, Bertoldis, Ryce Fashion Design, Fellini Koolini's, Zipp Lash, Eyes on Richmond, The Ceeps/Barneys, Marky's Crepe Café, Daisy Flowers, Stobie's Pizza, Starbucks Coffee, Winks, Toboggan Brewing, Framing and Art, Church Key Bistro, Nicholson Smith Law Firm, Loveleigh Boutique, Old North Optometry, Goose Realty, McGill Law Firm, Tim Horton's (4 Locations), Accents, Behr Law Firm, Hangar 9, Goligers Travels, Roman Leather, Black Trumpet, Cilantro, Kiss the Cook, Michael Gibson Gallery, Abruzzi, Jill's Table, Volour by Shubert, Bloomers, Urban Outfitters, Chris' Country Cuts, Jack Astors, International Bakery, Wich is Wich, The Works, and Cycle Path on the petition
• interview with Mike Smith (he owns Toboggan, Joe Kool's, Fellini Koolini's, and the Runt Club) saying that people need answers and that he's not against transit and wants the plan to be revamped and not to be done at the expense of businesses, taxpayers, and the automobile
• they then repeated the Wellington Road RT story

As you may know, Smith has been one of the louder voices against the project. At this point, I wonder which downtown businesses are *for* it?

I have bought beer from Toboggan a number of times when visiting London. They won't be getting my support any longer.

[ssiguy]

I have never thought using downtown Richmond was a good choice.

Going down Richmond from UWO certainly but as soon as it hits the tunnel at Oxford it should not enter back onto Richmond at roughly Central but rather onto Clarence. Have the tunnel start on Clarence generally in the area bechind the Victoria Park Bandshell.

It would get rid of the congestion /parking issues on Richmond and won't inhibit pedestrian flow which a tunnel on Richmond Row would certainly do. A train tunnel entry is a rather unpleasant for a street's vitality even if it's carrying people. That part of Clarence however is the VP and the old school with parking. Also Clarence thru King has a lot of parking lots so widening the street to accomodate LRT between Central and Dundas will not be very difficult. Clarence also offers very easy connection to downtown's largest employment centers of London Life, TD Square, City Hall, and the Galleria. They could make the small 2 block Clarence section between Queen & King as LRT only allowing for a much wider sidewalk.

The businesses on RR do have a valid point as it is one of the most vibrant streets in the city and yet is relatively thin, too thin to accomodate an LRT and a tunnel entry/exit anywhere bewteen Oxford and York.

[go_leafs_go02]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I have never thought using downtown Richmond was a good choice.

Going down Richmond from UWO certainly but as soon as it hits the tunnel at Oxford it should not enter back onto Richmond at roughly Central but rather onto Clarence. Have the tunnel start on Clarence generally in the area bechind the Victoria Park Bandshell.

That's exactly what the City is proposing.

[kaiserLDN]

The tunnel will not open up anywhere on Richmond between oxford and York. It comes up on Clarence where you currently park between Williams pub and Victoria park.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I have bought beer from Toboggan a number of times when visiting London. They won't be getting my support any longer.

Same here. I used to hang out at the Runt Club from time to time when I lived in London- I wouldn't now.

There are going to be plenty of people who are doing well with the status quo, and will therefore opposed change as a matter of course. It would not matter what specific transit plan was proposed- they would oppose it.

[Underground100]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Same here. I used to hang out at the Runt Club from time to time when I lived in London- I wouldn't now.

There are going to be plenty of people who are doing well with the status quo, and will therefore opposed change as a matter of course. It would not matter what specific transit plan was proposed- they would oppose it.

I totally agree with all that, longtime Joe Kool's/Toboggan (and it's predecessor) guy here.

Anyway, here's the alleged master list of businesses (so far) who signed the petition: https://docs.google.com/document/d/15MOSupJgdZ1t_zCnmiq2LxL-jiQIxkOPq4f2nAq3Jb8/edit (Side note: I've been a customer of over 35 of these)

And the letter: https://www.scribd.com/document/342098865/Concerned-Londoners

[kaiserLDN]

Some of these down shift people are clueless. Saying it will be like that galleria mall and so on. This will do the opposite considering we have the 3rd highest office vacancy rate in Canada. How do they honestly think we will fill that up without better infrastructure. They also talk about the Richmond route downtown. There is no part of the rapid transit on Richmond downtown for them to complain about. A tunnel like this will only raise land values for them to sell to investors and developers.

^^ These comments relate to this LFPress article

http://www.lfpress.com/2017/03/16/london...ransit-after-anger-from-down-shift-group

[ssiguy]

I though the route was to go down Richmond in the downtown core?

[kaiserLDN]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I though the route was to go down Richmond in the downtown core?

Not above ground. That's where the tunnel comes in so the business arnt really effected along Richmond. Tunnel extends from st Joseph's hospital to where Clarence begins at Victoria park. Orginally it came out on Richmond. They moved the core route to Clarence a while ago so people wouldn't complain which makes sense. Maybe once they move 1 lane from king st to queen st it will get a little more quiet.

[ssiguy]

Considering they are saving significant bucks on having BRT and not LRT, perhaps they should tunnel south of Central all the way to King?

[database]

From LFP Press Article:

"Lehman said Down Shift — a play on Shift, the name of the city’s bus rapid transit (BRT) plan — isn’t opposed to the plan to run rapid transit arteries down King and Richmond streets, but said if it’s not done properly, it could ­fundamentally change the downtown to become more “student-oriented” as high-end businesses move out."

This is the most ridiculous argument I've heard in the whole debate.

It's this sort of cocky attitude that drives students away from London once they're finished up at Western and Fanshawe. Remember the argument about students only being able to afford slices of pizza when Fanshawe-Kingsmills was up in the air? So incredibly insulting.

What's wrong with a downtown core becoming student oriented and youthful? It will make younger gens stay in London over their summer breaks, and perhaps consider putting down roots once they've graduated.

[GreatTallNorth2]

I agree that we should have a longer tunnel. If the issue is that Richmond is too tight, then why not continue the tunnel all the way to Western?

What is it about London that we always are timid in asking for funds to do these types of projects? How is it that other cities have no problem asking for billions?

[HillStreetBlues]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to come up with many examples of Canadian cities of London's size asking for "billions." Ion in Waterloo Region cost about a billion (and is the largest infrastructure project in the region's history), and local taxpayers contributed a third. Hamilton's LRT would cost about a billion as well.

Realistically, can London justify the cost of a tunnel the length of downtown? It wouldn't placate the naysayers, anyway- their arguments are disingenuous. If the Richmond issue is no longer an argument, there will be a different one.

database, you're right that that argument is nutty. And, in my opinion, anything that "fundamentally changes" the nature of London's downtown is a good move.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

I think you'd be hard-pressed to come up with many examples of Canadian cities of London's size asking for "billions."

I am not limiting it to single transit projects. Waterloo is already getting their plans together for Phase 2 or ION for LRT to Cambridge. They are making highway 7 a full fledge freeway, getting 401 upgrades, etc. Other Canadian cities that are 2X the size of London are building projects in the multiple billions. My point is valid though - London is very timid/afraid to be bold no matter what the project is. They wanted to build the JLC to be 6,000 seats and then after the uproar that the size was too small, we built it at 9,000 with no expansion capabilities and then scratch our head about why we can't get the World Juniors. We dithered on building a freeway in the 1970's because of nimbyism. That's my point, fear of being bold.

[HillStreetBlues]

That's a very fair point. As a Londoner, it's what I've been hearing my whole life: we blew the opportunity to build an expressway when it was possible but before it was needed; we continually bow to the local concerns of certain well-heeled neighbourhoods; we fail to give any attention to city-building.

My personal view is that London's councils are generally in the pocket of developers, which is why we've seen so many decades of ultimately unsustainable greenfield sprawl at the expense of downtown. I don't know if it will change.

Observing the back-and-forth about the BRT plan over the last weeks and months, and the local media's coverage of half-baked arguments made by stakeholders who are guaranteed to oppose any transit investment that will create any short-term pain, I think I'm ready to retract my previous opinion that BRT is the best thing for the city.

I think the ideal would be for the City of London to soberly assess how much money it can secure from its own resources and higher levels of government, and then spend that billion or billion-and-a-half on two or even three BRT lines spanning the whole city. Oxford/Dundas from the far west end to the airport; Richmond/Wellington from the 401 to Masonville; and maybe even Wonderland from Southdale to Fanshawe Park. With a view to add another BRT line with excellent frequency every five years thereafter. I think that would serve the most Londoners and be the most cost-effective check on sprawl.

But, if that's not possible because motorists will complain that they're going to lose a lane on Oxford, and business owners will complain because their businesses aren't worth patrons braving construction to get to, then maybe a 13-kilometre LRT line connecting Masonville and White Oaks Malls is the way to go. It might not be the most cost-effective and won't serve as many people, but there's a better chance of getting provincial funding, and people (including those who would never take transit) might get excited enough about the idea of a train that City councillors will have the courage to ignore retrograde-thinking business owners and other stakeholders.

[Dupcheck]

This is a city wide anomaly. Change is seen as a bad thing, even if the change means improving upon old inefficient ways. I see it at work, neighborhood, and all over the city. People do not like change, especially the old folks. Because they did things a certain way in the past does not mean that is still the best way to do things. People have to start thinking of "us & we" more than "I & me", the city is for all of us. The way we shape now it will affect generations to come later. Please do the right thing and show that you care to improve our city in daily basis.

[HillStreetBlues]

I'm now thinking that fewer Londoners would oppose cost-effective BRT serving many people in many parts of the city, than would oppose LRT.

Boomers love spending money on fancy new tech stuff. I know suburban Londoner boomers who quite possibly have never been on a bus, ever, who would lambast downtown bar-owners for "standing in the way of progress"...if that progress were in the form of trains instead of buses.

[database]

Originally Posted by Dupcheck

This is a city wide anomaly. Change is seen as a bad thing, even if the change means improving upon old inefficient ways. I see it at work, neighborhood, and all over the city. People do not like change, especially the old folks. Because they did things a certain way in the past does not mean that is still the best way to do things. People have to start thinking of "us & we" more than "I & me", the city is for all of us. The way we shape now it will affect generations to come later. Please do the right thing and show that you care to improve our city in daily basis.

Couldn't agree with this sentiment more.

Also with HillStreetBlues - totally agree here. BRT is so easily conflated with our current bus service. I think a lot of people don't understand the difference, and immediately assume we're spending 560m on just more of the same.

[Underground100]

Notes from tonight's CTV News at 6:

• Daryl Newcombe here again, this time with a concern with someone on the West RT corridor, the London Muslim Mosque just east of Platt's Lane
• Oxford in Cherryhill may be subject to left-turn restictions and widenings as bus lanes could be installed
• Nawaz Tahir of the Mosque is concerned about traffic, hasn't been advised, surprised about the drawings
• The drawings are not finalized, property impacts are yet to be determined
• If bus lanes are not installed, SW BRT may operate in mixed traffic on Oxford in addition to Wharncliffe in Blackfriars
• If they are installed, Summit Avenue, where drivers enter the mosque from, may be right-in, right-out, and subject to traffic jams
• The Mosque supports RT (for environmental reasons etc), but wishes that they were notified earlier so they can express concerns