Shift: London's Rapid Transit Initiative

[Honest Scientist]

Some thoughts and questions... and I have no vested interest in the project.

To me the tunnel, as it is, is not a good idea, especially if it is excluding private vehicles.

Wharncliffe strikes me as a better route, as the bridge N of Oxford has to be done and if you really widen that corridor (along with the widening of the CN bridge further S), you will really move a lot of buses and cars. So, make it 6 lanes all the way from Western down to Riverside - lots of homes will have to go, but they will be cheaper to buy out that the ones on Richmond. And I think the buy out should be very generous, offers that are easy to accept.

Wharncliffe to Masonville will be quicker on that route, because it does not have to meander through Western. Western should have high frequency shuttles between Wharncliffe and the Gates.

I would think there should be underpasses for the CP tracks at Adelaide AND Richmond. Yes, there still will be a bottleneck at Oxford, but the volume of N-S traffic on Richmond will be less if the main BRT line to Western/Masonville is on Wharncliffe. There will still be transit on Richmond, but the demand will be less, and probably more for people going to St. Joes, Kings, and the actual neighborhoods.

Do the loop downtown. It would encourage high rises along both King and Queens.

I, and many other Londoners, will never give up the car. The layout of the city isn't conducive for a lot of people to do that (and I vowed never to take a bus again after having to deal with it during my university days).

On that note, the city needs to choose routes and schedules that work for people. That means more buses correctly meeting demand, with more drivers, and many of those may need to be part time, so the Union has to be on board.

Also, all the calculations for BRT being faster by x minutes are moot except for those living on the route. If you live deep in a subdivision, it will take a long time to get to a feeder route, and then time to get to BRT. Lots of people won't do it.

So, I am happy to widen the roads and pay for it with my tax dollars.

Get the traffic lights corrected and coordinated.

Why the hate on cars? Is this really just so we can say we are fighting climate change, and our town benchmarks well against other cities (many of which are suited for efficient mass transit). Sorry to burst the bubble, but the X number of cars that come off the road from having BRT will not make a difference in the global climate. London going all horse and buggy would also not make a difference in the global climate (if you want to make a real difference in your legacy carbon footprint, don't have kids, because all the atmosphere cares about is aggregate CO2 over the next 100 years, NOT CO2 per capita - that is just feel good). I'm all for building up and along the high intensity routes, it will make for a much more vibrant town. But please embrace reality that it will not affect the weather. Ever. Also, with autonomous and a higher % of electric vehicles coming in the future, cars will be much, much less of a factor.

I do see a bit of groupthink on here against the car. Consider that you are in a bit of a echo chamber on here, and in your peer group (many with a planning background). Consider that many other people do not share your zeal for killing the car. Please note the simple point that most ordinary people with kids going to hockey, daycare, etc, don't share that zeal, and plan this realistically and London can have a great transit system and a better experience for drivers.

[Honest Scientist]

Here's where Canadians are on Climate Change. Note it is Global News / Ipsos doing the poll, not Exxon Mobile, or some nutter group. This is the reality of what average Canadians care about.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Honest Scientist

Some thoughts and questions... and I have no vested interest in the project.

To me the tunnel, as it is, is not a good idea, especially if it is excluding private vehicles.

Wharncliffe strikes me as a better route, as the bridge N of Oxford has to be done and if you really widen that corridor (along with the widening of the CN bridge further S), you will really move a lot of buses and cars. So, make it 6 lanes all the way from Western down to Riverside - lots of homes will have to go, but they will be cheaper to buy out that the ones on Richmond. And I think the buy out should be very generous, offers that are easy to accept.

Wharncliffe to Masonville will be quicker on that route, because it does not have to meander through Western. Western should have high frequency shuttles between Wharncliffe and the Gates.

I would think there should be underpasses for the CP tracks at Adelaide AND Richmond. Yes, there still will be a bottleneck at Oxford, but the volume of N-S traffic on Richmond will be less if the main BRT line to Western/Masonville is on Wharncliffe. There will still be transit on Richmond, but the demand will be less, and probably more for people going to St. Joes, Kings, and the actual neighborhoods.

Do the loop downtown. It would encourage high rises along both King and Queens.

I, and many other Londoners, will never give up the car. The layout of the city isn't conducive for a lot of people to do that (and I vowed never to take a bus again after having to deal with it during my university days).

On that note, the city needs to choose routes and schedules that work for people. That means more buses correctly meeting demand, with more drivers, and many of those may need to be part time, so the Union has to be on board.

Also, all the calculations for BRT being faster by x minutes are moot except for those living on the route. If you live deep in a subdivision, it will take a long time to get to a feeder route, and then time to get to BRT. Lots of people won't do it.

So, I am happy to widen the roads and pay for it with my tax dollars.

Get the traffic lights corrected and coordinated.

Why the hate on cars? Is this really just so we can say we are fighting climate change, and our town benchmarks well against other cities (many of which are suited for efficient mass transit). Sorry to burst the bubble, but the X number of cars that come off the road from having BRT will not make a difference in the global climate. London going all horse and buggy would also not make a difference in the global climate (if you want to make a real difference in your legacy carbon footprint, don't have kids, because all the atmosphere cares about is aggregate CO2 over the next 100 years, NOT CO2 per capita - that is just feel good). I'm all for building up and along the high intensity routes, it will make for a much more vibrant town. But please embrace reality that it will not affect the weather. Ever. Also, with autonomous and a higher % of electric vehicles coming in the future, cars will be much, much less of a factor.

I do see a bit of groupthink on here against the car. Consider that you are in a bit of a echo chamber on here, and in your peer group (many with a planning background). Consider that many other people do not share your zeal for killing the car. Please note the simple point that most ordinary people with kids going to hockey, daycare, etc, don't share that zeal, and plan this realistically and London can have a great transit system and a better experience for drivers.

It's not that I hate cars - I am a car owner and I personally choose to use one. What I'm seeing are trends among my generation - the Millennials, if you will. Car ownership in my generation is significantly less than it was for our parents. I don't have the stats in front of me, but it is a trend. Many Millennials don't even have drivers licenses. Therefore, there is a heavy reliance on public transit.

What has happened is that my cohort want to live in places where they can get to work easily via walking, cycling, or public transit. Likewise, companies - including the one I work for - want to locate in places where these people live, in order to attract talent. Again, I'm a car owner so I don't care personally whether I have public transit access, but I know most of my coworkers do care. My coworkers are virtually all under the age of 40.

I have known countless people who either grew up in London or went to school there, who absolutely hated London Transit. Everyone had a horror story; mine was being stuck in a snowstorm waiting over an hour for a bus near Western once. The perception in London is that you need a car to get around, due to the poor quality of the transit. People in my generation who don't want a car feel London is not a city they can live in, and they move to cities like Toronto where they feel they can live their choice of car-free lifestyle.

At the same time, companies are putting a lot of weight on rapid transit when deciding where to locate their offices. This has been the case with my employer in Toronto; they are in the process of decommissioning several office locations that are located in other cities with poor public transit access and centralizing everyone in new offices with access to rapid transit, specifically mentioning a desire to reduce car dependence among employees. This is what London is going to be up against over the next 25 years.

These trends among both the under-40 consumer and companies trying to attract talent are things London cannot ignore. It's not a hate on cars, but rather an acknowledgement of today's reality and the choices Millennials are making.

[jammer139]

I think your giving to much weight to the claimed desire of this company to close remote offices in other cities that have poor transit. More likely its a desire to pull in staff and consolidate them in a single location to be closer to the higher ups. This desire for senior managers to be able to stick their heads out of the offices and call in subordinates for quick meetings is a major gravitational pull of large companies. Mid level managers then do the same thing. It doesn't matter that the rents in Toronto are far higher then smaller cities like London, Hamilton, Kingston etc. In the age of teleworking and video conferencing the need to be centralised should be lower.

Originally Posted by manny_santos

It's not that I hate cars - I am a car owner and I personally choose to use one. What I'm seeing are trends among my generation - the Millennials, if you will. Car ownership in my generation is significantly less than it was for our parents. I don't have the stats in front of me, but it is a trend. Many Millennials don't even have drivers licenses. Therefore, there is a heavy reliance on public transit.

What has happened is that my cohort want to live in places where they can get to work easily via walking, cycling, or public transit. Likewise, companies - including the one I work for - want to locate in places where these people live, in order to attract talent. Again, I'm a car owner so I don't care personally whether I have public transit access, but I know most of my coworkers do care. My coworkers are virtually all under the age of 40.

I have known countless people who either grew up in London or went to school there, who absolutely hated London Transit. Everyone had a horror story; mine was being stuck in a snowstorm waiting over an hour for a bus near Western once. The perception in London is that you need a car to get around, due to the poor quality of the transit. People in my generation who don't want a car feel London is not a city they can live in, and they move to cities like Toronto where they feel they can live their choice of car-free lifestyle.

At the same time, companies are putting a lot of weight on rapid transit when deciding where to locate their offices. This has been the case with my employer in Toronto; they are in the process of decommissioning several office locations that are located in other cities with poor public transit access and centralizing everyone in new offices with access to rapid transit, specifically mentioning a desire to reduce car dependence among employees. This is what London is going to be up against over the next 25 years.

These trends among both the under-40 consumer and companies trying to attract talent are things London cannot ignore. It's not a hate on cars, but rather an acknowledgement of today's reality and the choices Millennials are making.

[jammer139]

Some good points made here. Especially around the underpasses for both Richmond and Adelaide on the CP line. Doing both those underpasses alone would dramatically improve transit times and flow for everyone. Especially if they are for all vehicles and pedestrians not just the bus.

The plan for a Bus only underpass at Richmond is a complete show stopper and an epic failure in planning.

I haven't seen anything that would convince me that improving travel times by only a few minutes warrants half a billion dollars. Show me a plan that dramatically improves travel times by 50% and I'm all for it. It's about ROI.

Spend the $120M on two full access underpasses for the CP line at Richmond and Adelaide streets and rebuild the two underpasses on Wharncliffe and transit times for all will be much better.

The number of high rises proposed for downtown would increase the population living there by 7000 if fully built. Living and working downtown you would be walking and not using transit every day.

Originally Posted by Honest Scientist

Some thoughts and questions... and I have no vested interest in the project.

To me the tunnel, as it is, is not a good idea, especially if it is excluding private vehicles.

Wharncliffe strikes me as a better route, as the bridge N of Oxford has to be done and if you really widen that corridor (along with the widening of the CN bridge further S), you will really move a lot of buses and cars. So, make it 6 lanes all the way from Western down to Riverside - lots of homes will have to go, but they will be cheaper to buy out that the ones on Richmond. And I think the buy out should be very generous, offers that are easy to accept.

Wharncliffe to Masonville will be quicker on that route, because it does not have to meander through Western. Western should have high frequency shuttles between Wharncliffe and the Gates.

I would think there should be underpasses for the CP tracks at Adelaide AND Richmond. Yes, there still will be a bottleneck at Oxford, but the volume of N-S traffic on Richmond will be less if the main BRT line to Western/Masonville is on Wharncliffe. There will still be transit on Richmond, but the demand will be less, and probably more for people going to St. Joes, Kings, and the actual neighborhoods.

Do the loop downtown. It would encourage high rises along both King and Queens.

I, and many other Londoners, will never give up the car. The layout of the city isn't conducive for a lot of people to do that (and I vowed never to take a bus again after having to deal with it during my university days).

On that note, the city needs to choose routes and schedules that work for people. That means more buses correctly meeting demand, with more drivers, and many of those may need to be part time, so the Union has to be on board.

Also, all the calculations for BRT being faster by x minutes are moot except for those living on the route. If you live deep in a subdivision, it will take a long time to get to a feeder route, and then time to get to BRT. Lots of people won't do it.

So, I am happy to widen the roads and pay for it with my tax dollars.

Get the traffic lights corrected and coordinated.

Why the hate on cars? Is this really just so we can say we are fighting climate change, and our town benchmarks well against other cities (many of which are suited for efficient mass transit). Sorry to burst the bubble, but the X number of cars that come off the road from having BRT will not make a difference in the global climate. London going all horse and buggy would also not make a difference in the global climate (if you want to make a real difference in your legacy carbon footprint, don't have kids, because all the atmosphere cares about is aggregate CO2 over the next 100 years, NOT CO2 per capita - that is just feel good). I'm all for building up and along the high intensity routes, it will make for a much more vibrant town. But please embrace reality that it will not affect the weather. Ever. Also, with autonomous and a higher % of electric vehicles coming in the future, cars will be much, much less of a factor.

I do see a bit of groupthink on here against the car. Consider that you are in a bit of a echo chamber on here, and in your peer group (many with a planning background). Consider that many other people do not share your zeal for killing the car. Please note the simple point that most ordinary people with kids going to hockey, daycare, etc, don't share that zeal, and plan this realistically and London can have a great transit system and a better experience for drivers.

[Honest Scientist]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

What I'm seeing are trends among my generation - the Millennials, if you will. Car ownership in my generation is significantly less than it was for our parents. I don't have the stats in front of me, but it is a trend. Many Millennials don't even have drivers licenses. Therefore, there is a heavy reliance on public transit.

...

specifically mentioning a desire to reduce car dependence among employees.

Thanks for the interesting response, an open dialog and multiple perspectives will help get a better solution. And again, I am in favour of spending big bucks on an overall improvement to London's infrastructure and mobility for all.

Not sure if we should be making long term strategic decisions about road needs on what may be only a temporary preference with millennials. Their job market and career prospects have been so poor, the preference may be mostly economic and that may change for a large number of them when they get better jobs and start families. Also, as the city grows the overall number of cars will increase as they is only a small % of those that will give up the car in a city not geographically well suited to mass transit.

http://www.businessinsider.com/everythin...ennials-not-buying-cars-was-wrong-2016-3

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/03/16/generation-z-wants-cars-study/

You don't want to be like a municipality that sees two mild winters and thinks that because of climate change they will never see snow again, and slash the snow removal budget, only to be met with a brutal cold and snowy winter (like 2014!).

Also not sure why an employer would care how their staff get there, as long as they are there on time. Only reason I can think of if they think that pandering to millennials who are anti-car is a smart recruiting move, or if they themselves have a religious zeal for being anti-car.

And since when is OK or good to have a workplace that is all 40 and under? Age discrimination lawsuits not a concern? Missing out on older talent (don;t worry, I'm in my 60's and retired). Stereotyping older workers abilities? Any of those seem very closed minded and conservative!

Lets get back to the notion of what changes to the plan work best for the all the people of London. I'm glad to see that there are some others liking the idea of having both a Adelaide and Richmond underpass for the CP tracks (and I think it would be fine to make Piccadilly no longer access Richmond).

Maybe they could also fix the Talbot St truck catching CP rail underpass (and make it 4 lanes), and widen the Oxford st bridge around the CP trestle bridge. Could we do all that for just the price of the bus only tunnel?

Another thought about the tunnel. How often will police have to chase drunk students out of there, assuming it is not for pedestrians? Cause if you build it drunk students will go there!

[Spoofy]

.

[HillStreetBlues]

Scientist, it's not very honest to refer to people as "anti-car" for supporting a project like this one. No matter how extensive this RT investment is, the vast majority of space dedicated to transportation in the City of London will be for private vehicles. Right now, priority is given to private cars, and a mere billion dollars won't change that, as alarming as it might be for some motorists to experience new turn restrictions or a closed here or or there.

I'm probably the type you refer to as "anti-car" or erroneously claim "hates cars." But my family owns a car, and uses it for some types of trips- no, not to take the kids to sports, which happen in our own neighbourhood, but to take them to visit grandparents in a London suburb, for instance.

It seems like there's a pretty low bar to be labelled "anti-car". Are you "anti-bus" since you vowed never again to take one again forty years ago?

You're right that removing any number of private vehicles from London's roads won't move the needle on climate change. But many cities acting collectively will. And, I think when people refer to the environmental benefits of transit, they have many different ideas about which ones are important to them. The quality of our groundwater, the pollution in the air we breathe, land use and the amount of farmland we're plowing under for sprawl.

I simply don't see how slow-growth London (and other cities like it here) can continue to afford to sprawl its services ever-outward. 400,000 people could live much more efficiently than they do in London, but the sprawl of the city continues unabated. You'll get no argument from me (or anyone else) that any significant proportion of Londoners will ever be able to have mobility without a car. But people should be given the choice, and it's not there now.

Your argument about the tunnel (er, not about "drunken students" hiding in there, but the other arguments) is right. It's a big expense that could be avoided with probably minimum drawbacks by taking Wharncliffe around instead. I wonder who came up with the idea in the first place? It seems like a solution to the "problem" of closing lanes to car traffic downtown. But, if we really can't close car lanes downtown, then Wharncliffe is not a bad solution at all.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Scientist, it's not very honest to refer to people as "anti-car" for supporting a project like this one. No matter how extensive this RT investment is, the vast majority of space dedicated to transportation in the City of London will be for private vehicles. Right now, priority is given to private cars, and a mere billion dollars won't change that, as alarming as it might be for some motorists to experience new turn restrictions or a closed here or or there.

I'm probably the type you refer to as "anti-car" or erroneously claim "hates cars." But my family owns a car, and uses it for some types of trips- no, not to take the kids to sports, which happen in our own neighbourhood, but to take them to visit grandparents in a London suburb, for instance.

It seems like there's a pretty low bar to be labelled "anti-car". Are you "anti-bus" since you vowed never again to take one again forty years ago?

You're right that removing any number of private vehicles from London's roads won't move the needle on climate change. But many cities acting collectively will. And, I think when people refer to the environmental benefits of transit, they have many different ideas about which ones are important to them. The quality of our groundwater, the pollution in the air we breathe, land use and the amount of farmland we're plowing under for sprawl.

I simply don't see how slow-growth London (and other cities like it here) can continue to afford to sprawl its services ever-outward. 400,000 people could live much more efficiently than they do in London, but the sprawl of the city continues unabated. You'll get no argument from me (or anyone else) that any significant proportion of Londoners will ever be able to have mobility without a car. But people should be given the choice, and it's not there now.

Your argument about the tunnel (er, not about "drunken students" hiding in there, but the other arguments) is right. It's a big expense that could be avoided with probably minimum drawbacks by taking Wharncliffe around instead. I wonder who came up with the idea in the first place? It seems like a solution to the "problem" of closing lanes to car traffic downtown. But, if we really can't close car lanes downtown, then Wharncliffe is not a bad solution at all.

I wish to clarify also that in addition to being strongly in favour of rapid transit in London, I'm also strongly in favour of widening arterial roadways to have greater capacity; in particular Highbury, Oxford, and Wonderland, since London does not have an inner-city expressway like many other mid-size Canadian cities. I am also strongly in favour of railway grade separations. The City of Kingston, in addition to implementing an extensive Express Bus program over the past four years (the closest thing to rapid transit a city of its size would need), is also actively eliminating all at-grade railway crossings on its arterial roads. There's no reason both things can't be done at the same time.

To me, rapid transit is about giving people greater choice. I do not see rapid transit as being an either/or proposition with private (car) transportation. I believe both need to be greatly improved in London. There is the Rob Ford/Toronto Sun crowd that thinks any discussion around rapid transit or bike lanes to be a "war on cars", but it does not need to be.

Originally Posted by jammer139

I think your giving to much weight to the claimed desire of this company to close remote offices in other cities that have poor transit. More likely its a desire to pull in staff and consolidate them in a single location to be closer to the higher ups. This desire for senior managers to be able to stick their heads out of the offices and call in subordinates for quick meetings is a major gravitational pull of large companies. Mid level managers then do the same thing. It doesn't matter that the rents in Toronto are far higher then smaller cities like London, Hamilton, Kingston etc. In the age of teleworking and video conferencing the need to be centralised should be lower.

My office in Toronto is a satellite office; there are no executives and almost no senior managers located in Ontario, all of them are at head office in another province. There is absolutely no reason for any of the employees in my department, including myself, to be located in a centralized office; the entire job can be performed from any remote location that has high-speed Internet.

Originally Posted by Honest Scientist

Not sure if we should be making long term strategic decisions about road needs on what may be only a temporary preference with millennials. Their job market and career prospects have been so poor, the preference may be mostly economic and that may change for a large number of them when they get better jobs and start families. Also, as the city grows the overall number of cars will increase as they is only a small % of those that will give up the car in a city not geographically well suited to mass transit.

http://www.businessinsider.com/everythin...ennials-not-buying-cars-was-wrong-2016-3

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/03/16/generation-z-wants-cars-study/

You don't want to be like a municipality that sees two mild winters and thinks that because of climate change they will never see snow again, and slash the snow removal budget, only to be met with a brutal cold and snowy winter (like 2014!).

Also not sure why an employer would care how their staff get there, as long as they are there on time. Only reason I can think of if they think that pandering to millennials who are anti-car is a smart recruiting move, or if they themselves have a religious zeal for being anti-car.

And since when is OK or good to have a workplace that is all 40 and under? Age discrimination lawsuits not a concern? Missing out on older talent (don;t worry, I'm in my 60's and retired). Stereotyping older workers abilities? Any of those seem very closed minded and conservative!

It will be interesting to see what happens with Millennials over the next 10 or so years, with car ownership. While it is likely common to see younger people in a city like Toronto to shun car ownership, I'm also seeing the trend among friends in smaller Ontario cities. Whether this is temporary or not is yet to be seen, and whether this trend occurs with the next generation will remain to be seen.

We do employ plenty of people over the age of 40, but the department I work in is entirely under the age of 35. We simply don't get applications from people over that age for our department; this is typical to the industry I work in and not just my company. It's an unfortunate issue that happens with industries that developed after the year 2000.

[kaiserLDN]

The honest scientist is not to scientific and a little out of touch with reality. I drive all everyday all day and I'm still for the Richmond tunnel. I'm also for expressways around the city. This city lacks everything when compared to other cities with transportation. Everyone has Preferences. If we want to build the city up then we need to catch up to build more transit and widen current roads. Some people take transit. Some people take cars. This is all for the future And current population. These projects take a long time. We need roads and transit. Not just one or the other.

I'm the least bit " anti cars ".. I have noticed people in these forums are for rapid transit and widening roads. Maybe some people favour more then the other but we are defiantly not anti cars. We need good transit and good roads.

I do like seeing everyone's different views on here though. It is interesting especially with rapid transit.

[manny_santos]

TVO has an article about Shift:

http://tvo.org/article/current-affairs/t...it-and-city-planning-are-put-to-the-test

[ssiguy]

SHIFT will do NOTHING to decrease the congestion in London. The fact is that no rapid transit line anywhere reduces congestion in any meaningful way over the medium and long term. As soon as there is a reduction on a certain road people start to use it and the traffic is back to where it was.What rapid transit can do is slow down the increases in congestion by offering a viable alternative to driving.

London hs no urban freeway and never will and while that has certainly made London a driving nightmare it has also left Londoners with an enviable city. It has left London with a solid built form, no disconnected communities, a wealth of older homes and neighbourhoods, and a charm that freeways can devestate.

SHIFT is about offering alternatives to driving and helping shape urban development in a more sustainable manner. It is also about future transportation priorities. It is not just millenials and lower income people who will flock to SHIFT. Our population is aging and the elderly rely on transit due to economics and the simple fact that they can't drive. Not only will there be more people not driving but these elderly will not be driving longer due to increasingly life expectancies. It's also simple math.............an average bus will carry 20 people and an average car 1.3.

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I'm also strongly in favour of widening arterial roadways to have greater capacity; in particular Highbury, Oxford, and Wonderland, since London does not have an inner-city expressway like many other mid-size Canadian cities. I am also strongly in favour of railway grade separations.

To me, rapid transit is about giving people greater choice. I do not see rapid transit as being an either/or proposition with private (car) transportation. I believe both need to be greatly improved in London. There is the Rob Ford/Toronto Sun crowd that thinks any discussion around rapid transit or bike lanes to be a "war on cars", but it does not need to be.

Great post overall, but I wanted to highlight these two points specifically.

1. Those 3 roads absolutely need to have greater capacity and a coordinated effort to make them "faster". By that it could simply mean, being wider, double left turn lanes where applicable, a right turn lane at every light, 60km speed throughout, etc. I have never understood why Highbury has not been looked at in greater detail. Certainly not cheap however the city could clear all of the houses on either side of the road from Hamilton to Dundas (likely the east side) and make that 6 lanes all the way to Oxford. Imagine how much better that road would run if that was the case....add in rail grade separations

2. Greater choice is the best way to describe RT for me as well, I own a car and likely will always own a car...however I would absolutely take RT in certain scenarios if it was available.

[Honest Scientist]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Scientist, it's not very honest to refer to people as "anti-car" for supporting a project like this one...

I'm probably the type you refer to as "anti-car" or erroneously claim "hates cars." But my family owns a car, and uses it for some types of trips- no, not to take the kids to sports, which happen in our own neighbourhood, but to take them to visit grandparents in a London suburb, for instance.

It seems like there's a pretty low bar to be labelled "anti-car". Are you "anti-bus" since you vowed never again to take one again forty years ago?

You're right that removing any number of private vehicles from London's roads won't move the needle on climate change. But many cities acting collectively will.

Please keep the personal attacks out of the discussion. I never said anyone who supports the project was anti-car. I do sense that take in some, both on the forum and in the real world, and was probing to understand the rationale.

I absolutely support the project, but am questioning what the best approaches are, and what the impulses and assumptions are behind the various viewpoints. I am only anti-bus for myself! I stated clearly that I want the most effective solution that benefits all. And I would really emphasize that I support a good bus service for anyone at the lower end of the economic scale. It's not easy for the poor and we should give people decent and effective transportation choices so they can maximize their job opportunities and options.

As for climate change, it is unfortunately not like littering or pollution in rivers - for those things every little thing helps and counts. If the IPCC projections are correct, we have to have DRASTIC change to get the CO2 below 400 ppm again. Small changes and needle moves won't make a real difference, and I'm afraid that democracies won't vote for the changes that it would take (you get a backlash if it causes people too much pain). And please don't yell at me for pointing this out, just do the math. The real change may come through some future technological advances that are true game changers. Hopefully they will come soon!

[Honest Scientist]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

I wish to clarify also that in addition to being strongly in favour of rapid transit in London, I'm also strongly in favour of widening arterial roadways to have greater capacity; in particular Highbury, Oxford, and Wonderland, since London does not have an inner-city expressway like many other mid-size Canadian cities. I am also strongly in favour of railway grade separations....

To me, rapid transit is about giving people greater choice. I do not see rapid transit as being an either/or proposition with private (car) transportation. I believe both need to be greatly improved in London.

Thanks for the clarification, and I agree with your points on road widening 100% (and thanks for the clarification regarding your workplace, sounds like a very niche situation).

I am still wanting to explore the anti-car sentiment (and I'm glad many others are seeking a balanced approach like the one you mentioned). I recall some local politicians, possibly the current Mayor, or a few others, stating specifically that one of the 'benefits' of LRT/BRT was it would mean "we wouldn't have spend on road widening". So maybe we need to get a clarification as to what this plan means to doing the heavy lifting on road widening and traffic light coordination and have an open conversation on that.

[Honest Scientist]

Can we have a conversation about dedicated bus lanes? Are they critical to this plan? How much of the cost is dedicated to them? Am I correct that they will be curbed, so cars and non-express buses can't use them, or there are multiple entry points for non-express buses to use them. Non-express buses with still make frequent stops along the designated routes and thus wont get any benefit if they are not using the lanes.

Strikes me that if they are curbed and only express buses can use them (because they are curbed), they will be empty a lot and that means an inefficient use of pavement in moving all vehicles. Please help me out if I am missing something?

Outside the box idea... why not put the strobes that the fire engines have to force a green on buses so they will never stop at a red? I would expect that, or possibly a GPS-based system that can initiate a green light as a bus approaches, would be cheaper than a road rebuild?? Also, cars near the bus would be happy with the green!

Again, can we please have civil responses only - thanks all.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by Honest Scientist

Please keep the personal attacks out of the discussion. I never said anyone who supports the project was anti-car. I do sense that take in some, both on the forum and in the real world, and was probing to understand the rationale.

I absolutely support the project, but am questioning what the best approaches are, and what the impulses and assumptions are behind the various viewpoints. I am only anti-bus for myself! I stated clearly that I want the most effective solution that benefits all. And I would really emphasize that I support a good bus service for anyone at the lower end of the economic scale. It's not easy for the poor and we should give people decent and effective transportation choices so they can maximize their job opportunities and options.

As for climate change, it is unfortunately not like littering or pollution in rivers - for those things every little thing helps and counts. If the IPCC projections are correct, we have to have DRASTIC change to get the CO2 below 400 ppm again. Small changes and needle moves won't make a real difference, and I'm afraid that democracies won't vote for the changes that it would take (you get a backlash if it causes people too much pain). And please don't yell at me for pointing this out, just do the math. The real change may come through some future technological advances that are true game changers. Hopefully they will come soon!

What personal attacks?

I don't think anyone's going to yell at you about climate change, even if it's not exactly on-topic. But I also usually read things like "small changes...won't make a real difference" as an unwillingness to change habits.

We're not getting below 400ppm. We're a few years beyond that. The idea now is to slow the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere. There are multiple scenarios we're faced with depending on our success at doing that. Those different scenarios (at different levels of CO2 concentration) are associated with different temperature rises and the associated add-on effects. London, Ontario maybe doesn't think it has a role to play in slowing the rate of increase in CO2 (and no one can deny it's a deny part), but it's incumbent on all parts of the world to try to contribute. I hope you don't find that too earnest. A lot of Canadian leaders seem to be content parroting the line that we contribute barely 1% of the world's CO2. I think it would be very easy for (say) the Chinese to hear that from a rich country and react that they don't need to cut either.

By the way, "I am only anti-bus for myself!" made me think of this: Report: 98 Percent Of U.S. Commuters Favor Public Transportation For Others. You might find it funny.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by Honest Scientist

Can we have a conversation about dedicated bus lanes? Are they critical to this plan? How much of the cost is dedicated to them? Am I correct that they will be curbed, so cars and non-express buses can't use them, or there are multiple entry points for non-express buses to use them. Non-express buses with still make frequent stops along the designated routes and thus wont get any benefit if they are not using the lanes.

Strikes me that if they are curbed and only express buses can use them (because they are curbed), they will be empty a lot and that means an inefficient use of pavement in moving all vehicles. Please help me out if I am missing something?

Outside the box idea... why not put the strobes that the fire engines have to force a green on buses so they will never stop at a red? I would expect that, or possibly a GPS-based system that can initiate a green light as a bus approaches, would be cheaper than a road rebuild?? Also, cars near the bus would be happy with the green!

Again, can we please have civil responses only - thanks all.

Hopefully express buses will be frequent enough to justify that pavement. What you might be missing is that there will be potentially dozens of riders on each bus, so even if the bus lanes are "empty a lot," they will likely be making more efficient use of the space that a mixed-traffic lane would be.

I would imagine local buses would use the transit lane, too, otherwise they wouldn't be able to access stops.

What you're describing in your second-to-last paragraph is called Transit Priority Signal. It's in use in a lot of systems. Nearest to London, the Ion aBRT in Cambridge uses it for schedule adherence purposes. It can be a great tool, I agree. It and dedicated bus places are not an "either/or" proposition by any means.

Thank you in advance, too, for a civil response.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Originally Posted by Honest Scientist

Can we have a conversation about dedicated bus lanes? Are they critical to this plan? How much of the cost is dedicated to them? Am I correct that they will be curbed, so cars and non-express buses can't use them, or there are multiple entry points for non-express buses to use them. Non-express buses with still make frequent stops along the designated routes and thus wont get any benefit if they are not using the lanes.

Strikes me that if they are curbed and only express buses can use them (because they are curbed), they will be empty a lot and that means an inefficient use of pavement in moving all vehicles. Please help me out if I am missing something?

Outside the box idea... why not put the strobes that the fire engines have to force a green on buses so they will never stop at a red? I would expect that, or possibly a GPS-based system that can initiate a green light as a bus approaches, would be cheaper than a road rebuild?? Also, cars near the bus would be happy with the green!

Again, can we please have civil responses only - thanks all.

Without dedicated lanes it defeats the RT in BRT. IMO it should be separated from traffic completely, Welllington CN underpass should be expanded to have dedicated RT lanes and 4 general lanes, plus Wharncliffe should be that way too. Expropriations be damned.

Where its going to be a tough sell is to the general public of London who don't have their finger on the pulse of this project. They'll see these as empty lanes, that their vehicles should be using. Only having an RT system that have competitive travel times to private vehicles will this succeed, and dedicated lanes are the way.

For traffic signals in the latests PIC, London will alter traffic signals to favour the BRT using GPS technology as you suggested scientist. If buses are close to intersections that are going to turn red, they'll extend the green to allow them through. If lights are red, they do a quick cycle and make the green to allow buses priority.

IMO the plans are fairly solid. Few tweaks are needed, BRTs should be east on King, west of Queens, and have dedicated lanes and 4 general lanes on Richmond. If King is eviscerated and Richmond loses a general lane in each direction it will make the project have entrenched opposition. Ultimately these going to be winners and loseres with any decision, hopefully council doesn't buckle to those that are subject to expropriation. Long term it will be a better benefit for thr whole city!

[Dupcheck]

Originally Posted by Honest Scientist

Some thoughts and questions... and I have no vested interest in the project.

To me the tunnel, as it is, is not a good idea, especially if it is excluding private vehicles.

Wharncliffe strikes me as a better route, as the bridge N of Oxford has to be done and if you really widen that corridor (along with the widening of the CN bridge further S), you will really move a lot of buses and cars. So, make it 6 lanes all the way from Western down to Riverside - lots of homes will have to go, but they will be cheaper to buy out that the ones on Richmond. And I think the buy out should be very generous, offers that are easy to accept.

Wharncliffe to Masonville will be quicker on that route, because it does not have to meander through Western. Western should have high frequency shuttles between Wharncliffe and the Gates.

I would think there should be underpasses for the CP tracks at Adelaide AND Richmond. Yes, there still will be a bottleneck at Oxford, but the volume of N-S traffic on Richmond will be less if the main BRT line to Western/Masonville is on Wharncliffe. There will still be transit on Richmond, but the demand will be less, and probably more for people going to St. Joes, Kings, and the actual neighborhoods.

Do the loop downtown. It would encourage high rises along both King and Queens.

I, and many other Londoners, will never give up the car. The layout of the city isn't conducive for a lot of people to do that (and I vowed never to take a bus again after having to deal with it during my university days).

On that note, the city needs to choose routes and schedules that work for people. That means more buses correctly meeting demand, with more drivers, and many of those may need to be part time, so the Union has to be on board.

Also, all the calculations for BRT being faster by x minutes are moot except for those living on the route. If you live deep in a subdivision, it will take a long time to get to a feeder route, and then time to get to BRT. Lots of people won't do it.

So, I am happy to widen the roads and pay for it with my tax dollars.

Get the traffic lights corrected and coordinated.

Why the hate on cars? Is this really just so we can say we are fighting climate change, and our town benchmarks well against other cities (many of which are suited for efficient mass transit). Sorry to burst the bubble, but the X number of cars that come off the road from having BRT will not make a difference in the global climate. London going all horse and buggy would also not make a difference in the global climate (if you want to make a real difference in your legacy carbon footprint, don't have kids, because all the atmosphere cares about is aggregate CO2 over the next 100 years, NOT CO2 per capita - that is just feel good). I'm all for building up and along the high intensity routes, it will make for a much more vibrant town. But please embrace reality that it will not affect the weather. Ever. Also, with autonomous and a higher % of electric vehicles coming in the future, cars will be much, much less of a factor.

I do see a bit of groupthink on here against the car. Consider that you are in a bit of a echo chamber on here, and in your peer group (many with a planning background). Consider that many other people do not share your zeal for killing the car. Please note the simple point that most ordinary people with kids going to hockey, daycare, etc, don't share that zeal, and plan this realistically and London can have a great transit system and a better experience for drivers.

Most new cars now days produce cleaner air than the average air we breathe. Look at your e-test results next time. (except for the diesel VW ones).