Shift: London's Rapid Transit Initiative

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by Dupcheck

You have a good point. Look at the LRT in Toronto, it now connects downtown to the Airport.

Actually there is no LRT connection at Pearson. The Union Pearson line is more like a regional rail line. I think it has 4 stops total - Union, Bloor, Weston and Pearson and costs a lot more than a regular bus/tram fare.

[jammer139]

+1

Investing in filling in the gaps in the Thames Valley Trail network and bike lanes along our road infrastructure would dramatically improve transit times for those of us who bike, walk, roller blade.

A Bus only tunnel under the CP tracks is insane. Full underpasses at Richmond and Adelaide would dramatically improve travel times for everyone and eliminate the rush hour traffic jams caused by the freight trains.

Originally Posted by Dupcheck

BRT = Bike Rapid Transit, Pedal Power Wins!!!

at the end we will ride our bikes and dream off what LRT or the other BRT would have been if it was built. yey!
RT was supposed to be a study, what you guys believed it was going to be build? Nonsense!

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by MrSlippery519

I was not able to attend unfortunately but that is a general theme with most speakers unfortunately, they simply have not taken the time to actual read and interpret all of the information. A large percentage of negative comments or concerns were already well laid out in the data the city has provided if they just took the time to read it.

This is the problem with our world today, people love to complain with little to zero information and then a bunch load of other people jump on board with the uneducated or incorrect comments lol.

Fahri...what can I say about that guy. He wants to sue the city for what exactly?? Again a perfect example of a guy with lots of money who loves to open his mouth...but do NOTHING at the end of the day. If he is so concerned with downtown London why has he not made an attempt to work with the city and developers on the properties he owns to actually add something to the core?

It seems to me that we had a bit of a peanut gallery going on at the Public Participation Meeting, with wilfully ignorant yahoos trying to kill the project just so they could feel they have some small measure of power in their tiny, pitiful and meaningless lives.

I don't dispute the concerns of the merchants; they are valid and real, but they are also things that can be overcome with financial assistance from the city and other initiatives.

It bothers me that people think that expropriation for the BRT project necessarily means that a huge swath of heritage properties is going to come down under the wrecking ball.

They don't seem to realize that expropriation doesn't necessarily mean destruction of properties. It can mean simply taking away a portion of the boulevard or a front yard to widen a road, and nothing more than that.

The flip side of the coin is that some heritage properties are not in good condition, not being maintained the way they should be and are rapidly reaching a state where they will no longer be viable for any reasonable residential or commercial purpose and should come down anyway. In which case, the buildings would be coming down sooner rather than later and the owners simply won't be able to engage in 'demolition by neglect', as has happened with a number of prominent heritage properties in the recent past.

Then there are those at the meeting who were whining over the cost of the project. London's share is only $130 million. Amortized over 10 years, that works out to just $13 million per year, or less than 1.7% of the city's overall annual budget. It's a number that's well within the realm of affordability and well within London's budgetary capacities without having to raise tax rates.

As to Farhi... what a blowhard. No court is ever going to certify a lawsuit (i.e. allow it to proceed) on the basis of potential and not actual damages.

Similarly, no court would ever allow private parties to slap on an injunction with the express purpose of delaying or killing a municipal public works project. And that seems to be the angle Farhi is working from.

Like it or not, people like Farhi have to realize that municipalities do have some degree of eminent domain, it's the source of their power to expropriate properties and do other things in the name of keeping a city fully functional.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Stevo26

They don't seem to realize that expropriation doesn't necessarily mean destruction of properties. It can mean simply taking away a portion of the boulevard or a front yard to widen a road, and nothing more than that.

Exactly - the City has done it before, when they widened Adelaide Street (1998) as well as Springbank Drive (2004). Those houses on Adelaide used to be much further from the street, but they're the same houses.

I've been thinking about the London BRT plan more, and I think the biggest barrier to this is really CP Rail.

I really think the City of London needs to push CP harder on its railway tracks going through London. There's not even a need to build a massive rail bypass of the city; they can route trains along the CN tracks from west of Hyde Park, then use the GEXR across Highbury and then back onto the existing CP tracks east of there. The rail yard could be moved east of the city, near the airport. It appears there there is enough space along most of this corridor to accommodate a third or even fourth track that would be needed. The only problem area is around Highbury, where the GEXR has a level crossing and there are several houses that would likely need to be demolished, and there's also the matter of the intersection of Highbury and Florence.

Such an option would eliminate the need for the Richmond tunnel.

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Exactly - the City has done it before, when they widened Adelaide Street (1998) as well as Springbank Drive (2004). Those houses on Adelaide used to be much further from the street, but they're the same houses.

I've been thinking about the London BRT plan more, and I think the biggest barrier to this is really CP Rail.

I really think the City of London needs to push CP harder on its railway tracks going through London. There's not even a need to build a massive rail bypass of the city; they can route trains along the CN tracks from west of Hyde Park, then use the GEXR across Highbury and then back onto the existing CP tracks east of there. The rail yard could be moved east of the city, near the airport. It appears there there is enough space along most of this corridor to accommodate a third or even fourth track that would be needed. The only problem area is around Highbury, where the GEXR has a level crossing and there are several houses that would likely need to be demolished, and there's also the matter of the intersection of Highbury and Florence.

Such an option would eliminate the need for the Richmond tunnel.

I agree, the CP tracks are a big problem, and I wonder if the city simply lacks the courage to ask CP to move their tracks, or whether it's because CP are going to want a massive amount of cash to pay for the move - money the city may not want to spend. Even a rail underpass would be a better solution, if you couldn't move the tracks.

Back in the days when we had an actual train station on Richmond Street and when the same rail line served the former CFB London and its associated supply depot on Highbury Ave., a rail line passing through that part of the city made sense. It doesn't make sense today.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Stevo26

I agree, the CP tracks are a big problem, and I wonder if the city simply lacks the courage to ask CP to move their tracks, or whether it's because CP are going to want a massive amount of cash to pay for the move - money the city may not want to spend. Even a rail underpass would be a better solution, if you couldn't move the tracks.

Back in the days when we had an actual train station on Richmond Street and when the same rail line served the former CFB London and its associated supply depot on Highbury Ave., a rail line passing through that part of the city made sense. It doesn't make sense today.

Perhaps the City could make it part of the RT funding request. The bonus is that the federal government might have more say over CP if they got involved with funding, since railways are federally regulated.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by Underground100

Paul Paolatto, who served on London's Police Services Board and is president of Western's Research Park, is mulling a ward council or mayoral run next year with a pledge to scrap the current BRT plan.

http://www.lfpress.com/2017/05/05/london...n-with-pledge-to-scrap-bus-rapid-transit

"If London city council approves the $560-million plan as now proposed, a former London Police services board member says he’ll run next year for council, and possibly mayor, on a pledge to scrap BRT."

It should read "or" possibly mayor, right? Is he going to flip a coin to decide which?

[ScreamingViking]

The opposition in Hamilton has focused on these too.

Also:
- I'll never use it... it will only benefit students and low income people who can't afford cars! Oh, and people who are handicapped and can't drive! (though they'll also be at a disadvantage, along with seniors, because of the station spacing)
- It doesn't benefit the suburbs!!
- The city will be stuck with the operating costs!!!
- LRT users will have to pay two fares!!!!
- It's a trick -- the government is trying to buy votes, they can't be trusted, nor can their "experts"!!!!!

Originally Posted by Stevo26

A lot of the opposition seemed to centre on a few themes:

- cost
- destruction of businesses and neighbourhoods, lost business revenues, lost heritage properties
- concerns about technical and engineering issues (e.g., building a tunnel in the sandy soil of Richmond Street)
- concerns about BRT disrupting traffic due to reduction of lanes on Richmond Street

I wonder how many of these people considered the possibility that the city and its engineering/technical staff as well as various consultants had already considered all of these issues? And stated that the BRT project was technically and financially feasible.

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

The opposition in Hamilton has focused on these too.

Also:
- I'll never use it... it will only benefit students and low income people who can't afford cars! Oh, and people who are handicapped and can't drive! (though they'll also be at a disadvantage, along with seniors, because of the station spacing)
- It doesn't benefit the suburbs!!
- The city will be stuck with the operating costs!!!
- LRT users will have to pay two fares!!!!
- It's a trick -- the government is trying to buy votes, they can't be trusted, nor can their "experts"!!!!!

Yeah, the ones who really make me laugh are the ones who say they don't use public transit so we shouldn't build a BRT system or do anything to improve public transit. Their attitude, in a nutshell, is, "I don't need it or use it, therefore nobody else should need it or use it."

They don't realize that BRT does serve the suburbs in an indirect way by allowing people to move around in the downtown core and along several major arteries more quickly and easily, without needing a car.

BRT in London will be supported by feeder routes coming in from the suburbs. Someone like me, for instance, who lives in the suburbs, could hop on a Westmount bus, travel to Wellington and Base Line where there will be a BRT station, wait about five minutes, hop on a BRT bus and then be downtown in less time than it would take the regular Westmount bus to get there.

People don't seem to understand how BRT is going to make things easier and actually massively transform public transit in London. BRT works extremely well in Ottawa and Winnipeg, so why wouldn't it work in London?

LRT users won't have to pay two fares, because we're not building a LRT system in London.

"The city will be stuck with the operating costs." Really? How? London receives subsidies for its existing transit system and therefore isn't forced to shoulder all of the operating costs, so this argument is null and void.

Gotta love the people in the Chicken Little camp who are sure the sky is going to fall once BRT gets under way.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by Stevo26

Yeah, the ones who really make me laugh are the ones who say they don't use public transit so we shouldn't build a BRT system or do anything to improve public transit. Their attitude, in a nutshell, is, "I don't need it or use it, therefore nobody else should need it or use it."

They don't realize that BRT does serve the suburbs in an indirect way by allowing people to move around in the downtown core and along several major arteries more quickly and easily, without needing a car.

BRT in London will be supported by feeder routes coming in from the suburbs. Someone like me, for instance, who lives in the suburbs, could hop on a Westmount bus, travel to Wellington and Base Line where there will be a BRT station, wait about five minutes, hop on a BRT bus and then be downtown in less time than it would take the regular Westmount bus to get there.

People don't seem to understand how BRT is going to make things easier and actually massively transform public transit in London. BRT works extremely well in Ottawa and Winnipeg, so why wouldn't it work in London?

LRT users won't have to pay two fares, because we're not building a LRT system in London.

"The city will be stuck with the operating costs." Really? How? London receives subsidies for its existing transit system and therefore isn't forced to shoulder all of the operating costs, so this argument is null and void.

Gotta love the people in the Chicken Little camp who are sure the sky is going to fall once BRT gets under way.

I will say that London's BRT plan is almost useless to some suburban areas of London. The only bus connection it will have to Byron is a bus that comes every 40 minutes at peak (!) times. It will be of no use to the ~12,000 people who live there; the feeder route not only comes too infrequently but it goes north when the nearest BRT stop would require going back south to get downtown. Westmount doesn't look much better, and that area has more population density than Byron.

If BRT is going to work, they've got to get the feeder system right. The map I saw Stephen Turner post on Twitter showing London Transit in 2030 didn't seem to address it very well.

This situation is to be expected with any rapid transit system, however. Vast parts of Toronto are nowhere near any subway or GO station.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by Stevo26

LRT users won't have to pay two fares, because we're not building a LRT system in London.

"The city will be stuck with the operating costs." Really? How? London receives subsidies for its existing transit system and therefore isn't forced to shoulder all of the operating costs, so this argument is null and void.

Gotta love the people in the Chicken Little camp who are sure the sky is going to fall once BRT gets under way.

My examples were from the Hamilton debate, but I could see some of them translating into more anti-BRT sentiment.

There is still a lot of misinformation out there in Hamilton, some of it deliberate from LRT opponents. The operating agreement has yet to be negotiated, and Metrolinx doesn't want to release its draft operating cost estimates to avoid tainting the procurement process (bids will cover build, operate, and maintain), so there are opponents taking this to mean that the agency is hiding things, and they've been coming up with their own scenarios about revenue and operating costs that don't make sense (stuff like the operator will take all the fares, but the city will be on the hook to pay to operate ). Heck, even some city councilors don't seem to understand why their questions about some of the longer term costs can't be answered yet, and one has publicly said she can't support the project because of that, instead of waiting for the process to play out.

There's still such a self-defeating attitude in Hamilton. There are many people who seem like they're happier complaining about a situation rather than being constructively supportive of changing it. I guess that goes with being a city in economic transition, still restructuring and rebuilding after losing many of its old industries. From what I've read on this board London has that issue too, and hopefully those types of folks don't help to kill this plan because it makes a lot of sense for the city.

[ssiguy]

This Paolatto character keeps saying he is against the BRT.............does that mean he is against just the BRT or the LRT as well?

Perhaps London should look at an affordable elevated rail system...... ie www.skytrolley.com

[Dupcheck]

1) Railway is still the root cause problem.
Hey, why not consider the option of re-routing the railway on the outskirts of London? How much would this option cost? It could be cheaper than digging a tunnel under Richmond.
At least some of us would like an analysis on this option!

2) If it is going to take 10 years to build BRT, by then the buses might be outdated, why not consider LRT to start with? What would the expected population in London be 10 years after, would it justify LRT?

[MolsonExport]

Jesus Christ, London. When the hell will council stop thinking small?

[haljackey]

If the CP rail line could be moved it would have been done 100 years ago.

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

Jesus Christ, London. When the hell will council stop thinking small?

All 14 councilors + mayor were initially supportive of RT. It's the 'verbal' public that is now swaying their views on the project.

[Dupcheck]

Originally Posted by haljackey

If the CP rail line could be moved it would have been done 100 years ago.



All 14 councilors + mayor were initially supportive of RT. It's the 'verbal' public that is now swaying their views on the project.

It can still be moved now. Why not?
100 years ago London was a village, now it is a medium size city.
Why can not we discuss this issue at all? It does not seem right for this option to not be on the table. At the end of the day it all comes to cost. If it is cheaper relocating a couple of train tracks than building a tunnel, why not look into it?

[haljackey]

IF all of London's politicians were 100% on board, and it also gained overwhelming support from the provincial and national governments, CP would probably take this all the way to the supreme court.

If the line ran north of the city, expect more backlash than the old ring road / 402 north debates. Integrating it with CN would involve a lot of business politics. Neither business wants to pay a dime for it either.

Simply put, the city itself is powerless to do anything about CP on it's own. It would take a miracle. Don't get me wrong I'd like to see this happen. Not impossible, but realistically not feasible.
-Projects other than BRT like the Adelaide Street underpass would also be a waste.

[Dupcheck]

http://www.lfpress.com/2017/05/05/letters-to-the-editor-may-6-3

[jammer139]

No chance of moving the CP mainline north or south of the City and sharing right of way with the CNR is even less likely. CP and CN are for profit competitors and they are not in business to spend hundreds of millions on re-routing unless their is something in it for them. For example the CP bridge over Oxford and the Thames river were in risk of failing then CP may consider a proposal to reroute their mainline. But even then they would likely find it cheaper to rebuild the entire bridge span and pay CNR a Kings ransom in rent during the time of construction.

And there is nothing in it for them. Period! Stop!

We would be much further ahead to spend an extra $100 million expropriating the necessary buildings around the CP tracks on Richmond and building a full access under/over pass to accommodate all traffic including buses, cars, trucks, people, bikers etc.

Originally Posted by Dupcheck

It can still be moved now. Why not?
100 years ago London was a village, now it is a medium size city.
Why can not we discuss this issue at all? It does not seem right for this option to not be on the table. At the end of the day it all comes to cost. If it is cheaper relocating a couple of train tracks than building a tunnel, why not look into it?

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

There's still such a self-defeating attitude in Hamilton. There are many people who seem like they're happier complaining about a situation rather than being constructively supportive of changing it. I guess that goes with being a city in economic transition, still restructuring and rebuilding after losing many of its old industries. From what I've read on this board London has that issue too, and hopefully those types of folks don't help to kill this plan because it makes a lot of sense for the city.

As a Londoner who has at various times spent in Hamilton, I believe that the two cities have two different mentalities that achieve similar results. Hamiltonians are defeatist and pessimistic (except for very new-comers, who are utterly naive but a small minority) about just about anything. They're very suspicious about anyone claiming to want to achieve anything better for the city. The general response is that it's a scam.

Londoners are just conservative, in the truest sense of the word. They don't like change. They're content with the status quo. See Brian Burton's letter to the editor in Dupcheck's link.

Hamilton is a largely working-class, branch-plant City just down the road from its more successful neighbour, and historically attracting successive waves of working-class neighbourhoods. London is a regional centre, largely more waspy than the province as a whole, and historically home to a lot of professional and white-colour jobs.

Both histories and mentalities lead them to be rejecting of change.