Shift: London's Rapid Transit Initiative

[Dupcheck]

Tunnel or no Tunnel, trains are still going to be a problem for the city no matter what. Until we re direct of a couple of crucial train tracks, the BRT, LRT, RT, whatever, is still going to kind of suck on the rapid part.

London is not that bad guys. Be glad you are not in GTA where the average house price is north of 1Mil$ and the wages are the same as here, check out this blog. (www.greaterfool.ca)
Once the high speed rail system gets build to connect London to GTA it will rock the city's real estate up!

We can now spend the rest of the left over (BRT-Tunnel) money to add much needed bike lanes, they sure do beat the public transportation. If the weather keeps getting warmer each year, biking will get more popular, why not add some more bike lanes to anticipate future demand.

[MrSlippery519]

I do not even understand what is going to be rapid about this now...it will 100% be sitting waiting for trains its unavoidable.

[MolsonExport]

https://www.powerthesaurus.org/rapid/antonyms

rapid > antonyms

107 Antonyms

slow adj.
lazy, unhurried
sluggish adj.
leisurely adj.
dead in the water
unhurried adj.
laggard
tardy adj.
crawling
dawdling

...

[MolsonExport]

*options for bypassing the level rail crossing on Richmond Row, a system-stalling hurdle, will be studied by staff."

LFP

Same can, different label.

[haljackey]

Looking at the cup half full:


Considering we usually flop on these things, I'm happy that something actually got done, even though the core of the project (tunnel) is missing.

It sorta compares to a freeway with stoplights.

Maybe the province will change some things.

Also if London's funding was capped at the same cost for any plan, why not propose full LRT first and then compromise from there?

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by haljackey

Also if London's funding was capped at the same cost for any plan, why not propose full LRT first and then compromise from there?

Been wondering this from the start

[Blitz]

I was just on a London Transit bus a couple of weeks ago on Richmond St during morning rush hour that had to stop for 10 minutes because of a train that was moving at a snail's pace...that then reversed. With all the other traffic that was backed up because of the train and all the traffic lights in the area it took over 15 minutes for the bus just to get from the core of downtown to Oxford Street. If that's not going to change then they have no business calling it 'rapid' transit.

[Spicol]

Originally Posted by MrSlippery519

I do not even understand what is going to be rapid about this now...it will 100% be sitting waiting for trains its unavoidable.

Dedicated lanes, traffic signal priority and, if they can use that to increase ridership, more frequent buses. Plus, it's a lot easier to add a tunnel or some other track bypass later than to pass BRT + tunnel now.

I'm ok with this. I wish it were different but this is something, at least.

[ssiguy]

I can appreciate that the tunnel is problematic. This is where QP and especially the feds can step in and apply some much needed pressure of making CN & CP share the same track thru the city and making any government support of the Toronto northern rail bypass dependent upon it.

What I don't get is if the budget has declined from the original price tag then why don't they keep with the original budget from senior levels of government but make the BRT system larger especially by expanding it east to the airport and west to Byron. The downtown routing also looks very odd and cumbersome.

This will still be faster and more reliable than what is available now as the system will have ROW, special advanced lighting at intersections, and have all door exit and entry which is a real time saving device. These things backed up with fewer stations will make the system much faster and more reliable than I think many of you are giving it credit for. The buses will be new, articulated with no swerving in and out of traffic so it will also be a much more pleasant and enjoyable service with higher capacity than what is available now. The stations will offer true relief from outdoor weather, be bright and hence people will feel more secure using it especially the elderly, and have much easier level boarding which is important for the mobility impaired.

Yes this is a compromise but it will still serve Londoners well and, unlike LRT, can be easily expanded. An LRT certainly has more panache but remember LRT would be much LESS reliable on a system that London is building going down present streets as one car accident anywhere along the route brings the system to a grinding halt unlike BRT where the buses can just go around the accident. Just go ask Torontonians what happens when there is an accident on an streetcar route...........a massive flurry of buses would have to be sent in to take the stranded passengers and the streetcars quickly pile up. If you think CP is bad then you haven't been to Toronto when there is an accident along any of the routes or a problem with an individual train.

It maybe a compromise but this will still serve Londoners well and 24km of route is a very large system for a city the size of London. I think many of you are selling the system short.

[Dupcheck]

At the end they will just paint some fresh white lines on the streets and intersections and call that the BRT. Hahahaha, that is what they do for most of the bike lanes. They just paint a sliver of the car lane so the bikes can use it. Ridiculous. The Trains are the problem get to the root of it, don't just patch up solutions.

[warpus]

Originally Posted by Spoofy

The city council admitted it's complex for riders but it makes businesses along King Street happier.

https://imgur.com/gallery/F8rYY

Based on this image it seems that the only place you could put a central RT Bus hub would be at Wellington & King. That is the only spot where both routes intersect going in both directions.

But there doesn't seem to be room there to build anything. What am I missing?

Initially they wanted to put the hub at King & Clarence, but that obviously won't work now. So... what's the plan?

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by Dupcheck

At the end they will just paint some fresh white lines on the streets and intersections and call that the BRT. Hahahaha, that is what they do for most of the bike lanes. They just paint a sliver of the car lane so the bikes can use it. Ridiculous. The Trains are the problem get to the root of it, don't just patch up solutions.

Agreed, the trains have to go. I saw something earlier today that seems to suggest the city is going to approach CN & CP in order to work on fixing this. The other thing I saw was that studies have shown that only one in five BRT busses will be delayed by trains and that the delay will be fairly minimal - about five minutes at best, and 10 at worst, notwithstanding the occasional extreme delay.

I'm not happy that the city ditched the tunnel. But given the circumstances, I am glad that the city is actually committing to BRT and is taking concrete steps to end London's status as a do-nothing, go-nowhere, avoid-progress-at-all-costs city.

I'm also glad that the small axe-grinding, nay-saying, anti-BRT crowd didn't get to dictate to the majority like they have in the past with other city initiatives. Some of the people in Old North must be fuming right about now!

People have the mistaken impression that the BRT system as currently laid out is the be-all and end-all, and that once it is fully built, nothing more in terms of rapid transit will be built. Au contraire, my friends! What we are seeing is actually only the beginning phase of the vision the city has mapped out in its transportation plan.

There also seems to be a good chance the city will eventually revisit the idea of constructing the Richmond tunnel, if they cannot find a way to get CN & CP to move their tracks out of the city.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by warpus

Based on this image it seems that the only place you could put a central RT Bus hub would be at Wellington & King. That is the only spot where both routes intersect going in both directions.

But there doesn't seem to be room there to build anything. What am I missing?

Initially they wanted to put the hub at King & Clarence, but that obviously won't work now. So... what's the plan?

Tear down part of Galleria.

In seriousness, I'm curious about the same thing. It probably could be a block away serving only half of the routing, with "enhanced pedestrian connectivity" (or whatever buzzword), but that's not good. Part of me hopes that the hub winds up being cheap and poor, and it can be replaced without much resistance by an intermodal hub at Wellington and York (where those surface parking lots are), that would house BRT, Via, and intercity buses. It would be relatively easy to route the L line down York a stretch.

I think ssiguy is right to say that "24km of route is a very large system for a city the size of London." A huge number of Londoners will be getting much better transit when this is completed. The devil will be in the details, and people have to insist on properly segregated lanes and real transit priority. But it could well still be a great system.

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Tear down part of Galleria.

In seriousness, I'm curious about the same thing. It probably could be a block away serving only half of the routing, with "enhanced pedestrian connectivity" (or whatever buzzword), but that's not good. Part of me hopes that the hub winds up being cheap and poor, and it can be replaced without much resistance by an intermodal hub at Wellington and York (where those surface parking lots are), that would house BRT, Via, and intercity buses. It would be relatively easy to route the L line down York a stretch.

I think ssiguy is right to say that "24km of route is a very large system for a city the size of London." A huge number of Londoners will be getting much better transit when this is completed. The devil will be in the details, and people have to insist on properly segregated lanes and real transit priority. But it could well still be a great system.

"Tear down part of Galleria". Hadn't considered that idea, but it seems to have promise because much of that mall is only barely commercially viable as it is.

The problem is, where would the cinema, the pub, the food court and the gym that are all housed in the south side of the complex relocate? And what about the businesses located in the old Eaton's department store? Where could they go?

The north side of the mall would be a no-go, as it houses the central branch of the public library and Western's downtown campus. You would also have to raze part or all of the existing buildings situated on the east side of Clarence Street and which sit next to the north end of the mall.

An intermodal hub linking Via and Greyhound services with BRT is a fantastic idea and would also make BRT take off like a rocket. Although I could see a few cabbies and Uber drivers bitching about lost business.

I get the sense that the city is seeking to build the hub at King and Clarence in an effort to place it as close to the Via station as possible, which makes perfect sense.

A 24km route is large, but remember two things. London is very spread out and large for a city of almost 400,000. Almost half of that distance covers the span between White Oaks in the south, to Masonville in the north.

If we get the 'properly segregated lanes and real transit priority', then yes, BRT could be a fantastic boost for London.

[warpus]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Tear down part of Galleria.

In seriousness, I'm curious about the same thing. It probably could be a block away serving only half of the routing, with "enhanced pedestrian connectivity" (or whatever buzzword), but that's not good.

I agree. If the hub is at Wellington and Clarence, then:

- If you're coming from the south and are heading east you do not stop at the hub
- If you are coming from the south and are heading north, you do not stop at the hub
- If you are coming from the north and are heading south you DO stop at the hub
- If you are coming from the north and are heading west, you do not stop at the hub
- If you are coming from the west and are heading north, you do not stop at the hub
- If you are coming from the west and heading east, you DO stop at the hub
- If you are coming from the east and are heading south, you do not stop at the hub
- If you are coming from the east and heading west, you do not stop at the hub

2/8

(I am obviously excluding routes where you do not have to get off the bus at all, such as west to south, north to east, etc. I also haven't looked at the preferred station layout so it's possible in some of the above cases you will have no choice but to proceed to the hub even if the routes intersect in the right way)

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

Part of me hopes that the hub winds up being cheap and poor, and it can be replaced without much resistance by an intermodal hub at Wellington and York (where those surface parking lots are), that would house BRT, Via, and intercity buses. It would be relatively easy to route the L line down York a stretch.

That's a great idea, L route buses could just run down Wellington for a brief detour to the hub. That's a 5/8 in terms of the above analysis I believe. It could be perfect because it's close to the train station AND close to where the future high speed rail station is supposed to be I think... I just checked the 2014 feasibility study and they have it right at Wellington, although to be fair that could very well change, if high speed rail even happens.. Either way a great spot for the hub

The only thing is I don't think Greyhound would be willing to relocate, but that wouldn't be a show stopper by any means, and there seems to be enough room for them depending on where the high speed rail station is going to be and how big exactly that will need to be. (assuming it happens of course, but you'd think the city and the province have discussed this in some capacity so that the plans can be compatible)

I looked to see which part of Galleria could be demolished at Wellington and King, but on that side they did a lot of work to the mall recently so I doubt they would be willing to tear any of it down.

Another question I have is.. what is going to happen at Alumni Hall during convocation? It gets crazy packed with students at certain times and they spill out onto the street and it gets a bit crazy when that happens. From what I remember anyway. People who attend convocation usually park right by Alumni Hall as well, and if the road there turns into RT only lanes, then there will be no way to get to that parking lot either. I suppose they could create a new entrance to the parking lot from some other street, but I don't see where or how.

edit: I went digging and found this in the latest document I could find on the SHIFT website (May 15, 2017)

Less intuitive couplet transit corridor, with split station at Talbot. No central transit hub, with transfers between corridors at Queens & Clarence; and King & Wellington. More complex connections and transfers.

So we are not getting a central transit hub. That's a shame. Ah well, it's not vital really, it'll be easy to jump off a bus and get on the other line without a hub

Maybe we'll get one in the future if we ever get high speed rail and the high speed rail station is at Wellington and York. Would make sense to put a BRT hub there and re-route L route buses south a bit via Wellington as mentioned previously

[K85]

Stupid fucking city

[Dupcheck]

Originally Posted by K85

Stupid fucking city

It is not the best, but try living in GTA. You will spend 1.5 hrs on the road each way to work. You think our London is bad, you have seen nothing friend! Let's work with what we have here and make it better when we can.

[K85]

don't think it's bad, I love London to death, it's just full of morons, run by morons, and the people complaining about the unbelievable opportunity we had are morons.

[warpus]

Originally Posted by K85

don't think it's bad, I love London to death, it's just full of morons, run by morons, and the people complaining about the unbelievable opportunity we had are morons.

Nimby's be Nimbying

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by K85

don't think it's bad, I love London to death, it's just full of morons, run by morons, and the people complaining about the unbelievable opportunity we had are morons.

Sad, but true.

A lot of Londoners seem to be very anti-progress and I can't understand why. Are they so lacking in intelligence that they cannot see the positive aspects of things like BRT? Are they feeling so powerless in their personal lives that they feel they have to block others from moving forward, just so they can feel like they have some measure of power and control?

A lot of them, especially the heritage activists, seem to be clinging to a past that never really existed. While it's nice to see a city that has a few nice old buildings that speak to a city's history, I don't see the wisdom of keeping dilapidated, non-viable heritage buildings standing at any cost.

A case in point is the way the front facade of the old Kingsmill's building is being integrated into the new Fanshawe College building. Personally, I don't think the blend of old and new makes sense, or looks good.

But you know why this kind of silliness is happening - it's to quell the whining and crying that you know would come from the heritage activists who treat heritage buildings like sacred cows. Even though not one of them would ever front any of their own personal money to continuously maintain and rehabiltate their sacred cows. No, that's the job of John Q. Taxpayer.

I would rather have seen the facade removed and a piece of it - say the portion that has the word "Kingsmill's" engraved in the stone, kept on permanent display in the London Regional Art Gallery. On the new facade you could install a plaque that shows a photo of the Kingsmill's building as it originally appeared, and some verbiage below that to provide some history on the building. To me, that would make far more sense than retaining a mere remnant of the building as it used to exist.

I would argue that, merchants and developers aside, a good bit of the opposition to BRT comes from the heritage activists.

I've lived in London for the last 27 years and find it to be a grey, concrete, and rather boring place, to say nothing of generally mediocre. I've learned to tolerate it because Toronto is too big, too noisy and too bloody expensive to live in.

Mind you, the city does have a few nice spots and amenities; the Elsie Perrin Williams Estate and the university campus, for instance, seem like oases that are a million miles away from the mostly still scruffy-looking and run-down downtown core and the bums that inhabit it. The only part of the downtown core that really looks nice is the Richmond Row area. Old North is nice, too, but I fail to see why BRT lanes would detract from the natural beauty of that part of town.