Shift: London's Rapid Transit Initiative

[Underground100]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

That's a possibility. Transfers are important.

On the other hand, connecting to a faster service with less stops for part of the trip may reduce total transit commute times for many. The key will be how the feeder routes are optimized to link up with the BRT routes, and the frequency of service offered on the BRT lines.

I took a look at the Rapid Transit Integration Framework document that LTC and consultants put together 18 months ago. I live in Glen Cairn and rely primarily on Route 1, one of the most insufferable routes on the system. Apparently under RT, the route will be split into two, with one stub connecting at Richmond and Huron and the other at Wellington and Bond. Let's just say I'd totally welcome transferring to get to downtown.

[haljackey]

Detailed concept plans of the route

Downtown
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/sh.../LondonRTMP_AppJ_Downtown.pdf?1500407062

East Corridor
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/sh...donRTMP_AppJ_EastCorridor.pdf?1500407070

North Corridor
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/sh...onRTMP_AppJ_NorthCorridor.pdf?1500407096

South Corridor
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/sh...onRTMP_AppJ_SouthCorridor.pdf?1500407101

West Corridor
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/sh...donRTMP_AppJ_WestCorridor.pdf?1500407107

Some highlights:

-Western's bridge over the Thames to be closed for vehicles, BRT only

-King Street to still be one way for vehicles but sandwiched between two way BRT lanes from Wellington to Ontario Streets.

-At Grade CP crossing remains on Richmond

-Mixed traffic flow on Warncliffe, as well as on Wellington CN underpass (not being widened)

-Queens Ave bridge over the Thames to have 4 lanes squeezed in, currently only 2. Will also have one way traffic and two way BRT lanes.

-Highbury CP bridge to be winded / expanded

-Looks like a lot of houses need to go on Wellington between Base line and the Thames River, plus some on Richmond despite that road not being expanded in terms of total lane count

-Wellington bridge over the Thames River to be expanded

[Pimpmasterdac]

Keeping Richmond 4 lanes, 2 general 2 BRT, is idiotic. If they had made Richmond 6 lanes would be more palatable since traffic would still flow the same having 4 general lanes, with the BRT as well. Now the old north side streets will be swamped.

Wellington is being made 6 lanes from White Oaks Mall to Horton, (rightfully so) and the city is going to have to acquire dozens of properties. With Rchmond the city already owns most of the ROW, so just seems to make little sense not to take full advantage of it.

[Spoofy]

.

[manny_santos]

Something I noticed was the reconfiguration of Western Road at Richmond. With Richmond planned to be two lanes each way for general traffic south of the university gates, and Western/Wharncliffe soon to be widened, this is a good idea.

[haljackey]

Richmond between downtown and the university is quite tight, and some houses will have to go to put in a 2+2 setup.

To make a 4+2 setup, you basically have to tear down all the houses on one side or Richmond. That's way too expensive and has all kinds of other hurdles too.

The CN underpass on Wellington will operate with mixed traffic. Too extensive to widen that. I can see a ton of design and feasibility challenges that would have as well.

The route through Western is a surprise, but it is not final. I also did not expect the bride over the Thames to be BRT / authorized vehicles only.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by haljackey

Richmond between downtown and the university is quite tight, and some houses will have to go to put in a 2+2 setup.

To make a 4+2 setup, you basically have to tear down all the houses on one side or Richmond. That's way too expensive and has all kinds of other hurdles too.

The CN underpass on Wellington will operate with mixed traffic. Too extensive to widen that. I can see a ton of design and feasibility challenges that would have as well.

The route through Western is a surprise, but it is not final. I also did not expect the bride over the Thames to be BRT / authorized vehicles only.

It's looking as though through Western it is planned to operate much like Ottawa's Transitway. So basically the campus will become inaccessible to car traffic from the university gates.

[Dupcheck]

I wonder if they would put any bike lanes on Richmond from University to downtown with their new design. I take it ambulances will travel faster now if they use the BRT lanes.

Also I encourage the city to think of what would happen when cars park on the only available lane for them such as taxis, deliveries, or student's cars for example at a very notorious spot that this type of behavior happens all the time: 1235 Richmond St (student apartments). Even though stopping or parking on the right lane is not allowed they still do it. I have seen cars park in front of this building for minutes at a time creating havoc on Richmond St. I still think there are areas of Richmond that we need more than one lane of car traffic. How about the snow plows when there is a curb present where is the snow going, how about giving 1m minimum space to cyclists, how about broken down cars on the side of the road, how about cars pulled over by police etc...
Looking at the plan pictures with middle lanes one would think that they were planning for an LRT service and not buses.

[ssiguy]

I'm curious. Has the city ever considered using the London-Port Stanley rail corridor for a BRT Transitway? It comes very close to LHSC and then they could build a bridge/station at Commissioners @ LHSC and then follow Wellington on the eastside using the Parkwood Grounds. It would serve the Horton/Hamilton area, would get rid of the politically impalatable idea of destroying homes on Wellington, and would be much faster.

Also I don't see the point of an BRT-only bridge at Western. Western is only going to allow 8 buses per direction per hour so it seems like a waste.

[Djeffery]

There are still trains that run on that line, going to St Thomas. I don't think the rest of that corridor really serves much else, especially to the south of LHSC.

Regarding the north leg, I don't know why the fixation on Richmond. The city was already getting ready to re-do Wharncliffe north, I don't know why they didn't adjust those construction plans and use that. Then the buses can just come in at Alumni, which is where most of the people are going anyway, and the city doesn't have to build Western a new bridge. Also, doesn't the 8 per hour thing kind of limit the whole northern leg then? Sounds like a lot less service than "every few minutes" they are trying to sell us on now.

[Dupcheck]

After reading this article below makes me upset as a driver that we have to go through all these cumbersome rules. It sounds good on paper, but when there is snowmagedon out there these roads will be a mess. For what a BRT system not even LRT. It sucks!

http://www.lfpress.com/2018/03/01/driver...several-changes-in-the-rules-of-the-road

[jaradthescot]

And the understatement of the week goes to Mr. Sam Qazi: “This change will contribute in a negative way if they don’t address the generally poor driving habits of Londoners,” he said.

[manny_santos]

The biggest thing Londoners are going to need to get used to is U-turns, which are not part of local driving culture (though it is common in other parts of Ontario and other parts of the world). I always had assumed U-turns were illegal in Ontario until I moved out of London; the first time I came back to London months after I had moved, I did a U-turn on Wellington and got honked at. It's second nature in other cities but it never became a thing here.

In Toronto, U-turns are encouraged at signalized intersections along St. Clair and Spadina, both of which have streetcars running down the middle; they actually have dedicated U-turn signals along those two avenues, much as some intersections have dedicated left turn signals.

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

The biggest thing Londoners are going to need to get used to is U-turns, which are not part of local driving culture (though it is common in other parts of Ontario and other parts of the world). I always had assumed U-turns were illegal in Ontario until I moved out of London; the first time I came back to London months after I had moved, I did a U-turn on Wellington and got honked at. It's second nature in other cities but it never became a thing here.

In Toronto, U-turns are encouraged at signalized intersections along St. Clair and Spadina, both of which have streetcars running down the middle; they actually have dedicated U-turn signals along those two avenues, much as some intersections have dedicated left turn signals.

Further to your point it is actually much better for traffic flow as well, you can reduce the number of intersections in some case and have drivers utilize U turns. Even an extreme example in Michigan being the "US left" I used to hate the idea of them but its actually quite smart and makes traffic move much better.

[Djeffery]

When I took the kids to Detroit during March Break a few years ago, I loved the U turns once I figured it out. They do make me nervous here though, since so many people are still trying to figure out roundabouts and the centre 2 way left turn lanes

[jammer139]

This Michigan U-turn is indeed a very smart traffic management method.

Helped by the fact that the city planners actually "planned" for the future and made road right of ways as wide as soccer fields. Major roads in Detroit and its suburbs like Hall Road, Telegraph, Woodward work because of this forethought.

Imagine if our city planners had done the same with Richmond, Highbury, Commissioners, Wonderland.

Originally Posted by MrSlippery519

Further to your point it is actually much better for traffic flow as well, you can reduce the number of intersections in some case and have drivers utilize U turns. Even an extreme example in Michigan being the "US left" I used to hate the idea of them but its actually quite smart and makes traffic move much better.

[MolsonExport]

the roads may be wide (which makes for a very unpleasant environment for pedestrians and thus any interesting street-level density), but Detroit is a disaster of a city in almost every way possible.

[warpus]

Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac

Keeping Richmond 4 lanes, 2 general 2 BRT, is idiotic. If they had made Richmond 6 lanes would be more palatable since traffic would still flow the same having 4 general lanes, with the BRT as well. Now the old north side streets will be swamped.

Right now there are 2 lanes in each direction for mixed traffic, but since there are no turning lanes or bus bays they are just slightly more efficient than 1 lane. So at least if we go by what I heard at the latest open house, the new plan will not make that stretch of Richmond much less efficient, as they are installing dedicated turning lanes.

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Also I don't see the point of an BRT-only bridge at Western. Western is only going to allow 8 buses per direction per hour so it seems like a waste.

Western was going to do this even if BRT wasn't in the plans (or LRT). It's a part of a bigger pedestrian friendly plan for the campus.

Originally Posted by Djeffery

There are still trains that run on that line, going to St Thomas. I don't think the rest of that corridor really serves much else, especially to the south of LHSC.

Regarding the north leg, I don't know why the fixation on Richmond. The city was already getting ready to re-do Wharncliffe north, I don't know why they didn't adjust those construction plans and use that.

Richmond is far better suited as a rapid transit corridor than that stretch of Wharncliffe, which I believe contains a protected flood plain that the city wouldn't be able to intensify densification on, which is important for rapid transit.

Originally Posted by Djeffery

the city doesn't have to build Western a new bridge.

The university isn't getting a new bridge, I don't think. They don't want through-traffic running through their campus, they were going to make this bridge bus & emergency vehicle only no matter what happened with RT plans.

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Also, doesn't the 8 per hour thing kind of limit the whole northern leg then? Sounds like a lot less service than "every few minutes" they are trying to sell us on now.

The 7-route is going to have buses running ever 10 minutes, and the L route every 5, IIRC.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by warpus

The 7-route is going to have buses running ever 10 minutes, and the L route every 5, IIRC.

Isn't the L the one that will be going from Masonville, to downtown and out to Fanshawe? Going to pretty hard to run 5 minute service if the university is limiting you to 7 1/2 minutes (8 an hour). I was pretty sure I heard that a new bridge was in the plans, but those might have been older plans as well. That bridge is very old and doesn't allow 2 way traffic when one is a larger vehicle anymore either.

Also, I'm not sure about any flood plain or anything limiting "densification" on Western/Wharncliffe between Alumni Circle and Riverside (meaning, I don't know, not that I'm disagreeing with you). But I'm pretty sure there isn't going to be any of that densification happening on Richmond from Oxford to University either. I don't think the well heeled neighbourhood is going to allow condos to be lining Richmond all the way along that stretch. Too late anyway though, as the concrete has already been poured for the new rail bridge.

I'm also curious what they plan to do about parking at the north and south ends. They keep saying that they are going to use Masonville and White Oaks, but those malls aren't exactly flush with acres of empty parking lots and they say no one has talked to them about parking there. Are parking garages for both malls in the Shift budget?

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

the roads may be wide (which makes for a very unpleasant environment for pedestrians and thus any interesting street-level density), but Detroit is a disaster of a city in almost every way possible.

These kinds of boulevards are common in Mexico (complete with U-turns being encouraged). From my observations, they are often used as parks, and sometimes even have recreational facilities on them. Traffic signals at crossing streets often have two phases, one for each carriageway since they're so far apart.