Shift: London's Rapid Transit Initiative

[haljackey]

Went to Citi Plaza on my lunch break today and noticed that there was a public information centre set up for Shift.



Lots of displays - this is probably the best one to show:


2018 city election might mess with these plans haha

[Spoofy]

.

[tyeman200]

I hope if it gets scrapped, it's because they want to do LRT instead. I was in Kitchener the other day and the LRT so far looks really nice.

[Dupcheck]

LRT is the essence of a bright future.

[Djeffery]

Not that BRT is easily moved, but they are on wheels. LRT has the air of permanence about it. I think LRT would attract a lot more development than BRT would.

[MrSlippery519]

I have always felt the same way, London NEEDS RT of some kind however I feel this BRT plan is lacking in so many ways it really doesn't benefit many riders and I do not see it attracting new riders as a result.

I would rather them run a single LRT line East to West as that seems like the easier of the 2 and have it run from the Airport to Oxford/HydePark and then work off that by either having some express routes North/South and long term another LRT line.

[jammer139]

Any transit proposal must must must link Western, Fanshawe and Core of city or it will FAIL.

If these 3 locations are not included then the proposal is DOA.

[Dupcheck]

Originally Posted by jammer139

Any transit proposal must must must link Western, Fanshawe and Core of city or it will FAIL.

If these 3 locations are not included then the proposal is DOA.

+ the Airport and the Via Train Station

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by jammer139

Any transit proposal must must must link Western, Fanshawe and Core of city or it will FAIL.

If these 3 locations are not included then the proposal is DOA.

The East/West line would hit 2 or those 3, and you could then run express services to Western.

Not ideal maybe but better than the current BRT plan, it may also push Western to reconsider their conditions against LRT.

[warpus]

Originally Posted by MrSlippery519

I have always felt the same way, London NEEDS RT of some kind however I feel this BRT plan is lacking in so many ways it really doesn't benefit many riders and I do not see it attracting new riders as a result.

I would rather them run a single LRT line East to West as that seems like the easier of the 2 and have it run from the Airport to Oxford/HydePark and then work off that by either having some express routes North/South and long term another LRT line.

I don't know if you've looked through any of the analysis done on potential routes or not, but the north route is key.

All alternatives have been studied, there's tons of documentation on this online. These 4 routes we ended up with are the best routes they could have picked.

I also question your understanding with how the system is going to function, if you claim that this "won't benefit many riders". It will benefit anybody who uses public transit in London, and the road widenings will benefit drivers.

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by warpus

I don't know if you've looked through any of the analysis done on potential routes or not, but the north route is key.

All alternatives have been studied, there's tons of documentation on this online. These 4 routes we ended up with are the best routes they could have picked.

I also question your understanding with how the system is going to function, if you claim that this "won't benefit many riders". It will benefit anybody who uses public transit in London, and the road widenings will benefit drivers.

I did not questions the routes, just extending to the airport and not being an L shape, rather a N-S / E-W. The routes are fine as they are however I feel the airport should be a key factor as London continues to grow.

"all alternatives" come on now, LRT was the preferred option with a tunnel and it running through UWO. We for some reason did not want to ask for funding for that option, as a result it was scaled back a number of times switching to BRT, then no tunnel, etc.

I understand how it is going to function, my question would be is this going to attract new ridership? I do not see where this plan will improve anything for vehicle traffic however which maybe I missed? I am not sure that typically is the main point of RT, I would think attracting more riders, and getting those people to their destinations faster and or with more frequency would be top priorities.

If I could jump on the LRT vs drive to a destination I would certainly do that, would I do the same for BRT if I am being honest probably not.

[ssiguy]

I am not a fan of the BRT proposed but I was never much of a fan of the LRT either.

London is not KWC. KWC is very much a more linear urban area while London is shaped more like a box meaning more people from more areas head to downtown but the journeys are shorter. KWC also does not have London`s denser and far more solid built urban form while KWC has far wider roads and larger spaces between developments. London also has a far more vibrant and urban centric core than KWC. Remember KWC is not one city but a conglomeration of 5. KWC also has a huge freeway network so taking away a few lanes has far less effect on overall traffic than London where regular busy roads are the only way to get around.


I think what London should have done from the beginning is create a series of Vancouver-type B-Line routes. Very frequent all day service so no need for a schedule, new more advanced & comfortable articulated specially coloured buses to make them more appealing and more easily recognizable, proper shelters with ticket vending machines and arrival displays, fewer stops, POP, all door entry/exitm light priority, bus-only lanes where possible, bus-only turning lanes, and strict parking enforcement.


By doing these things the system would be far less disruptive {and hence create far less negative push back}, require no or very little contensious land/housing aquisition, and created many new services as opposed to the ones they have now. Hamilton Road, Wellington, Oxford crosstown, Richmond to UWO/Masonville with a UWO by-pass route split service, Dundas/Fanshawe/Airport, Springbank/Westmount, and Oxford West/Byron & Sherwood Forest. This would have served far more destinations and tens of thousands of more residents. It would have greatly reduced transfers which the current BRT plans creates more of for many riders, been much faster, more comfortable, more reliable, and become a real alternative for far more Londoners and is much cheaper and easier to expand.

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by MrSlippery519

I have always felt the same way, London NEEDS RT of some kind however I feel this BRT plan is lacking in so many ways it really doesn't benefit many riders and I do not see it attracting new riders as a result.

I would rather them run a single LRT line East to West as that seems like the easier of the 2 and have it run from the Airport to Oxford/HydePark and then work off that by either having some express routes North/South and long term another LRT line.

The problem with BRT is that it is a half-measure that has been adopted in an attempt to allay or assuage the concerns of a very vocal group of anti-RT people who are complaining about the cost, even though London's actual share of the BRT project alone is just $130 million, a sum that would work out to $13 million annually if amortized over 10 years and just $6 million annually if amortized over 20.

London does in fact have the financial capacity to build out a full-scale LRT line if it gets the appropriate amount of financial assistance from upper-tier governments.

In Ottawa, BRT has worked well because the layout of the city is such that there are wide swaths of unoccupied/underinhabited land on which busways can be (and have been) built. London doesn't have that luxury and has had to find ways to integrate BRT into the already-built environment. Even so, OC Transpo have had to build LRT lines in a number of places.

[Djeffery]

The more I listen to the BRT proponents in the media, the more I realize this is simply about fixing the underground infrastructure with shared funding of senior governments. Money that otherwise wouldn't come without the transit system on top of the ground. The number of times Jesse Helmer said "this is money we would have to spend anyway" this week was crazy.

Which I guess explains the BRT routing, because the outer reaches of the city are new enough that sewer lines don't need to be replaced yet.

[jammer139]

I doubt Kingston needed over half a Billion $$ to do this.

https://tvo.org/article/current-affairs/...sking-kingston-for-public-transit-advice

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by jammer139

I doubt Kingston needed over half a Billion $$ to do this.

https://tvo.org/article/current-affairs/...sking-kingston-for-public-transit-advice

There's definitely a place for higher-order transit services, but there's a lot to be said for the kind of service improvements Kingston implemented. Many larger cities could learn from them too!

I think too often city politicians look at transit from the perspective of "where can we save money?" or "where can we find efficiencies?" It's viewed mostly from the cost side, not demand. Then cuts are made to service, demand drops, fare revenue gets lower, and there's another round of "what can we do to find efficiencies and savings?"

Alternatively, asking "how can we improve service in a useful way?" is a better approach. It takes some forward thinking and a willingness to spend a bit. But do it right, and demand grows, with fare revenue growing in lock step. There are more resources and reasoning to make further improvements, and good news stories to share, and better cases to get senior government funding.

I don't know why this is so hard for city councils to grasp. They certainly don't look at roads this way.

[ssiguy]

Kingston`s experience is similar to Vancouver`s where they have consistently expanded the SkyTrain and improved bus service and Vancouver has enjoyed skyrocketing ridership while most other NA cities are falling.


One of the biggest gains has been it`s stellar B-Line bus routes. They are fast, reliable, frequent, and enjoy broad public support. Nearly every area of Metro is pleading for B-Lines. The 99 Broadway BLine is the busiest bus route in NA.


This is what I think would be best for London as I described above. It would be fast, comfortable, and frequent but unlike LRT & the proposed BRT, would not require huge land aquisition, eat into current road lanes, be much easier to expand, would get rid of transfers, and would serve hundreds of more destinations and tens of thousands of more people in every district of the city.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Ed Holders plan is to try to amalgamate the CN and CP lines which would open up the CP tracks for potential LRT. He is against the BRT as it is currently and let’s be honest, the plan is crap. We went from a hybrid plan with tunnel to BRT only and no tunnel. If Holder could work with CP and CN, we would get better traffic flow in the city and LRT.

[haljackey]

The CP line could be used for LRT or as a dedicated busway.

That's a pie in the sky idea though, the city has next to no power or sway to get CN and CP to get along. Even a federal mandate would probably be taken to the supreme court.

[MrSlippery519]

Originally Posted by haljackey

The CP line could be used for LRT or as a dedicated busway.

That's a pie in the sky idea though, the city has next to no power or sway to get CN and CP to get along. Even a federal mandate would probably be taken to the supreme court.

Very true, which is a shame as logistically it can be done. I do not see how you get both sides to agree however.