London Public Transit

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

When doing the LRT or BRT debate, it is very important to remember the advantages of LRT/streetcar in terms of noise, ride quality, environmental impacts etc have shrunken dramatically and will continue to do so which is why many city's in the US & Canada are beginning to cancel their LRT plans in favour of BRT.

Bus's reputation of being loud, polluting, and uncomfortable are fading fast. This is due not only to improvements to the buses themselves with better ride quality, wider doors, level boarding, and LCD info but also due to electrification. Battery buses are MUCH quieter both inside and out than standard diesel and of course don't have the exhaust either. They also enjoy much faster acceleration and very much comparable to streetcars.

The ride quality of BRT is also enhanced due to being on it's own ROW. Buses have advanced greatly in the last few decades but can still be a rough ride but this is almost always due to the road itself and not the bus's suspension.

Another great advantage of BRT is that it can be expanded much more quickly and affordably than any streetcar/LRT system and can also be used for interlining on suburban routes in rush hours.

Ever have LRTs stopped due to snow? Most of USA doesn't get the kind of weather we do. That is why a BRT isn't a problem there.

[MolsonExport]

the problem with BRT is the B. It is still a bus. I hate the bus.
Rail provides more seating, more comfort, usually more speed, looks a hell of a lot better, lacks the wretched stigma that buses have, etc., etc.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

the problem with BRT is the B. It is still a bus. I hate the bus.
Rail provides more seating, more comfort, usually more speed, looks a hell of a lot better, lacks the wretched stigma that buses have, etc., etc.

But that's your problem and not the transit systems. People like you wouldn't take transit anyway in a city the size of London.

"Looking better" should not be the basis of improving transit. I would rather have BRT in many corridors serving hundreds of more destinations and thousands of more people than a streetcar on one.

Capacity is not an issue for mid-size cities like London, Hamilton, or KW unlike Ottawa or Calgary. LRT may also look good on a map but the reality is that often they create slower commutes. Ottawans are finding this out as many people who once had a one bus ride to downtown on the Transitway now have to transfer onto the LRT which is no faster than the bus.

[MolsonExport]

"People like me" took transit for 30+ years rather than driving.

But when there are no seats, when it take 5 times longer to get from A to B (and not even that as you have to finish both ends)....

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

"People like me" took transit for 30+ years rather than driving.

But when there are no seats, when it take 5 times longer to get from A to B (and not even that as you have to finish both ends)....

You used to live in places with good transit didn't you? How often have you felt the need to torture yourself with London Transit since you moved here? Since I was old enough to drive, I used a bus once, in 1990 when I dropped my car off at a body shop across town to get painted. That was the last time, and there hasn't been anything since to convince me transit was the preferred option to get anywhere in this city. You've posted roughly the area where you live and where you work, I can't imagine transit would work out very well for you to do anything either, and I don't think the BRT or prior LRT plans would have changed that for you.

[GreatTallNorth2]

I am a big fan of LRT, but if we ever built it, I think it would need to be more like a "light metro" with grade separation whether it is street level, underground or elevated. If it's in mixed traffic, it's really only eye candy. I hate that we scrapped the LRT planned to Masonville with the tunnel. That would have been a real game changer. It's too bad that Western University thinks they own this town and can dictate what is built. Them & Joe Fools basically got the naysayers worked up to cancel it.

[haljackey]

Just because you live in a part of town with shitty transit does not mean you shouldn't support improving transit in the rest of the city. Over time these improvements may happen closer to you, or you move to a location with better transit access.

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

I am a big fan of LRT, but if we ever built it, I think it would need to be more like a "light metro" with grade separation whether it is street level, underground or elevated. If it's in mixed traffic, it's really only eye candy.

Not entirely true. BRT will run in it's own lane to avoid traffic, and will have it's own transit signal at intersections to make sure the light is green when the buses reach them. This is no different from the LRT proposed.

That makes it semi-separated. The only real choke points were on the northern leg which was cancelled (at least for now). I haven't really read up on what they plan to do for the Wellington CN underpass for the south leg and the Highbury CP overpass for the east leg. Will these be expanded? Will the buses run in mixed traffic? Will one lane be converted to BRT only? I don't have answers for these choke points.

[ssiguy]

I too think an underground section would have been ideal but I can't exactly blame the Richmond Row merchants.

The underground section proposed would have ripped apart RR. Yes every city has to tolerate construction issues but due to the thinnest of the Richmond near Oxford, it would have required the destruction of many buildings along the city's premier shopping and restaurant strip. If one of the benefits of improved transit is to create more complete street, the underground section of London's first proposal would have resulted in the opposite.

As far as Western is concerned, it didn't matter what the City wanted, they were going to block it regardless but if they could convince Western for a BRT, I have always wondered why they didn't use Western Road. It would serve the heavily populated area of Cherryhill and offer a good first section to serve the city's western areas via Oxford.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I too think an underground section would have been ideal but I can't exactly blame the Richmond Row merchants.

The underground section proposed would have ripped apart RR. Yes every city has to tolerate construction issues but due to the thinnest of the Richmond near Oxford, it would have required the destruction of many buildings along the city's premier shopping and restaurant strip. If one of the benefits of improved transit is to create more complete street, the underground section of London's first proposal would have resulted in the opposite.

As far as Western is concerned, it didn't matter what the City wanted, they were going to block it regardless but if they could convince Western for a BRT, I have always wondered why they didn't use Western Road. It would serve the heavily populated area of Cherryhill and offer a good first section to serve the city's western areas via Oxford.

If you are building a tunnel under Richmond, why would you need to tear down any buildings?

[Djeffery]

The problem with the Richmond tunnel was the lake that is under there. Once they got into more indepth research, the costs to put a tunnel under there and deal with drainage ballooned to hundreds of millions of dollars.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

The problem with the Richmond tunnel was the lake that is under there. Once they got into more indepth research, the costs to put a tunnel under there and deal with drainage ballooned to hundreds of millions of dollars.

Lake?

[inimrepus]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Lake?

A lot of people don't know it, but if you look at maps of London from the 1870's it shows a lake downtown right next to Richmond.

EDIT: If you look at this drawing of London from 1872 it also shows the lake

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by inimrepus

A lot of people don't know it, but if you look at maps of London from the 1870's it shows a lake downtown right next to Richmond.

EDIT: If you look at this drawing of London from 1872 it also shows the lake

Man made lake from a river/stream. Cool, but likely not that big of a challenge. No worse than Toronto and their hidden creeks.

[bolognium]

The lake you're referring to is Lake Horn.



However, Lake Horn was not a natural lake. The lake was created by the damming of Carling Creek. Carling Creek originated somewhere near the Western Fair Grounds. It flowed through Old East Village, crossed Adelaide between Central and Princess, flowed through northern Woodfield, and finally around Maitland/Central it continued west to the Thames mostly where the CP rail line is now.

Lake Horn was created by damming Carling Creek at what is now Piccadilly Park. The dam was roughly around Richmond Street. The creek then flowed under Richmond and was channeled through a mill race west to the river. The alley and small townhouse complex west of St. George St between Mill St and Ann St still shows evidence of this mill race.

Over the years (1880s onward), Carling Creek was sporadically culverted and was turned into a storm sewer. The mouth of this sewer is still visible north of Blackfriars bridge on the Thames Valley Parkway. Remember last winter where hundreds of Gizzard Shad fish were jumping around under the TVP bridge north of Blackfriars? That's the mouth of Carling Creek.

I do believe this underground river/storm sewer would still pose a large engineering challenge to the proposed Richmond tunnel, though. But to my knowledge there is nothing resembling an underground lake in this area.

[Djeffery]

Thank you for the clarification, I do recall the creek being referred to as the main obstacle under there now. I would have to go back and look if it's even findable, but the pumping capacity of water they would need to be able to handle around that tunnel was something that sounded ridiculous to me, like many thousands of gallons per hour or something. But I'm no engineer lol.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Thank you for the clarification, I do recall the creek being referred to as the main obstacle under there now. I would have to go back and look if it's even findable, but the pumping capacity of water they would need to be able to handle around that tunnel was something that sounded ridiculous to me, like many thousands of gallons per hour or something. But I'm no engineer lol.

As an engineer, gallons per hour isn't scary. Most pumps are rated in gallons per minute.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

As an engineer, gallons per hour isn't scary. Most pumps are rated in gallons per minute.

Well, that sounds so much better, I guess.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Well, that sounds so much better, I guess.

For example, a typical jet pump for home use is 450 US GPH/hr. I have worked in industry where that is their rating per minute.

https://www.canadiantire.ca/en/pdp/mastercraft-convertible-jet-pump-1-2-hp-0623590p.html#srp

[Doady]

There is one major problem with the idea of BRT in London: articulated buses cannot operate in snow. London will never be able to rely heavily on articulated buses to increase the capacity of its system because of the huge amount of snowfall it receives.

And that's what rapid transit is about: increasing capacity, maintaining speed, as the ridership increases. Because a low ridership bus route is going to be really fast no matter what, because no one waiting the stops, the bus doesn't need to stop often, so no need for limited stop service, all-door boarding, or longer vehicles and trains. It's when the ridership gets really high that there is too many people waiting at each stop, the buses have to stop more often and spend more and more time to let people on and off, and so the buses start get slower and slower. Higher ridership = lower speed. In Ontario, Mississauga and Brampton reached that point, and London is probably next.

The transitways and express bus service in Mississauga and Brampton carry huge amounts of riders with articulated buses - e.g. 16,295 boardings per weekday on 502 Zum Queen and 9,307 boardings per weekday on 103 Hurontario Express in 2016 - BRT measures is a great option, very convenient and efficient and cheap. But even in Brampton and Mississauga they have a lot of trouble keeping articulated buses in service during the winter, and in London things would be even worse.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Doady

There is one major problem with the idea of BRT in London: articulated buses cannot operate in snow. London will never be able to rely heavily on articulated buses to increase the capacity of its system because of the huge amount of snowfall it receives.

And that's what rapid transit is about: increasing capacity, maintaining speed, as the ridership increases. Because a low ridership bus route is going to be really fast no matter what, because no one waiting the stops, the bus doesn't need to stop often, so no need for limited stop service, all-door boarding, or longer vehicles and trains. It's when the ridership gets really high that there is too many people waiting at each stop, the buses have to stop more often and spend more and more time to let people on and off, and so the buses start get slower and slower. Higher ridership = lower speed. In Ontario, Mississauga and Brampton reached that point, and London is probably next.

The transitways and express bus service in Mississauga and Brampton carry huge amounts of riders with articulated buses - e.g. 16,295 boardings per weekday on 502 Zum Queen and 9,307 boardings per weekday on 103 Hurontario Express in 2016 - BRT measures is a great option, very convenient and efficient and cheap. But even in Brampton and Mississauga they have a lot of trouble keeping articulated buses in service during the winter, and in London things would be even worse.

Look at Ottawa. They did it for decades.