Shift: London's Rapid Transit Initiative

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by Pimpmasterdac

Now that it seems imminent BRT is the way London is going, how committed to implementing the plan will London be? Will buses be running in mixed traffic or will they have dedicated lanes?

While the big debate has been BRT vs. LRT, IMO many in the general public don't know the level of expropriation that will be required. Making Wellington 6 lanes from White Oaks to Horton, and Oxford 6 lanes will require some substantial property acquisition. Lets see how committed council will be when those affected start to make a stink...

With BRT, you have to have road widenings to be able to create the dedicated lanes it requires or it won't work. The idea behind BRT is to minimize, if not eliminate the busses having to mix with regular traffic, although I can see situations where BRT units are going to have to mix with regular traffic for brief distances. It makes me worry that the BRT system we'll get will be something half-arsed and not the real deal.

Some portions of Oxford are just wide enough that further expansion shouldn't be required. However, the real fun starts when you get to the intersections of Wharncliffe and Oxford, and Richmond and Oxford.

In some cases, you may have to reduce regular traffic lanes to just one on each side of the road to accommodate the BRT lanes. As if London didn't already have enough traffic bottlenecks! Get rid of those bottlenecks and drivers may be able to accept being squeezed into one lane. Rumour has it the bottleneck just north of the intersection of Wharncliffe Road North and Oxford is about to be removed. Here's hoping the one on Wharncliffe at Horton also gets removed. It's long overdue.

Horton south of Wellington to White Oaks is already pretty wide and there shouldn't be much, if any, need to widen Wellington Street. Richmond Street north of Oxford looks like it might be OK, too.

The real headache is going to come with setting up BRT lanes on Richmond Street south of Oxford Street, all the way to the main station downtown. There's no way you'll be able to build the tunnel that was initially proposed for LRT on a budget of $500 million (and still have a full-scale BRT system) in order to get around this problem.

I would hope that the city's planning and engineering department had studied these issues and come up with workable solutions well before the RT system was announced. If not, then we will have the makings of a serious mess on our hands.

[Rosso Corsa]

This is dumb. BRT is a joke. London's council is a joke. So much for London... should I really be surprised though... thankfully I'm moving to Toronto.

Curious if the decision for BRT was to appease the 195 Dundas St. development who threatened to pull out over the LRT transit hub. If so, we have some major pushovers in power...

[MolsonExport]

I am exploring options of relocating. The job market in Academia is pretty bad, but I have a very good record.
UWO has been deteriorating over the past dozen years that I have been employed there. Morale is terrible, and the governance, much worse.
As for London, cheap real estate isn't enough to keep me pinned to the city. Of course, the transit issue is not a deciding factor, but it does speak volumes about where the city is heading. Which is to say, nowhere.

[ssiguy]

So what exactly is going on with SHIFT?

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by Rosso Corsa

This is dumb. BRT is a joke. London's council is a joke. So much for London... should I really be surprised though... thankfully I'm moving to Toronto.

Curious if the decision for BRT was to appease the 195 Dundas St. development who threatened to pull out over the LRT transit hub. If so, we have some major pushovers in power...

Looks like London Ontario is aiming to be second best London forever.
https://www.thebeaverton.com/local/i...-straight-year

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

Looks like London Ontario is aiming to be second best London forever.
https://www.thebeaverton.com/local/i...-straight-year

Or what about that year London, Ontario got an Old Navy and a Bootlegger? Does England even have Old Navy?” Brown’s eyes filled with tears, “I feel like giving up.”

adoseofbuckley

[ssiguy]

What's happening with Shift or has it gone to bed..........like the mayor.

[jaradthescot]

If it's BRT, I half-hope it goes to bed. 500 million for buses? Give me a break. LRT is worth it; BRT is not. Do it right or don't do it at all.

[Dupcheck]

As always more transportation studies and no action what so ever. Something is holding our city back from getting things done. Our votes do not change anything no matter who is elected. Our feedback gets ignored. Why all these games?

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by Dupcheck

As always more transportation studies and no action what so ever. Something is holding our city back from getting things done. Our votes do not change anything no matter who is elected. Our feedback gets ignored. Why all these games?

Let's see now. It's clearly not the voters who are in control. That leaves the business community and developers who could be the ones who are really calling the shots, and politicians and city officials who want to keep these entities happy by acting according to their dictates.

The business community would not want an advanced public transit system unless they can see that it will put dollars directly into their pockets. No, they would much rather see tax dollars getting invested into their ventures in the form of subsidies or tax breaks.

The developers wouldn't want one either, as the construction of such a system might interfere with their plans or cause delays, and also might not put dollars directly into their pockets. They too, would like to see tax dollars used to dole out special dispensations. Like having ratepayers subsidize reductions in development charges so development can be encouraged.

Then we have the third actor in this scenario, and that could be just plain old incompetence and lack of vision. Plus a city council that is so hypersensitive to criticism and even mild controversy that it refuses to take defensible risks because of the potential for backlash from ignorant but very publicly vocal naysayers and others who lack vision.

Lately I've had the sense that Mayor Brown is on his way out or is going to be, as it appears that he is not likely to win a second term because of the sex scandal in which he is embroiled. Accordingly, he is going to be focussing on political survival in the time he has left, not proceeding with grand designs like BRT/LRT or whatever.

What this means, folks, is that unless orders to start construction of the BRT system are inked and signed tomorrow, or in a reasonably short time, it's probably safe to say that the prospect of BRT or any advanced public transit system being built in London is as good as dead.

Given the ignorance and hyper-conservatism of many Londoners, without Brown being able to shepherd the project into a state of full fruition, there's not likely to be any political will to support it after he is gone and a new city council takes over the reins.

[Dupcheck]

Originally Posted by Stevo26

With BRT, you have to have road widenings to be able to create the dedicated lanes it requires or it won't work. The idea behind BRT is to minimize, if not eliminate the busses having to mix with regular traffic, although I can see situations where BRT units are going to have to mix with regular traffic for brief distances. It makes me worry that the BRT system we'll get will be something half-arsed and not the real deal.

Some portions of Oxford are just wide enough that further expansion shouldn't be required. However, the real fun starts when you get to the intersections of Wharncliffe and Oxford, and Richmond and Oxford.

In some cases, you may have to reduce regular traffic lanes to just one on each side of the road to accommodate the BRT lanes. As if London didn't already have enough traffic bottlenecks! Get rid of those bottlenecks and drivers may be able to accept being squeezed into one lane. Rumour has it the bottleneck just north of the intersection of Wharncliffe Road North and Oxford is about to be removed. Here's hoping the one on Wharncliffe at Horton also gets removed. It's long overdue.

Horton south of Wellington to White Oaks is already pretty wide and there shouldn't be much, if any, need to widen Wellington Street. Richmond Street north of Oxford looks like it might be OK, too.

The real headache is going to come with setting up BRT lanes on Richmond Street south of Oxford Street, all the way to the main station downtown. There's no way you'll be able to build the tunnel that was initially proposed for LRT on a budget of $500 million (and still have a full-scale BRT system) in order to get around this problem.

I would hope that the city's planning and engineering department had studied these issues and come up with workable solutions well before the RT system was announced. If not, then we will have the makings of a serious mess on our hands.

To be honest my favourite part of our downtown is on Richmond st. South of Oxford down to York St.. If this part is not done right and loses its current character, it could deface the whole city downtown. Building a tunnel that could have a major change on the architecture of the above ground character of this part of Richmond could drive away a lot of downtown frequenters that prefer to walk that stretch instead of taking transit. The Richmond st. south of Oxford with Victoria Park is what defines our downtown. I hope we build upon it, by not taking away any of their good parts of the current character.

[ssiguy]

I do agree.

Richmond is a lovely and vibrant street and it is a fairly thin one. An LRT down the middle with barriers maybe enough to inhibit pedestrian flow and interaction unless it is done right. Also having a tunnel entry near central will divide the street at that area significantly. This is why if a tunnel were built I always thought the best route would for the tunnel portal to be at the end of Clarence where it joins with Richmond and having the portal on Clarence and not Richmond.

I've always thought that Clarence would be the best choice for the route as it is more convenient to City Hall/Wellington and would take many {if not all} of the buses off Richmond to allow for much wider sidewalks opening up the road to more cafes which would be ideal as Richmond is the city's restaurant mecca.

[haljackey]

Mystery deepens over light rail's London death

http://www.lfpress.com/2016/08/22/do...ly-left-behind

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by haljackey

Mystery deepens over light rail's London death

http://www.lfpress.com/2016/08/22/do...ly-left-behind

From the LFP article you linked to:

Light rail was considered “fiscally responsible and affordable” by London officials as recently as February — just three months before they recommended scrapping it entirely, the uncensored document obtained by The Free Press shows.

The rapid transit report — an executive summary of the draft business case city hall won’t fully release — states staff and consultants were fully behind a “hybrid” system combining buses and light rail.

So, what exactly happened in the three months after February?

In May, city hall’s top manager, Art Zuidema, delivered a report that recommended dropping light rail from the rapid transit proposal. Mayor Matt Brown backed the move, in part due to rail’s hefty price tag.

The about-turn on light rail after staff and consultants supported what was initially billed as a 'fiscally responsible and affordable' project is indeed puzzling. More so when you consider that London's share of the project is capped at just $129 million regardless of what RT system gets built, hybrid or otherwise. $129 million, even for a city of London's size, for a full-fledged RT system is dirt cheap - it works out to $12.9 million per year if amortized over 10 years.

Once again, city manager Art Zuidema appears to be at the centre of the issue.

I think it's safe to say that neither Mayor Brown nor city councillors are the ones who pull the levers at city hall, it's Art Zuidema. The question is, what is driving him to say 'no'? Is it a desire for power, or is he just a typical anal-retentive bean counter who thinks that the path to fiscal salvation lies in saying 'no' to everything, even things that are affordable and fiscally responsible??

Zuidema is also the one who is stick-handling attempts by the news media and others to get unredacted documents that support the original hybrid system.

Zuidema defended the redactions, saying they blocked out portions that “included inaccuracies or where significant revisions were needed.”

It's not hard to see why the city is digging in its heels and trying to prevent access to the original documents. They've something to hide, apparently. Could that something be Mayor Brown allowing an unelected official to override the wishes and the mandate of the mayor and city council?

Something really smells here. The people of London have a right to know what's really behind the about-turn on light rail. Inaccuracies are one thing. Saying that the original documents had to be redacted because 'significant revisions were needed' is quite another. It begs an important question: why were such sweeping revisions needed?

[jammer139]

Don't forget the maintenance and operational costs of LRT vs BRT are much higher. The costs will need to be covered by property taxes and the fare box and still operate the existing LTC bus network. The construction and captial costs are just a fraction of the true cost of adding a LRT system to our existing transit system.

[Dupcheck]

As i have said it before: The citizens have no more power no matter who they elect. Who is playing games with us and the city? It should stop!

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by haljackey

Mystery deepens over light rail's London death

http://www.lfpress.com/2016/08/22/do...ly-left-behind

I guaranfuckingtee you that Brown and the other council Clowns will not have my vote next time around. Yes, as punishment, for abandoning LRT without a fight and then abrogating your responsibility to explain why.

Here's hoping Brown and the Clowns aren't Around Town.

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by jammer139

Don't forget the maintenance and operational costs of LRT vs BRT are much higher. The costs will need to be covered by property taxes and the fare box and still operate the existing LTC bus network. The construction and captial costs are just a fraction of the true cost of adding a LRT system to our existing transit system.

Surely they must have accounted for these items when they did the project costing?

I'm now hearing that the reason for the about-turn on LRT is stagnant LTC ridership. That is, they're afraid they can't get enough riders to support the system. If so, then Brown should never have campaigned on a platform that included building a LRT system in addition to the proposed BRT network.

Ridership may be stagnant now, but will it necessarily be that way in 20 years from now? I'm thinking it won't be, as current trends, demographics and a shift away from fossil fuels and privately owned cars will mean more interest, not less, in public transit.

[ssiguy]

Well I never thought I would say this...........but good for the LFP for finding this out.

I have never been one of these jump on the LRT bandwagon types. This idea that "I want LRT because they have one" is childish and not the way to run a transit system.

That said, the hybrid has always made sense to me. The LRT route will be heavily used and the BRT that ends at Oxford & Wonderland simply will not have the ridership to justify LRT. Plus one of the reasons for LRT on Richmond was due to the mess of the Richmond/Oxford intersection which is busy and thin backed up by that damn railway which could bring any BRT system to a screeching halt. Rapid transit has to be fast but also has to be dependable and that notorious intersection makes it anything but.

The north end of the city is also the fastest growing and Western and Fanshawe will only continue to expand and it allows for a eventual hook up to the airport. London ridership has also risen significantly over the last 15 years and while there maybe a stall now it will continue to rise over the long term as the population rises, the downtown densifies, and the population ages.

In short the hybrid made perfect sense and seemed to be based on sound transit planning and not on political expediency or ribbon cutting opportunities.

I really hope this causes heads to roll {aka Art Zuidema} who seems to have gone out of his way to provide false information which greatly effected City Council's vote. I actually feel sorry for some of the counsellors who may have changed their vote due to being given false information. If that was the case for any of them they have a right to be really pissed off. Hopefully a new vote will be held in light of this and London can proceed with a system that serves the city and Londoners the best.......the hybrid.

[Dupcheck]

It would be great if we saw shovels in the ground next year. I hope we see some action soon. This BRT/LRT show is becoming boring. Bureaucracy at its best! Come on City of London lets do this!!!