Shift: London's Rapid Transit Initiative

[MrSlippery519]

Absolutely the Masonville to Downtown to Fanshawe should get the LRT if there was only one, I will continue to mention the need for future expansion to include the airport on that line.

I am hoping to be able to attend the Saturday meeting, anyone else going aside from haljackey on Thursday??

[HillStreetBlues]

Definitely the Richmond portion is most important; I would say the most important line would be a north-south connecting White Oaks in the south to Masonville in the north.

I don't get these 'L' lines: aren't straight lines much more logical? Additionally, White Oaks and Wellington have very strong ridership.

[GreatTallNorth2]

I will be attending the Thursday event. And HillStreetBlues, I have to agree with you, I don't understand the "L" shaped corridors either. To me it makes more sense to mimic the 90 and 91 express routes. The only reason I can think possibly for the L shaped corridor is so the city can have LRT on the Northeast corridor. They can sell this to the province and to citizens easier as it would service Masonville to UWO to Downtown to Fanshawe (with 2 hospitals being served as well) - servicing both post secondary institutions with the downtown is the key. The only problem with the above scenario is that the Northeast corridor is 13 kms long. Hamilton was just given $1 billion for 11 kms & a GO station. I don't know the costing, but $300-$400 million won't take us far, especially when you factor in the tunnel idea from Victoria Park to past Richmond. The more I think about it, I am guessing it's BRT for us.

[MoreTrains]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

The only problem with the above scenario is that the Northeast corridor is 13 kms long. Hamilton was just given $1 billion for 11 kms & a GO station. I don't know the costing, but $300-$400 million won't take us far, especially when you factor in the tunnel idea from Victoria Park to past Richmond. The more I think about it, I am guessing it's BRT for us.

Luckily London is outside the GTHA and will have access to a different pot of money than Hamilton. So they will likely be able to get more money based on population proportionality of the outer GTHA. Basically outside the GTHA major commitments would be Ottawa, London and Windsor.

[MolsonExport]

I think that the combination of light Rail and HSR service (corridor) would transform London from the relative backwater that it is currently into something awesome.

[st7860]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

Ok, just for fun let's say that London gets funding for 1 BRT line and 1 LRT line. Out of the 2 proposed RT routes, which one gets BRT and which one gets LRT? I am guessing the Northeast (Masonville to Downtown to Fanshawe) gets LRT.

I was wondering what the headway on that LRT will be?

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

It’s not true that LRT is inherently more comfortable than BRT. Buses are getting better and better and more and more comfortable. If your LTC route has had thirty-year-old buses on it, you can be forgiven for thinking that it’s not the case, but the new buses (and especially on their own well-maintained rights-of-way) can be very comfortable rides. It’s also not true that LRT is more permanent- quality BRT has attractive stations and rights-of-way that are significant capital investments, too, and unlikely to be picked up and moved once implemented.

To answer your question, when I lived in London I took Greyhound a lot more often than Via when going to Toronto. The reason was they had twice as many departures and were about half the price!

My only experience with BRT was in Mexico City. On the positive side, it was very comfortable and the buses were smooth riding. On the negative side, in the more central part of the city, it was very slow compared to the subway, as it had to cross many major thoroughfares at-grade. That's where London has the right idea about putting in a grade separation on Richmond at the tracks.

Express buses can suffer from the same problem: even if there's a dedicated lane, they depend on traffic lights and waiting for traffic on crossing thoroughfares.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Express buses can suffer from the same problem: even if there's a dedicated lane, they depend on traffic lights and waiting for traffic on crossing thoroughfares.

That's true of light rail as well. Both can use signal priorities to alleviate this problem.

[st7860]

Originally Posted by manny_santos

Express buses can suffer from the same problem: even if there's a dedicated lane, they depend on traffic lights and waiting for traffic on crossing thoroughfares.

One of the express bus routes in Vancouver is said by the transit authority to be so crowded with buses, that there would be simply no point to buy more buses for that route because they would keep leapfrogging each other. Its also said to be the most busy bus route in North America

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by st7860

One of the express bus routes in Vancouver is said by the transit authority to be so crowded with buses, that there would be simply no point to buy more buses for that route because they would keep leapfrogging each other. Its also said to be the most busy bus route in North America

That's route 95 in Ottawa. Probably by a long shot. Will be losing that title next month though as the 95 is being split into two separate routes with skip-stop operation. Both routes will then in turn be replaced by grade separated LRT in the core section in 2018.

London, and all other cities, should take cautious note of Ottawa's experiences. BRT proved to be a great and cheap way to build a rapid transit system but in the end it drove operational costs through the roof and is painfully overcrowded forcing conversion to LRT at great expense and disruption.

[st7860]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

That's route 95 in Ottawa. Probably by a long shot. Will be losing that title next month though as the 95 is being split into two separate routes with skip-stop operation. Both routes will then in turn be replaced by grade separated LRT in the core section in 2018.

London, and all other cities, should take cautious note of Ottawa's experiences. BRT proved to be a great and cheap way to build a rapid transit system but in the end it drove operational costs through the roof and is painfully overcrowded forcing conversion to LRT at great expense and disruption.

24 hours a day. wow. The latest bus route in Vancouver stops at 3am. About the operational costs that makes sense. Vancouver's transit authority has so much money from the gas tax fund its saving the money, because although there is plenty of funds to buy buses, but there aren't enough funds for operational costs since the gas tax funds can't be used for hiring drivers and mechanics.

Wonder how many passengers route 95 carries as the link doesnt show

http://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Ottawa-Carleton_Regional_Transit_Commission_route_95
"Route 95 is one of OC Transpo's busiest routes and operates 24 hours a day (between Barrhaven Centre and Place d'Orleans Stations"

http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2014/03...ps-north-americas-busiest-bus-line/8725/
"Vancouver has a problem with its 99 Broadway bus that most cities would envy: it's too popular. The 99 is part of a Broadway bus corridor that's considered the busiest in North America, carrying about 100,000 riders a day. At some stops, despite coming every few minutes during morning rush, the buses hardly put a dent in the lines of passengers awaiting the next one."

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by st7860

24 hours a day. wow. The latest bus route in Vancouver stops at 3am. About the operational costs that makes sense. Vancouver's transit authority has so much money from the gas tax fund its saving the money, because although there is plenty of funds to buy buses, but there aren't enough funds for operational costs since the gas tax funds can't be used for hiring drivers and mechanics.

Wonder how many passengers route 95 carries as the link doesnt show

http://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php?title=Ottawa-Carleton_Regional_Transit_Commission_route_95
"Route 95 is one of OC Transpo's busiest routes and operates 24 hours a day (between Barrhaven Centre and Place d'Orleans Stations"

http://www.citylab.com/cityfixer/2014/03...ps-north-americas-busiest-bus-line/8725/
"Vancouver has a problem with its 99 Broadway bus that most cities would envy: it's too popular. The 99 is part of a Broadway bus corridor that's considered the busiest in North America, carrying about 100,000 riders a day. At some stops, despite coming every few minutes during morning rush, the buses hardly put a dent in the lines of passengers awaiting the next one."

I have no source for this, but I've heard the 95 carries 130,000 per day, with the Transitway corridor overall at 220,000 (which I do have a source for - http://www.octranspo1.com/about-octranspo/reports). As the 95 is by a big margin the main workhorse of the Transitway 130k sounds about right.

[HillStreetBlues]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

London, and all other cities, should take cautious note of Ottawa's experiences. BRT proved to be a great and cheap way to build a rapid transit system but in the end it drove operational costs through the roof and is painfully overcrowded forcing conversion to LRT at great expense and disruption.

That can’t be disputed, but London would do well to face the challenges Ottawa is now. Thanks to BRT and its fast implementation, its ridership is about ten times the LTC’s. Among Ontario cities, Ottawa has more rides per capita than any city besides Toronto, and among the smallest operating cost per rider. They’ve made huge gains in attracting “choice” riders (anecdotally, LTC lags way behind in this). Their success means that LRT is a logical next step on several more successful routes, but if they had opted for that initially they would not have had the money to invest in all of those busways, and the service they offer to many different parts of the city.

[manny_santos]

Originally Posted by HillStreetBlues

That can’t be disputed, but London would do well to face the challenges Ottawa is now. Thanks to BRT and its fast implementation, its ridership is about ten times the LTC’s. Among Ontario cities, Ottawa has more rides per capita than any city besides Toronto, and among the smallest operating cost per rider. They’ve made huge gains in attracting “choice” riders (anecdotally, LTC lags way behind in this). Their success means that LRT is a logical next step on several more successful routes, but if they had opted for that initially they would not have had the money to invest in all of those busways, and the service they offer to many different parts of the city.

Ottawa also has astronomical user costs compared with many cities. As much as I like Ottawa, that is one thing that would potentially discourage me from moving there.

[GreatTallNorth2]

UPDATE from ShiftLondon Meeting @ Western Fair

Just wanted to give an update from the Shift Meeting. I got a chance to talk to Jesse Helmer and ask him questions that are coming up on the forum. I also spoke with a consultant from IBI Group. Here is a summary of the questions and answers. The answers are just me summarizing what they said.

1) Why is the number $300-$380 million being talked about for Shift London when Hamilton just got $1 billion for 11 kms of LRT?

Answer: The $300-$380 was purely an estimate from the previous studies and is no way accurate as we move forward. It is impossible to give accurate numbers until the route and type of system has been decided. The downtown tunnel alone will cost over $100 million - so when everything is said and done the cost will be much higher and London will want its fair share from the upper levels of government just like other cities.

2) Why 2 "L" shaped routes instead of 2 straight lines?

Answer - The Northeastern route is already high ridership at both starting points and everywhere in between. This is much more desirable than having high ridership at 1 point and low ridership at the other, and that is what the 90X is. Masonville and the north are high, but White Oaks and south is not. So it is better to have a higher capacity system (LRT) on the Northeast L and lower capacity (BRT lite) on the Southwest L and then increase the capacity later on the Southwest.

3) How about the Central tunnel?

The Central Tunnel is a key component in the project as getting through this corridor can add 6-8 minutes on a trip when busy or when there are trains.

4) Have we ruled out LRT as a possibility for RT?

Not even close. The best chance for LRT will be the Northeast corridor with its high ridership and LRT will do a lot to revitalize the city, especially the core.

5) Do you think your city council colleagues want RT to happen?

City council as a whole is very much pro-transit.

^Those are the bulk of the things we talked about. Jesse Helmer is great guy to talk to and has the same kind of vision for London that most of us have.

[mpd618]

Originally Posted by Snark

For any decision maker in London to stand up right now and be seen as pushing the light rail solution before a defensible case for it or another solution can be made through the EA process, could very well kill the project cold before the EA even is complete, as it's likely a similar groundswell of opposition will come out of the woodwork just as it did in Waterloo.

In Waterloo Region there was also a groundswell of support, of which one of the most important sources was the business community. I firmly believe that a lot of that support materialized precisely because it was an LRT project aimed at changing the community and guiding its growth rather than a BRT line that may on paper make transit sense.

To be clear, BRT has plenty of merits, but I don't think its ability to spur cultural change or guide development is nearly as strong. And BRT has little ability to generate public enthusiasm; most of the enthusiasm for BRT in Waterloo Region was from those interested in it as a wedge to water down transit investment and impact on car lanes. (Hell, there's a nice record of it here.)

Which is to say: if you are seeking goals beyond just the movement of people, LRT can be a good way to get there.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

UPDATE from ShiftLondon Meeting @ Western Fair

Just wanted to give an update from the Shift Meeting. I got a chance to talk to Jesse Helmer and ask him questions that are coming up on the forum. I also spoke with a consultant from IBI Group. Here is a summary of the questions and answers. The answers are just me summarizing what they said.

1) Why is the number $300-$380 million being talked about for Shift London when Hamilton just got $1 billion for 11 kms of LRT?

Answer: The $300-$380 was purely an estimate from the previous studies and is no way accurate as we move forward. It is impossible to give accurate numbers until the route and type of system has been decided. The downtown tunnel alone will cost over $100 million - so when everything is said and done the cost will be much higher and London will want its fair share from the upper levels of government just like other cities.

2) Why 2 "L" shaped routes instead of 2 straight lines?

Answer - The Northeastern route is already high ridership at both starting points and everywhere in between. This is much more desirable than having high ridership at 1 point and low ridership at the other, and that is what the 90X is. Masonville and the north are high, but White Oaks and south is not. So it is better to have a higher capacity system (LRT) on the Northeast L and lower capacity (BRT lite) on the Southwest L and then increase the capacity later on the Southwest.

3) How about the Central tunnel?

The Central Tunnel is a key component in the project as getting through this corridor can add 6-8 minutes on a trip when busy or when there are trains.

4) Have we ruled out LRT as a possibility for RT?

Not even close. The best chance for LRT will be the Northeast corridor with its high ridership and LRT will do a lot to revitalize the city, especially the core.

5) Do you think your city council colleagues want RT to happen?

City council as a whole is very much pro-transit.

^Those are the bulk of the things we talked about. Jesse Helmer is great guy to talk to and has the same kind of vision for London that most of us have.

Thanks for sharing. Good to hear.

[haljackey]

I was also there, not much more to add... GreatTallNorth2 did an excellent job.

When I asked IBI group about LRT being a possibility they seemed to hesitate saying 'yeah... it's on the table', making me think it's not really a possibility and just there to spur interest. We need to get everyone's minds changed on this. Even a condensed LRT route like the L-route from Masonville-Western-Downtown-Fanshawe-Airport will be amazing if that is the only one that is built. We can worry about new extensions and routes later.

There were ipads and some other documents where you could provide feedback, and I did my best to argue the case for LRT.

When I talked to IBI, they also stated that BRT is working well for York Region (VIA), but I told them it was a different setting as that's pretty much a suburb of Toronto, not a city like London. Not a fair comparison really.

Just keep quacking LRT, and who knows, maybe it will just happen.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Originally Posted by haljackey

When I asked IBI group about LRT being a possibility they seemed to hesitate saying 'yeah... it's on the table', making me think it's not really a possibility and just there to spur interest.

I know there were 2 people from IBI there. The younger guy I spoke with wasn't ruling out LRT for the NE corridor. I agree, we need to be vocal if we want LRT.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Hey, if anyone has not done the latest Shift Survey, I highly reccomend you do it. It asks what your priorities are for Shift and asks to give feedback on the type of system we should have (LRT, BRT or mix). So far the survey shows most people want full LRT.

https://shiftlondon.metroquest.ca