Shift: London's Rapid Transit Initiative

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

Just wondering if anyone attended the Shift Meeting last night? Care to give us a recap?

I did. Not a lot of new stuff but there was some interesting developments. I will try to write a more proper post later on today if I have time.

[ssiguy]

A ring-road will NEVER happen. I remember the talk of the ring-road when I was a kid in the 70s. It comes up every few decades just like the "should we change London's name" debate.

London is a cautious city but that has also had definite benefits that many overlook. One of the primary one's is that London didn't build an urban freeway. This has left London with a solid built form and pleasant intercity neighbourhoods that are well connected.

This lack of freeways will also work in London's favour in term of LRT/BRT..........they could actually be time competitive with the car. Everyone loves to bitch about their transit system and Londoners are no different but the reality is that for it's size London has quite good service and very healthy ridership. The LTC carries more passengers than KWC or Hamilton despite both those systems serving significantly larger populations. London has the 3rd highest transit ridership rate in the province.

With LRT/BRT, a resurging downtown, falling unemployment, steady population growth, and HSR, London's future hasn't looked this bright in decades. The old girl had a hard time in the 90s but thru some very good planning decisions she has worked her way back and the next decade should be a truly revolutionary one for the city.

[bolognium]

Damn you, Snowbelt!

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by haljackey

I did. Not a lot of new stuff but there was some interesting developments. I will try to write a more proper post later on today if I have time.

Well better late than never.


Overview:

...Nothing really new from the presentation, I think everything from it can be found on the online PDFs. Staff did explain some sections in more detail, however.

For the Q&A, most of the questions came from people that either had a political agenda to push or just generally crazy people.
-Nevertheless, city staff did a good job handling the questions and answered in a calm, respectful manner.

-----

Some pics from the meeting:

(While the theatre looks pretty empty, most people were sitting at the back)

Presentation


Q&A


Display board showing LRT routing on Highbuy (I thought it was going to run through the old hospital lands directly east)



-----

Some interesting developments:

-There is a station planned to go under Oxford Street. Yes, our very own "London Underground".

-Residents are generally concerned that the the LRT is being built to service 'students' rather than the community. Staff said that these are the routes with the highest ridership numbers and warrant rapid transit more than other routes.

-Extension/routing to the Argyle area was presented by at least two members of the public. One of them was approached by Ward 4 councilor Jesse Helmer right after her questions were answered and the two of them left to perhaps discuss something more.

-Overall people seem to be very much in favor for the project and very much against it. Obviously those who attended the event would generally be more interested to see it happen since they devoted time to attend. One 'very busy' person simply asked how it was going to affect his (car) commute. Answer was 'minimal', but was stressed that its too early to give hard numbers. Obviously constriction time will have a much longer impact on traffic.

-The planners want to make sure other road infrastructure projects are done first before starting LRT construction on Richmond. This includes widening Western Road from Warncliffe to Patt's Lane and constructing the CP Grade separation on Adelaide.

-The 'tunnel' section will run on Richmond from Central to St. James Street. Oxford Street was the only station indicated along this stretch.

-There will be a 'new' bridge over the Thames so the system doesn't have to use University Drive. Could this just be for LRT or could it finally result in a Huron-Phillip Aziz (Sarnia Road) connection?

-LRT will be powered by overhead wires rather than a third rail (like what Waterloo Region is doing).

-LRT indicated to run on Highbury between Dundas and Oxford. I thought the hospital lands directly east of Highbury would be used for this corridor.

-Extension to airport is 'long term', rather than a part of the current conceptualized plan.

-Very little if any new information about BRT.

-----

My thoughts after the meeting:

-I agree that the LRT will primarily service students and thus may be a little light in usage when classes aren't in session. Still, I think its a good backbone for a larger system and way to market the city to out of town students who might consider living here.

-An extremely small percentage of people will be using the vast majority of the LRT line. For those going from Western to Fanshawe (not a lot), getting off at Oxford and taking the bus will likely be faster. I'm thinking if the LRT line went completely north-south or east-west it would work better. Example being White Oaks to Western (no transferrs). A lot more people will ride the majority of the line.

-I think the BRT should get extended to the 401. A commuter parking lot could be set up here, possibly with direct connections from the 401. This would make for a much more integrated/seamless 'park-n'ride' transition as those from St. Thomas / out of towners can park here and not have to fight for space in the generally chaotic White Oaks parking lot.

-There is still no firm route for how the BRT gets from downtown to Oxford. I'm maybe thinking a new bridge, possibly a replacement for Blackfriars or something parallel, could help with this.

-The difference in cost between full BRT with dedicated lanes / stations, etc and LRT isn't very significant based on initial estimates. I'd say just build LRT first to avoid costly retrofits and a second construction period (possibly a long one) for a plausible future conversion.

-One of the residents in the Q&A session stressed city staff not to rush with the project as he was thinking it was proceeding too quickly. While I generally agree to take the time and get it right, a delay might derail the whole thing. With a progressive city council and provincial/federal governments wanting to build more infrastructure/transit, now is the time to do it. If we wait too long, the political environment could change in a way that could threaten the entire project or heavily delay / scale down it.

-----

...That's it for now, but I'm sure I left some stuff out. When December 2's event is uploaded, more information can be found at http://www.shiftlondon.ca/public_information_centres

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by haljackey

Well better late than never.


<snip>

-One of the residents in the Q&A session stressed city staff not to rush with the project as he was thinking it was proceeding too quickly. While I generally agree to take the time and get it right, a delay might derail the whole thing. With a progressive city council and provincial/federal governments wanting to build more infrastructure/transit, now is the time to do it. If we wait too long, the political environment could change in a way that could threaten the entire project or heavily delay / scale down it.
</snip>

This is what I am most afraid will happen - that in typical fashion, the city will study the rapid transit proposal endlessly, and then do nothing, rather than have to deal with the people who subscribe to living in a culture where nothing is ever good enough - 'too expensive, London's not ready for it', or a hundred other false or poorly-supported arguments against proceeding with any city-building proposals.

If there's anything I've noticed about living in London these last 23 years, it's that city council tends to shy away when people get up on their hind legs about the most mildly controversial things and start squawking and bitching.

The fact of the matter is, London is only going to get one chance, and one chance only, to get this right. In the future we are going to see more reliance on public transit, not less, because younger people are avoiding buying cars if they can, and don't really have the money to buy them anyway, and our burgeoning cohort of aging people are going to have to eventually give up their cars due to a variety of issues, medical problems included.

Some argue that the LTC won't have sufficient ridership to support LRT lines until 2030 or 2035 and therefore we should scrap or delay the project.
The problem with this argument is that there will be a lot of elderly people around in 2030 who are going to need good public transit. Best we start laying track now rather than waiting until the last minute.

The possibility that there may not be enough riders to support LRT right now certainly didn't deter the K-W region from proceeding with light rail. They were smart enough to see that the region was going to need expressways as early as the 1960s, and they proceeded to build those expressways anyway, long before they were actually needed. This kind of risk-taking actually paid off. The same will hold true with LRT and rapid transit initiatives in the K-W region.

We really need to strike while the iron is hot and go full-bore on the rapid transit plan, because we may not get another chance. Sure, it's expensive, but most of the cost will be borne by upper-tier governments, and think of the massive economic boost the construction phase will generate for London.

[MrSlippery519]

I agree the time is now, the longer we wait the less chance it will happen and how much more money will it cost. You also have to ask for the money while it is being offered?

I would also really like to see them include the "extension" to the airport. The added cost would not be that significant and if we are thinking forward that is a key link.

[MolsonExport]

thanks for the updates. It is really exciting to see London finally acting like a big city for the first fucking time.

[Pimpmasterdac]

Looks like a good plan for the most part. Hopefully gets going sooner than later.

Thing I question is the LRT east route from downtown to Ontario St.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see the logic or reason in have the westbound part of the route travelling along King St., which is an eastbound one-way street. Would it not be logical to have eastbound LRT go with the flow of traffic on King St. and have the westbound portion go either on Dundas (or preferably Queens Ave)?

King St. seems like it would be a quite a mess west of Waterloo also. The boards indicate that it would have the LRT line going both ways, putting traffic down to a single lane. Why not split it have westbound LRT take Queens Ave, East take King St., or combine them to go on Dundas.

Overall plan looks solid, just seems a bit odd or illogical with Dundas/King.

[ssiguy]

I think this will definitely get built. The mayor and council know that the time has never been better. All the stars are aligning with both the feds and province spending gobs on public transit and know this won't last very long.

Not only does this seem like an incredibly well thought out plan but the timing is also superb.

[Stevo26]

I was listening to the local CBC Radio station while driving along Richmond Street a couple of days ago and heard a news item that said that Mayor Brown has been speaking to provincial officials about getting funding for the new rapid transit system, in hopes of securing $380 million for the project.

The news item also indicated that Brown is also going to be approaching federal officials for funding of the project as well.

From all of this, I think it's safe to say that the city is looking at doing the full project and not just the BRT portion, provided they can get the money to do it.

[go_leafs_go02]

• Video Link

[jaradthescot]

http://www.lfpress.com/2016/02/23/city-p...d-transit-proposal-at-western-university

I love Western. I love the students, I love the profs, the buildings, campus, events, and my years there were the best years of my life. I cannot stand this current administration. To completely disregard the wishes of the faculty and students repeatedly for no significant reason other than backwardness and a couple Chakma salary's worth of dollars.

The worst part is, this isn't even a sacrifice. This would be huge for Western. It says right in the article: it would be one of the few schools on the continent with rail running through its campus. Talk about a selling point. Profs might not care, parents might not care, but you can bet current and prospective students (eg the entire future of the university) would see this as a huge positive. I cannot even fathom the backwardsness of "we would have something great for students that few universities in North America have. This would be devastating."

A rift has formed between Western University administrators and its student leadership over London’s proposed light rail system, which calls for trains cutting through campus.

Western’s student government loves the light rail plan, with some members viewing school officials as out-of-touch and putting the campus esthetic ahead of students’ transit needs.

Meanwhile, school brass believes it presents major concerns and could cost the school millions of dollars.

While they aren’t explicitly ruling out light rail on campus, there are clear signs of resistance to what would be London’s biggest-ever infrastructure project.

“We support rapid transit,” Gitta Kulczycki, Western’s vice-president of resources and operations, told The Free Press after hosting a two-hour town hall on the issue Tuesday.

That, however, could be interpreted as support for bus-only rapid transit.

Asked specifically if Western supports light rail, she said: “We support rapid transit. I think that — we support rapid transit and the efforts to (build) rapid ­transit.”

Sophie Helpard, president of the University Students’ Council, sounded a different note on light rail and Western.

“We do support the light rail option. It meets the standards our students are setting,” said the 21-year-old Welland native. “A lot of our students are from communities where they expect this kind of efficient and effective ­transportation.”

Asked if there’s a disconnect between administration and students on the issue, Helpard agreed.

“The university obviously does have sometimes trouble with students and hearing their personal stories about trying to use transportation in the city,” she said. “The university has some work to do with consulting with these students.”

In Tuesday’s two-hour town hall — which drew about 100 staff, faculty and students — Western clarified specific light rail concerns:

Noise and vibration from the trains may affect classrooms and other facilities
Electro-magnetic interference may affect nearby research labs
It cost the University of Minnesota nearly $50 million to mitigate those issues, they say.
They say Western would be among the first universities in North America to have rail running through campus.
Student safety is paramount, especially after the recent on-campus death of a student pedestrian
City hall was represented at the event by planning boss John Fleming and Doug MacRae of the engineering department.

While the student government is fully behind light rail, that view isn’t unanimous among students. Some who are conducting research about pedestrian safety on campus attended Tuesday’s meeting and expressed concerns.

“Not only am I worried about getting hit by a car, but now by a train, too,” one student said.

A university staffer expressed a much different view on the role light rail could play in changing campus life: “I guarantee you students would live downtown if they had an easier way to get here.”

A lack of participation by Western University could be devastating to London’s light rail dreams — which, to be clear, have not been funded or even given final approval by city council.

There are questions whether London has ridership large enough to make high-capacity light rail trains financially viable, or whether taxpayers would have to subsidize the operation.

But it’s likely there would be significant ridership issues if Western students weren’t heavy users.

[email protected]

twitter.com/patatLFPress

Rapid transit basics

City council is set this spring to select a rapid transit system. Politicians are leaning toward a light rail-fast bus hybrid system that would cost about $880 million.
That hybrid would run on L- and 7-shaped corridors bisecting the city, with downtown the fulcrum.
To the west and south, bus-only rapid transit. To the east and north, including through Western’s campus, would be light rail.
About $125 million of the project funding would come from city hall, the rest required from Queen’s Park and Ottawa. Neither level of government has committed funding to the project.

[GreatTallNorth2]

I don't think the city will ditch LRT plans if the idiots at Western oppose it. They will just build the system off campus, which would be inconvenient for students.

On another note, I do wonder why the system is being built in 2 "L" shaped lines rather than building a line from Masonville to White Oaks and another line from Fanshawe to Wonderland/Oxford. For example, if someone wanted to go from Masonville to Fanshawe, I am wondering if it would be faster to take the LRT at Masonville, get off at Oxford/Richmond and then grab a regular bus to Fanshawe. It seems like that would be faster than going through downtown, east London, etc. It strikes me odd that there is no LRT or BRT on Oxford from Wharncliffe to Highbury. Trust me, I want LRT, but I think the routes are not natural.

[jaradthescot]

From a geographic perspective, making it N-S and E-W would definitely make more sense. The issue is ridership: The 90 bus has plenty of riders from D&R up to Masonville, but scant few South of downtown. The 91 is the same. It would be too costly to make the entire route LRT when only half the lines is being used anywhere near adequately.

Also, whether the LRT goes ahead with or without Western's approval is not the only issue here. This would be good, nay great for Western (and by extension, London). I will be disgusted if they throw this golden opportunity away.

[MolsonExport]

I hate the brass at UWO. Part of a cancer that is eating away tertiary education around the world. It is worse at UWO than just about any other institution in Canada. Morale among the faculty has NEVER been so low.

• Video Link

[Dither City]

Little bit more information on the University Western Ontario position concerning rapid transit. Ultimate question is university going to get on board with this project or make implementation of LRT system difficult.


http://news.westernu.ca/2016/02/traffic-...edestrian-traffic-bursting-at-the-seams/

http://www.lfpress.com/2016/02/24/new-age-transit-old-school-issues

[tyeman200]

Originally Posted by Dither City

Little bit more information on the University Western Ontario position concerning rapid transit. Ultimate question is university going to get on board with this project or make implementation of LRT system difficult.


http://news.westernu.ca/2016/02/traffic-...edestrian-traffic-bursting-at-the-seams/

http://www.lfpress.com/2016/02/24/new-age-transit-old-school-issues

They better get on board, and not waste a golden opportunity. That would just make them look pretty stupid.

[Dither City]

Originally Posted by tyeman200

They better get on board, and not waste a golden opportunity. That would just make them look pretty stupid.

Unfortunately it would not be the first time London screwed up on golden opportunity there's long history over last five decades of stupid mistakes missed opportunities. One thing I can guarantee London will be dragged kicking and screaming into the 19th-century there are organized groups of people in the city who believe very strongly doing nothing is progress. I'm going worry about 20th-21st century's later after they get system built.

http://www.am980.ca/2016/02/24/business-...nsit-funding-minister-of-transportation/

[jaradthescot]

“We have to do something. And the city knows that,” Kulczycki said. “The city has been working on an environmental assessment about what they should do at that intersection – Philip Aziz, Sarnia, Western – those are all city roads. They have some preliminary recommendations, but they have those recommendations in the absence of the bigger picture of what we might do in terms of traffic and restriction of car movement on our campus – which will make a profound difference.”

Perhaps the City can use this as a bargaining chip if Western starts to throw a tantrum.

[MolsonExport]

I can't stand the talking heads "representing" UWO. I can't stand it.