LRT Alternative

[Stevo26]

Spied this on Mashable. Here's a link to the Youtube video associated with the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd3N9CFKe9M

The Mashable article goes on to say that the infrastructure to support the autonomous trams would cost just $2 million per kilometre, versus $102 million for a typical subway line.

Nice, but I wonder if this could work in Canada, where the white lines might be covered over with snow and ice in the winter months and therefore become invisible to the sensors on the tram.

I suppose a work-around might be possible by installing RFID-like sensors in the white lines that could transmit radio signals to the tram.

In any case, you'll still need dedicated laneways with barriers to keep the tram separated from other vehicles.

[Dupcheck]

Originally Posted by Stevo26

Spied this on Mashable. Here's a link to the Youtube video associated with the article: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd3N9CFKe9M

The Mashable article goes on to say that the infrastructure to support the autonomous trams would cost just $2 million per kilometre, versus $102 million for a typical subway line.

Nice, but I wonder if this could work in Canada, where the white lines might be covered over with snow and ice in the winter months and therefore become invisible to the sensors on the tram.

I suppose a work-around might be possible by installing RFID-like sensors in the white lines that could transmit radio signals to the tram.

In any case, you'll still need dedicated laneways with barriers to keep the tram separated from other vehicles.

Cool concept. It is kind of an self driven autonomous bus aka if Tesla made a Bus. I guess if the law for fully autonomous vehicles is one day passed, this can be also be implemented. It would be better GPS guided and not lines on the road in case if the vehicle has to go around an obstacle or if they are covered by snow. It still does not solve the train tracks delay problem in order to be called rapid transit, otherwise it is just a dumb smart transit.

[warpus]

One of the benefits of LRT (over BRT) is that it makes the route seem a lot more "set in stone". That attracts development along the RT route, because developers and investors know that the route will likely not change, making their investment a lot less risky.

With BRT there is a lower level of certainty there, because it would be easier to change the route.

It seems to me that this alternative would not bring with it that particular benefit of LRT. I see it more as a stepping stone towards LRT. I would actually love it if our BRT routes were more like this, but ideally they would be fully fledged LRT routes.

[MolsonExport]

^good point (re: LRT more attractive to developers). Toronto's North-South skyline axis is completely the result of the subway line underneath.

I am still bereaving the loss of LRT, and I have nothing but scorn for our about-face, jellyfish mayor and council (Jesse Helmer aside, who pushed very hard for LRT).

[haljackey]

Basically just a bus skinned to look like a train?

[Dupcheck]

Some of our streets are not very friendly to such long buses for turning.

[warpus]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

^good point (re: LRT more attractive to developers). Toronto's North-South skyline axis is completely the result of the subway line underneath.

I am still bereaving the loss of LRT, and I have nothing but scorn for our about-face, jellyfish mayor and council (Jesse Helmer aside, who pushed very hard for LRT).

From what I've been able to gather from official city documents, the upgrade of one or more existing BRT routes to LRT is still a long-term vision for the city. They seem to expect it to happen eventually, whereas for now we are getting a watered down RT system so that it would be politically feasible.

It's a lot easier to upgrade BRT than it is to build LRT from scratch, so personally I don't mind at all that we're starting off with BRT routes. Ottawa started off with BRT routes too and they are now upgrading some of them to LRT.

There is the whole issue with Western (they don't want LRT running through the campus), but once BRT is in place and the campus community is used to it, I believe the city will have a much better bargaining position than they do now. They can always bypass campus and re-route the LRT line to run entirely via Richmond, using the BRT lines on campus for another purpose once that happens, so I don't think they are too worried about that. For now I think they are just committed to giving us Rapid Transit. Once it's in place, it will not be easy to get rid of it, so it's an important first step.

[Stevo26]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

^good point (re: LRT more attractive to developers). Toronto's North-South skyline axis is completely the result of the subway line underneath.

I am still bereaving the loss of LRT, and I have nothing but scorn for our about-face, jellyfish mayor and council (Jesse Helmer aside, who pushed very hard for LRT).

Me too. I am very disappointed that they lacked the courage to go all the way.

It would have been a no-brainer to proceed because the feds and the province would have funded close to 100% of the development and construction costs. It really doesn't get better than that - a medium-sized Canadian city getting first-class transportation options but none of the capital outlay.

It makes me wonder why the city of London keep shooting themselves in the foot and going ouf of their way to deliberately engage in self-defeating behaviour.

At least DownShift and the associated coterie of professional nay-sayers and axe-grinders didn't get to kill the BRT portion of the project.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by warpus

From what I've been able to gather from official city documents, the upgrade of one or more existing BRT routes to LRT is still a long-term vision for the city. They seem to expect it to happen eventually, whereas for now we are getting a watered down RT system so that it would be politically feasible.

It's a lot easier to upgrade BRT than it is to build LRT from scratch, so personally I don't mind at all that we're starting off with BRT routes. Ottawa started off with BRT routes too and they are now upgrading some of them to LRT.

There is the whole issue with Western (they don't want LRT running through the campus), but once BRT is in place and the campus community is used to it, I believe the city will have a much better bargaining position than they do now. They can always bypass campus and re-route the LRT line to run entirely via Richmond, using the BRT lines on campus for another purpose once that happens, so I don't think they are too worried about that. For now I think they are just committed to giving us Rapid Transit. Once it's in place, it will not be easy to get rid of it, so it's an important first step.

Your comments are very interesting.

I am from Ottawa and we are presently going through the very difficult conversion from BRT to LRT. Believe me, this is far from ideal and the conversion costs are enormous.

Whatever rapid transit choices that London makes, you should stick with it. The city of Ottawa is a massive construction zone due to the conversion from BRT to LRT, which is far from ideal in the Sesquicentennial year. And we are going to face many years of further massive disruption as we move onto Phase 2 and then Phase 3. Meanwhile, our transit system is in total upheaval. I should also mention that the conversion in Ottawa was being driven by capacity issues downtown. Conversion to LRT in London will likely only happen under similar circumstances. With London being a significantly smaller city, when is that likely to happen? Just don't get your hopes up concerning a conversion.

Again, I would really be hesitant of any suggestion to build BRT with the idea of upgrading to LRT later. Your city will regret it. The cost of any such conversion will always be underestimated at the time that BRT is built and will always be oversold.

I will further say that it is really unfortunate that Western University is not very supportive of LRT. A university is a major transit destination and needs to be serviced in some way by a rapid transit network. On completion of Phase 1 in Ottawa, both of Ottawa's major universities will be connected to rail rapid transit and it is a critical part of any plan. I also point out that York University is about to be connected to Toronto's subway network. I have heard of the reasons why universities don't like to be on rail lines (sensitive equipment may be negatively impacted) but there is always a way to handle that. It seems to me that Western simply does not want to compromise with the city in some way or to find ways to mitigate any issues.

[warpus]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am from Ottawa and we are presently going through the very difficult conversion from BRT to LRT. Believe me, this is far from ideal and the conversion costs are enormous.

Oh yes, I didn't mean to imply that it would be an easy and cheap upgrade. All I'm saying is that upgrading BRT to LRT is a lot simpler than building LRT from scratch. Our city (from what I understand) is making BRT-related road widenings with future LRT in mind, so that if and when it happens, widenings don't have to happen again, and most of the work will be the installation of rail lines. There would definitely be a lot of construction involved either way.

You are right that we would be upgrading to LRT only when the numbers indicate that the density is there to support such an upgrade. We'll see how quickly BRT leads to more density along RT corridors. Yes, London is a smaller city than Ottawa, but during the initial assessment the city concluded that the north-east RT corridor was dense enough for LRT. The downgrade to BRT happened partially because of Western University and partially because a more expensive project was harder to sustain politically speaking.

The issue with Western University is that most people who work here, drive. A lot of students also drive. London is a car oriented city and the University happens to be in a fairly well off part of town. Since a lot of people who work here have decent salaries, most of them prefer to drive.

The culture here is slowly changing, though. The university is putting into action a plan to eliminate all "through campus" car traffic from the campus core. I have no idea how they are going to accomplish this, but that is the plan. The RT initiative goes hand in hand with that, as certain core campus roads are going to be converted to bus-only lanes (with no lanes for regular traffic at all). Like I said I have no idea how that is going to work (there are parking lots and such along this route) but that is the plan.

You are right that the main concern that was voiced was that rail can't be anywhere near sensitive research facilities. Mind you there has been a change since those concerns were voiced - the route that was selected does not run near most of those sensitive research facilities, instead running west-ward to Alumni Hall, and then north via Western road. IMO this was partially done to make it easier to convince the University to allow LRT in the future. It will also IMO be easier to do that once BRT has been up and running for a number of years and the campus community is used to it - and there are less cars on campus, as per university plans. If the city comes to the University in 15 years and says "We are upgrading this route to LRT, we can bypass the university or not, your call" the University would IMO be in a tough situation. A lot of university community groups would be used to RT at that stage, and would not want to lose it.

We'll see what happens though. For now they are still working on the master engineering plan for the BRT routes, and construction on that is not slated to begin until next year, and might not be over until 2024 or 2027 (I've seen both dates thrown around and am not sure why)

[tyeman200]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I will further say that it is really unfortunate that Western University is not very supportive of LRT. A university is a major transit destination and needs to be serviced in some way by a rapid transit network. On completion of Phase 1 in Ottawa, both of Ottawa's major universities will be connected to rail rapid transit and it is a critical part of any plan. I also point out that York University is about to be connected to Toronto's subway network. I have heard of the reasons why universities don't like to be on rail lines (sensitive equipment may be negatively impacted) but there is always a way to handle that. It seems to me that Western simply does not want to compromise with the city in some way or to find ways to mitigate any issues.

I'm sick of Western and London always heeding to their demands. I say screw them, London should let them know who's boss around here and if they don't like it too bad.

[warpus]

Originally Posted by tyeman200

I'm sick of Western and London always heeding to their demands. I say screw them, London should let them know who's boss around here and if they don't like it too bad.

Sure, but the city really wanted RT running through Western campus, as Western students will make up a substantial portion of the RT userbase when it launches in 2024 (or whenever)

[GreatTallNorth2]

^ Yes but Western should not be able to dictate to the city the form of transport that the city chooses. If they want to complain about it and reject it, thats fine and then the city can choose a station off campus. If other universities can do it, so can London.

[warpus]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

^ Yes but Western should not be able to dictate to the city the form of transport that the city chooses. If they want to complain about it and reject it, thats fine and then the city can choose a station off campus. If other universities can do it, so can London.

The decision to drop LRT in favour of BRT was probably influenced by Western, but in the end there were other variables too. I read through their point-by-point comparison of the various options (full BRT, BRT lite, full LRT, LRT/BRT, etc.) and Western did come up but a lot of other considerations did as well. I would guess that Western's hesitance to accept LRT played a part in the decision, but like I said there were a lot of other considerations too. Would we have had LRT if Western wasn't in opposition to it? It's hard to say

In the end the city had the option to do exactly what you say. If they couldn't come to terms with Western about running RT through campus, they would have bypassed it via Richmond

[jammer139]

The state of LRT projects in Ontario is disappointing. Hamilton is still in the early planning stages so one might hope they are looking at these other LRT's and learning from them.



https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...-across-canada

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by jammer139

The state of LRT projects in Ontario is disappointing. Hamilton is still in the early planning stages so one might hope they are looking at these other LRT's and learning from them.



https://torontosun.com/opinion/colum...-across-canada

that article ignores that Kitchener's LRT, as well as Mississauga's and the Finch LRT are being completed more or less on time and on budget.

The Crosstown's delays is because of extremely complicated underground construction, particularly related to the interchange stations with the existing subway.

[jammer139]

KW LRT also had issues and delays.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/kitch...tion-1.5694834

[ssiguy]

I think London made the right choice with BRT. Even forgetting Western's objections, London's urban development is very different from KW or Ottawa as both those cities are very linear as opposed to London which is basically a big circle.......it may take forever to get downtown due to traffic but the trips themselves are far shorter in km. This means that for most riders it would be faster to take the local bus downtown than taking a bus and then having to transfer onto the LRT.

London, unlike KW/Ott/Ham also has not wide roadways or unused rail corridors to take advantage of with the possible exception of the old London-PS route which wouldn't even come close to White Oaks and that's assuming they could get their hands on the corridor in the first place. That corridor is far better suited to a commuter rail line to St.Thomas.

Remember also that new buses are not the same ones as used today. They, due to being electric, will be zero emissions, be MUCH quieter both inside and outside the bus, have far faster acceleration and offer a much smoother ride than the diesels they replace. This is especially true in BRT lanes as they don't have the disrepair that plague regular roads.........it's not the bus that makes them uncomfortable but rather the roads they travel on. This is why highway buses are so much more comfortable than local transit ones.

Buses also offer the ability to interline which is a very big deal in that it helps get rid of the dreaded "last mile" problem and are more reliable as any breakdown/power loss on an LRT brings the whole system to a halt as well as an accidents along the route unlike buses. Where London blew it was when they switched from LRT to BRT and hence reduced the cost but didn't use those saved dollars towards making a bigger system losing out on all those senior level government infrastructure funds.