London Rapid Transit (In-Design)

[Bureaucromancer]

You're right about Hamilton if something kills the current project, but I don't see London converting BRT to rail anytime soon if it does get built.

Tory's or no I actually expect SHIFT to go ahead one way or another. My guess at this stage is that it will be given by Ford and company as a consolation prize for cancelling or delayingd HSR, and that they will reconcile themselves to this by emphasizing that it's NOT light rail.

All things considered I'll take this option. The original LRT with tunnel is definitely preferable, but not so much so that I can honestly hope for a delay to the BRT plan to get it back.

 

[drum118]

nas

I think London is the kind of city that might make a move after they see how well smaller cities do with LRT. Waterloo and Hamilton deploying LRT would give them the push.

The big issue in Canada has always been that transit is seen largely as the purview of big cities. Particularly rail transit. Trains are something you build for Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver. Heck, I saw so much resistance to LRT in Ottawa, when it was being debated there. And largely along the lines of, "Ottawa is a small city. We don't need fancy trams." It's frustrating as hell. This is why I Waterloo, Hamilton and Mississauga are really necessary to spark that transit renaissance.

It's a long shot with the PCs in power. But I hope Waterloo is able to move on their next phase, because that will really how well LRT works in less urban areas. And no city will truly be as instructive for London as Hamilton. I think watching Hamilton get LRT is what would change minds in London. Similar size. Both have large universities that are increasingly anchoring tech sectors there. Hamilton is further along in its transformation into Toronto exurb.

Kansas City has 481,420 with a line opening in 2016 and going to extended it already. Detroit has 670,000, with a line opening in May 2017. Cincinnati open a line in 2016 and it has 298,800. Oklahoma city is opening a line Dec 12 with a population of 638,367. Milwaukee lines opens Nov 2 with a population of 595,000.

 

[kEiThZ]

nas


Kansas City has 481,420 with a line opening in 2016 and going to extended it already. Detroit has 670,000, with a line opening in May 2017. Cincinnati open a line in 2016 and it has 298,800. Oklahoma city is opening a line Dec 12 with a population of 638,367. Milwaukee lines opens Nov 2 with a population of 595,000.

Yeah. But the average London resident had no regular connection to Kansas City, Cincinnati, Oklahoma City or Milwaukee. I could point to a dozen other cities in Europe of that size that also have light rail. Londonites would not care. Hamilton and Waterloo are literally down the road, on the other hand. And when you see neighbouring cities of the same approximate size building certain infrastructure, you start clamouring for that in your town. This is especially the case for small cities, in my experience.

I saw this first hand in during public consultations in Ottawa. International comparisons are easily dismissed. Whereas, arguing other Canadian cities is harder to dismiss. In Ottawa, they compared to Calgary and Edmonton and when Vancouver and Toronto were just starting their rail expansions. That helped to sell.

 

[syn]

I was in London and found it interesting that there seemed to be quite a few people against the BRT. It certainly seems like a major election issue.

My friends tell me a lot of people still see London as it was decades ago and view the BRT as a move towards it becoming more of a major city.

Given the traffic it seems like a necessity.

 

[ssiguy2]

nas


Kansas City has 481,420 with a line opening in 2016 and going to extended it already. Detroit has 670,000, with a line opening in May 2017. Cincinnati open a line in 2016 and it has 298,800. Oklahoma city is opening a line Dec 12 with a population of 638,367. Milwaukee lines opens Nov 2 with a population of 595,000.

You can`t seriously be comparing London to any of those cities. Those streetcar routes were built as vanity, tourist, and development schemes and absolutely nothing more. Those metros are also MUCH larger than London`s and yet OK,KS, and Detroit have lower total ridership and miniscule per-capita ridership compared to London. They also have huge swaths of wide roads and de-populated urban decay areas in the inner city to take advantage of. These are very much not transit lines but rather `look Mom, now we have a streetcar too` make-work political projects that are bleeding red ink and sapping much needed operational funding from the general transit systems. Many are just circular tourist rides.

London has ridership levels and a solid built urban form that those cities could only dream about.

 

[Haljackey]

I was in London and found it interesting that there seemed to be quite a few people against the BRT. It certainly seems like a major election issue.

My friends tell me a lot of people still see London as it was decades ago and view the BRT as a move towards it becoming more of a major city.

Given the traffic it seems like a necessity.

BRT is THE election issue in London - 3 of the 4 major mayoral candidates are against it.

...And with ranked ballots this time, vote split is impossible. Those dead set against BRT would make their second and third choices for the other two candidates who are against BRT as well. The only way to have a pro-BRT mayor is to win on the first ballot (50% + 1) which seems extremely unlikely.

 

[drum118]

You can`t seriously be comparing London to any of those cities. Those streetcar routes were built as vanity, tourist, and development schemes and absolutely nothing more. Those metros are also MUCH larger than London`s and yet OK,KS, and Detroit have lower total ridership and miniscule per-capita ridership compared to London. They also have huge swaths of wide roads and de-populated urban decay areas in the inner city to take advantage of. These are very much not transit lines but rather `look Mom, now we have a streetcar too` make-work political projects that are bleeding red ink and sapping much needed operational funding from the general transit systems. Many are just circular tourist rides.

London has ridership levels and a solid built urban form that those cities could only dream about.

Yes most of these systems are a toy system, but they are willing to start somewhere than no where. A number don't have the road width as claim and been to those cities. Detroit LRT runs on 4 and 7 lane road and 4 miles short than it was supposed to be since the P3 couldn't raise the money for it. It was never in the city plan for this line. It also kick start redevelopment of some of decade areas, as well rebuilt its empty downtown to mix use, not just employment like it used to be.

If one looks at the TIDE LRT ridership and length of route for Norfolk VA, it piss poor and I have ridden it.

I do question the logic why low ridership route in the US see streetcars over BRT or express line compare to us that are not willing to put express lines in as well BRT or LRT where numbers justify them. One has to look at Toronto to see new express routes go into service this year that should have been seen decades ago.

I can't speak much on London since I have never ridden their system and spent little time there than the downtown area and the north-west area. The downtown is low density with way too many parking lot and gear for employment. Even then. lots of vacant buildings. BRT is the right way, but need to start with express routes. The city needs to stop building urban sprawl. A few people I know there will not travel to the downtown due to traffic and it offer them very little for their needs. One persons use a bus route that runs all over the place for various reason and low ridership.

Very few people running for office understand transit in the first place, especially at mayor level, since they don't use transit at all. London is an example of this, as well a Cincinnati where the candidates oppose the idea of building BRT/LRT or expanding them don't see the benefit doing so.

As what is class as historical in London, I have to see them since a lot of so call historical buildings aren't in the first place. Been to too many places where so call buildings are not what they are call for in the first place and compare to ones that should be. Look at all the ones torn down in Toronto or only having the facade save to the point you mild well torn it down once the site was built.

 

[ssiguy2]

London`s downtown is quite vibrant and has been filling up those parking spots at a dizzying rate with new condo and apartment buildings and will become even more vibrant with the Talbot/Dundas Flex Street now well under construction.

London has a very solid built form with very thin, very disjointed, very limited road capacity, is crisscrossed with the Thames and non-grade separated rail lines, and no urban freeways which is why the traffic is so bad to begin with. London has no abandoned rail corridors, industrial lands, or wide streets to take advantage of. In short, it's not that Londoners don't want better transit but rather that people feel {and they are quite correct} the city already simply doesn't have the capacity to take away lanes on it's busiest corridors.

This is made even more unpalatable by the fact that the proposed BRT, by going down built up streets, is going to result in the destruction of several homes, historic building, and scores of trees and Londoners take their trees and neighbourhoods seriously. All this for very little as the City has admitted that the BRT as proposed will not make any significant difference in travel times and many will see their travel times INCREASE due to their present one bus route ride being replaced with a needed transfer.

 

[ShonTron]

Hardly surprising. That section of Wellington was one of the prime areas of concern along with Richmond. Even if they can mitigate some of the heritage concerns {and there are a lot along the route} the destruction of scores of trees will have to happen and Londoners take their trees very seriously.

From the very beginning it was an ill conceived idea. London`s urban fabric is quite dense and very solid combined with a very poor road network with no cross-town routes thru the inner city, thin roads, no urban expressways, the Thames river meandering thru it, and rail lines with many at-grade crossings even on very busy roads such as crucial Richmond. London does not, thank God, have KW`s sprawling urban form nor, due to traditionally being a white collar city, has any underused inner city industrial areas. This later point is why London probably has the fewest {along with Ottawa & QC} warehouse renovations...…….it never had any warehouses.

There’s one really neglected industrial area in London with buildings prime for warehouse style reuse: Dundas Street East. The McCormick factory and the recently closed Kellogg’s plant both fit that bill. But that’s in what’s probably London’s least desirable area.

 

[Haljackey]

There’s one really neglected industrial area in London with buildings prime for warehouse style reuse: Dundas Street East. The McCormick factory and the recently closed Kellogg’s plant both fit that bill. But that’s in what’s probably London’s least desirable area.

Kind of off topic but that is no longer the case.

The McCormick factory site is being cleaned up and it will be demolished soon for new development.

The old Kellog plant is now Canada's largest indoor 'adventure park', plus it has virtual reality, arcades, ropes and all the like. There's also a brewery there and the Children's museum is moving in next year.

A few pics from inside during a visit

More info if interested https://thefactorylondon.ca/

-----

RT, either BRT or LRT would be probably the most beneficial to Dundas East than anywhere else in the city in my opinion.

 

[ShonTron]

I'm sad to learn that the McCormick plant is going to be demolished. While most of the site should be cleared, the front section, closest to Dundas Street, is quite interesting.

I'm glad to see the Kellogg's plant re-purposed so quickly.

 

[Haljackey]

Based on London's civic election results, the BRT plan seems unlikely in it's current state.

7 councilors for the plan
6 councilors + mayor against the plan
1 councilor abstaining (at least so far)

 

[drum118]

Based on London's civic election results, the BRT plan seems unlikely in it's current state.

7 councilors for the plan
6 councilors + mayor against the plan
1 councilor abstaining (at least so far)

They will be kicking themselves in the ass a few year down the road if they kill the BRT plan. Best thing now is to put express buses on those routes and offer better headway than is offer today.

Another city who still sees cars as the main user of the roads and continue to build urban sprawl and thinks very little of transit.

 

[ssiguy2]

I don`t think Londoners `think very little of transit` as it`s high per-capita ridership levels show. Londoners want better transit but many feel that BRT didn`t do it and frankly I tend to agree. The plan was ill conceived and didn`t take into account London`s thin roads. Much of the BRT system down crucial Richmond would have resulted in the road becoming one lane in each direction. It is the ONLY full road that goes from downtown to Masonville and the city`s booming north end and yet it is only 2 lanes in each direction and crossed by a non-grade separated currently used CN rail line that CN has no problems with using even in rush hour. London doesn`t have any 6 lane roads so any lane displacement either means bringing the city to a screeching halt or major land acquisition and house & tree destruction. London has the worst traffic on any city in Canada of it`s size...……..there is no competition.

The city would be far better served by a doing a BRT-lite system with real stations with level boarding, payment machines, POP, limited stops, select cue-jumping, frequent service, specially marked articulated buses, and having the system cover all sectors of the city. The problem is that BRT never had any real enthusiastic supporters. Even people who agreed with the plan did so relatively begrudgingly with `it`s better than nothing` mentality. The City was uninterested in looking into a more comprehensive BRT-lite system and even admitted the service would hardly make any difference in travel times and many Londoners would see their travel times increase. When Londoners heard this they rightly wondered what exactly were they getting for their $500 million. They weren`t even getting bike lanes along the corridors or even an enhanced urban street like Finch because the roads are too damn thin.

Now a Ford regime in power and Londoners not voting in a single Conservative MP, the city may find itself devoid of any of the crucial infrastructure funds courtesy of QP and Ottawa.

 

[kEiThZ]

London has a very solid built form with very thin, very disjointed, very limited road capacity, is crisscrossed with the Thames and non-grade separated rail lines, and no urban freeways which is why the traffic is so bad to begin with. London has no abandoned rail corridors, industrial lands, or wide streets to take advantage of. I

Which makes it perfect for BRT and/or LRT.

I don`t think Londoners `think very little of transit` as it`s high per-capita ridership levels show.

Umm what? What's this source for high per capita ridership? And define high, relative to whom?

In short, it's not that Londoners don't want better transit but rather that people feel {and they are quite correct} the city already simply doesn't have the capacity to take away lanes on it's busiest corridors.

Bullshit. Let's be absolutely honest. Most Londoners do not care about public transit. It's seen as something that students and welfare recipients use. The middle class do not take transit there. And they are quite proud of that.

Londoners want better transit but many feel that BRT didn`t do it and frankly I tend to agree.

The plan was ill conceived and didn`t take into account London`s thin roads. Much of the BRT system down crucial Richmond would have resulted in the road becoming one lane in each direction.

This is made even more unpalatable by the fact that the proposed BRT, by going down built up streets, is going to result in the destruction of several homes, historic building, and scores of trees and Londoners take their trees and neighbourhoods seriously. All this for very little as the City has admitted that the BRT as proposed will not make any significant difference in travel times and many will see their travel times INCREASE due to their present one bus route ride being replaced with a needed transfer.

Pure ignorance from them. They opposed any transit that would have taken away roadspace while completely ignoring the reality that a city of 400 000 is not going to get funding for full grade separation. This is as ridiculous as Brampton asking for a tunnel under Main St.

Even worse is the misinformation going around where they believe that Ottawa and Queen's Park are willing to spend that money on just about any transport infrastructure London wants.

Now a Ford regime in power and Londoners not voting in a single Conservative MP, the city may find itself devoid of any of the crucial infrastructure funds courtesy of QP and Ottawa.

Let them choke on traffic. They deserve to get exactly what they voted for. If they can the BRT plan, they aren't getting anything. Especially not from a federal government that wants to see transit built. And they are going to get another 100 000 residents over the next 20 years. Given how long it takes to plan and execute a proper transit development plan, traffic is going to be horrendous in just another 5 years.