London Rapid Transit (In-Design)

[kEiThZ]

Zum has been around for about 10 years and they are already planning to replace parts of it with an LRT.

For some reason you see this as failure, when the rest of us see this as success. It means ridership has grown to levels that support LRT. Albeit, in this case, it's literally a fraction of one corridor that is being converted mostly because of the city next door doing so. Züm is more than just Main St south of Shopper's World.

Here's the thing. London does not even have what Brampton currently has with Züm or what York has with VIVA, and they are claiming that they can't even afford those kinds of systems, but you keep insisting that they should build systems with much higher capacity at a much higher price. Easy to say when you're sitting in North Bay pounding away on a keyboard. But I'd be pretty pissed if I lived in a new subdivision along Wonderland and I got bupkis so that some Fanshawe College student could get a tram ride to downtown. "Oh hey. It's okay, you can sit in traffic for 20 years, till we can afford to get LRT to your hood." Reminds me of the talk of extending the RT to Malvern, when I went to high school there....in the mid 90s.

 

[kEiThZ]

One of the best parts about Brisbane's system, is that local bus routes use the busways too, before dispersing to serve their respective local routes (without BRT infrastructure), demonstrating how flexible a BRT network can be.

This is exactly why the Transitway was so popular in Ottawa. No transfers. In addition to the regular services, there was rush hour only service that went around every neighbourhood collecting commuters and then got on the Transitway and rocketed to the core, rarely stopping for other passengers. For suburbanites, this felt less like transit than a giant carpool or jitney service. Was literally the same folks, on the same bus, every morning. Often the same driver too.

The real benefit, to London, of building BRT, is that they can basically build up curbside bus lanes all over the place that local buses can use and then develop the full corridors that all the buses would feed into. One-seat rides to the core at rush hour would be pretty damn popular.

 

[micheal_can]

You are setting insanely useless requirements, to disprove anything that doesn't fit your opinion.

Show me a successful LRT without a single connecting bus route.

Lets use Ottawa as a great example of my point. The Transitway started in 1983, where as the original O-Train started in 2001. That shows that Ottawa could have fit the "insanely useless requirements" that I am trying to show. What I am trying to show is how an LRT line either is needed in the first place, orthere are palces where demand is not needed and you can truly have a successful BRT network that does not become congested.

You can create a metro system with BRT as the main technology used.

That is what Brisbane did, and their three routes carry much higher daily ridership volumes than most LRTs in the world, more akin to heavy metro systems. Their busways were so successful, that they invested heavily in optimizing the route with a new fleet of high-capacity buses and grade-separating the portions that weren't before.

Brisbane Metro

Brisbane Metro is a key part of Council's plan to get you home quicker and safer, with more travel options, less congestion and better public transport.

www.brisbane.qld.gov.au

One of the best parts about Brisbane's system, is that local bus routes use the busways too, before dispersing to serve their respective local routes (without BRT infrastructure), demonstrating how flexible a BRT network can be. There are worldwide lessons that can be taken and implemented in London to create a successful transit network. It only requires creativity, thoughtful planning, and political willpower.

Brisbane has a commuter rail system focused on the city. London is not so lucky.

For some reason you see this as failure, when the rest of us see this as success. It means ridership has grown to levels that support LRT. Albeit, in this case, it's literally a fraction of one corridor that is being converted mostly because of the city next door doing so. Züm is more than just Main St south of Shopper's World.

Here's the thing. London does not even have what Brampton currently has with Züm or what York has with VIVA, and they are claiming that they can't even afford those kinds of systems, but you keep insisting that they should build systems with much higher capacity at a much higher price. Easy to say when you're sitting in North Bay pounding away on a keyboard. But I'd be pretty pissed if I lived in a new subdivision along Wonderland and I got bupkis so that some Fanshawe College student could get a tram ride to downtown. "Oh hey. It's okay, you can sit in traffic for 20 years, till we can afford to get LRT to your hood." Reminds me of the talk of extending the RT to Malvern, when I went to high school there....in the mid 90s.

Kitchener/Waterloo did not have what Brampton or York Region did either.

Let's look at Toronto. All their U/C LRT lines never had BRT prior to it. Why did they jump that step?

 

[kEiThZ]

Kitchener/Waterloo did not have what Brampton or York Region did either.

Indeed. And as others have pointed out, this LRT isn't better than the bus service it replaced. So if you care about transit, it isn't actually an improvement. On the other hand, Waterloo politicians really wanted to help out developers and the LRT has been great for them. Do you want to help make Farhi more rich or actually improve service for people who live in London?

Let's look at Toronto. All their U/C LRT lines never had BRT prior to it. Why did they jump that step?

They didn't have BRT. But they had ridership. Enough that the buses were getting clogged up on those routes. And more to the point they have an entire network of buses and development policies that will ensure those planned LRTs have ridership to make the investment worthwhile. London doesn't have any of this.

 

[WislaHD]

Let's look at Toronto. All their U/C LRT lines never had BRT prior to it. Why did they jump that step?

They should have. Toronto just didn't care to invest, and everyone is left with a poorer experience for it.

If it were me, I would still take all of Toronto's arterial routes without planned LRTs and put some form of BRT on them today. I wish a mayor would run on this platform. It would be the best and most cost effective way to improve the network and the ridership experience for the greatest number of riders.

The routes that "skipped" to LRT are doing so because their corridor ridership warrants an implementation of higher-order grade separation. Secondary reasons back when decisions were made (mid 2000s) possibly involved a lack of awareness of BRT (and David Miller's insistence on LRT), a vague notion that LRT induces more investment into the community (disproven), and maybe even some backroom politics to arrange for Bombardier to supply the rolling stock that went into decision-making (speculation).

 

[kEiThZ]

The Transitway started in 1983, where as the original O-Train started in 2001. That shows that Ottawa could have fit the "insanely useless requirements" that I am trying to show.

Poor take if you know the history of the O-Train. It was effectively tinkering. They didn't plan for it. They got an abandoned rail corridor for cheap, bought second hand trainsets from Germany and put up a few concrete platforms and bus shelters and started service. The service wasn't frequent. And it was only supposed to be a trial. It proved popular enough for Carleton students and a handful of neighbhourhoods south of there, that they kept it going. The original O-Train (now Trillium Line) was never a serious rail proposal that was intentionally developed as part of the transit network. And London has no such opportunities coming up anytime soon that it can convert on, so this argument is moot.

 

[kEiThZ]

They should have. Toronto just didn't care to invest, and everyone is left with a poorer experience for it.

If it were me, I would still take all of Toronto's arterial routes without planned LRTs and put some form of BRT on them today. I wish a mayor would run on this platform. It would be the best and most cost effective way to improve the network and the ridership experience for the greatest number of riders.

And Toronto is literally doing this now with the red lanes.

RapidTO priority bus lanes on Morningside Avenue to improve transit reliability and capacity

News Release October 9, 2020 Mayor John Tory was joined today by Councillor and TTC Board Member, Jennifer McKelvie (Ward 25), Councillor Paul Ainslie (Ward 24), Deputy Mayor Michael Thompson (Ward 21), and Councillor Gary Crawford (Ward 20), and Rick Leary, CEO of the TTC, to officially...

www.toronto.ca

 

[micheal_can]

Indeed. And as others have pointed out, this LRT isn't better than the bus service it replaced. So if you care about transit, it isn't actually an improvement. On the other hand, Waterloo politicians really wanted to help out developers and the LRT has been great for them. Do you want to help make Farhi more rich or actually improve service for people who live in London?

You mean transit oriented development has been happening in K/W?
And that is bad?

They didn't have BRT. But they had ridership. Enough that the buses were getting clogged up on those routes. And more to the point they have an entire network of buses and development policies that will ensure those planned LRTs have ridership to make the investment worthwhile. London doesn't have any of this.

The downtown area of London experiences the same thing. Sounds like LRT is going to solve that. Unlike buses, you can extend the length of an LRT train. You can only extend buses so long before they no longer are practical.

They should have. Toronto just didn't care to invest, and everyone is left with a poorer experience for it.

If it were me, I would still take all of Toronto's arterial routes without planned LRTs and put some form of BRT on them today. I wish a mayor would run on this platform. It would be the best and most cost effective way to improve the network and the ridership experience for the greatest number of riders.

The routes that "skipped" to LRT are doing so because their corridor ridership warrants an implementation of higher-order grade separation. Secondary reasons back when decisions were made (mid 2000s) possibly involved a lack of awareness of BRT (and David Miller's insistence on LRT), a vague notion that LRT induces more investment into the community (disproven), and maybe even some backroom politics to arrange for Bombardier to supply the rolling stock that went into decision-making (speculation).

Taking a lane away for buses that cars can drive into and block buses.The only way to prevent this is make it not as driveable for cars. This can be done, but eventually the cost difference between BRT and LRT becomes negligible. Diamond lanes .on all arterial routes does make sense.

Poor take if you know the history of the O-Train. It was effectively tinkering. They didn't plan for it. They got an abandoned rail corridor for cheap, bought second hand trainsets from Germany and put up a few concrete platforms and bus shelters and started service. The service wasn't frequent. And it was only supposed to be a trial. It proved popular enough for Carleton students and a handful of neighbhourhoods south of there, that they kept it going. The original O-Train (now Trillium Line) was never a serious rail proposal that was intentionally developed as part of the transit network. And London has no such opportunities coming up anytime soon that it can convert on, so this argument is moot.

I do know all of that. It was low hanging fruit. Just like their transitways. Now are the growing pains with outgrowing the BRT service.

And Toronto is literally doing this now with the red lanes.

RapidTO priority bus lanes on Morningside Avenue to improve transit reliability and capacity

News Release October 9, 2020 Mayor John Tory was joined today by Councillor and TTC Board Member, Jennifer McKelvie (Ward 25), Councillor Paul Ainslie (Ward 24), Deputy Mayor Michael Thompson (Ward 21), and Councillor Gary Crawford (Ward 20), and Rick Leary, CEO of the TTC, to officially...

www.toronto.ca

I love how the picture shows the exact problem with BRT.I spot at least 2 vehicles that are potentially able to cause problems for the bus.

 

[kEiThZ]

You mean transit oriented development has been happening in K/W?
And that is bad?

It's not great when you don't do anything for present riders and push TOD mostly for the benefit of developers. How is ION actually helping people who take transit? Doesn't save them time and adds a transfer.

The downtown area of London experiences the same thing. Sounds like LRT is going to solve that.

Not really. Where are the full buses in downtown London before Covid? They have a long way to go before approaching anything like what you might see on Finch, Jane, Sheppard, edtc.

Unlike buses, you can extend the length of an LRT train. You can only extend buses so long before they no longer are practical.

You can add buses. Here's an easy question. Would you rather be on a longer tram that comes every 15 mins or a shorter bus that comes every 5 mins? That's what this comes down to. And I for one, don't buy that people are more likely to use transit just because it's a choo-choo, especially not if there are additional transfers and time penalties involved.

In every other city where LRT is successful, it's been built to offset overcrowding (such that demand is sufficient to maintain high frequencies after conversion to LRT). The cities that build LRT just to induce riders almost all have terrible ridership numbers because the are usually incompetent at building the bus services and TOD policies to feed the LRT. I fully expect London would fall into this category.

Taking a lane away for buses that cars can drive into and block buses.

I love how the picture shows the exact problem with BRT.I spot at least 2 vehicles that are potentially able to cause problems for the bus.

A picture taken just after the lanes were built. The point here is that this is a 70% solution that was accomplished for the cost of buckets of paint. Yeah, it's not perfect. But return on investment is substantial. And they can improve on it anytime they want, with barriers and enforcement. When London can't even commit to painting a few lanes, I really wouldn't hold out for them building an entire feeder bus network to make a multi-billion dollar LRT successful.

Also, you still haven't answered my question. What's your response to the homeowner/commuter in a new subdivision on Wonderland who will get nothing for decades with your ideas? What would you tell those people?

 

[44 North]

Poor take if you know the history of the O-Train. It was effectively tinkering. They didn't plan for it. They got an abandoned rail corridor for cheap, bought second hand trainsets from Germany and put up a few concrete platforms and bus shelters and started service. The service wasn't frequent. And it was only supposed to be a trial. It proved popular enough for Carleton students and a handful of neighbhourhoods south of there, that they kept it going. The original O-Train (now Trillium Line) was never a serious rail proposal that was intentionally developed as part of the transit network. And London has no such opportunities coming up anytime soon that it can convert on, so this argument is moot.

Ah yeah love hearing that story. Ad hoc but true transit-building. Probably hard to quantify, but having attractive bright trains must've helped to some degree. People see that either in person or in the media (say in a nice setting like crossing Rideau) and they'll want to leave their car at home. Now it's being expanded...it worked. We got opportunities for new no frills rail services such as this in the GTA but can't think of the same for London.

 

[ARG1]

You mean transit oriented development has been happening in K/W?
And that is bad?

Its not that its bad, its that its not necessary for good transit.

The downtown area of London experiences the same thing. Sounds like LRT is going to solve that. Unlike buses, you can extend the length of an LRT train. You can only extend buses so long before they no longer are practical.

Since when could you just "extend the length of an LRT train"? Its possible, but its not the easiest thing in the world.

Taking a lane away for buses that cars can drive into and block buses.The only way to prevent this is make it not as driveable for cars. This can be done, but eventually the cost difference between BRT and LRT becomes negligible. Diamond lanes .on all arterial routes does make sense.

And LRT is any better how? There are 2 options here. Either you have a pavement with embedded tracks like what we have on the Spadina Streetcar, where the car literally can do the exact same thing as with bus lanes, or we can have exposed tracks like in the Queens Quay tunnel where idiot drivers still get on there, get stuck, and now all service is stopped until a tow truck arrives to take them out. In short, LRT doesn't solve this problem.

I do know all of that. It was low hanging fruit. Just like their transitways. Now are the growing pains with outgrowing the BRT service.

Which for on street BRT, is extremely easy to do and replace with LRT.

I love how the picture shows the exact problem with BRT.I spot at least 2 vehicles that are potentially able to cause problems for the bus.

LRT doesn't solve this issue, as I just said.

 

[kEiThZ]

Its not that its bad, its that its not necessary for good transit.

Increasingly, it's looking like his entire argument for London to get LRT is, "But Waterloo and Hamilton have them." What's good for the people of London seems entirely irrelevant.

And this is all aside from the fact that London's politicians don't want to pay for an LRT system. They can barely muster up the coverage to pay for half the BRT corridors planned.

 

[ARG1]

It's not great when you don't do anything for present riders and push TOD mostly for the benefit of developers. How is ION actually helping people who take transit? Doesn't save them time and adds a transfer.

My favourite part of iON is that if you want to get from Conestoga to Fairway, there are parallel bus services that are actually faster than iON. Speed is not iON's specialty.

Ah yeah love hearing that story. Ad hoc but true transit-building. Probably hard to quantify, but having attractive bright trains must've helped to some degree. People see that either in person or in the media (say in a nice setting like crossing Rideau) and they'll want to leave their car at home. Now it's being expanded...it worked. We got opportunities for new no frills rail services such as this in the GTA but can't think of the same for London.

The biggest users of the OTrain were Carleton students. Not that many people outside of that use case really used the service. Getting to downtown Ottawa was a bit faster using the Otrain if you lived in Greenboro, but that's about it.

 

[kEiThZ]

Ah yeah love hearing that story. Ad hoc but true transit-building. Probably hard to quantify, but having attractive bright trains must've helped to some degree. People see that either in person or in the media (say in a nice setting like crossing Rideau) and they'll want to leave their car at home. Now it's being expanded...it worked. We got opportunities for new no frills rail services such as this in the GTA but can't think of the same for London.

Maybe there's opportunities in the GTA. I think of the Finch Hydro Corridor for example. But I can't think of any in London. Correct me if I'm wrong.

And the old O-Train in Ottawa really wasn't all that important to transit users unless you went to Carleton or lived in South Keys. Ridership was lower than the Transitway and lower than major avenue buses of the TTC.

Sure, it was insanely good value for money, for what Ottawa spent. But let's not pretend it was some serious transit boost. This is kinda like arguing that UPX is a major boost to transit in Toronto, because some commuters use it, alongside travelers to/from the airport Post-Stage 2 with a longer line, larger trains, higher frequencies and a connection to the airport, it'll actually become what people imagine it is. And to achieve that is costing ~$800 million.

 

[micheal_can]

It's not great when you don't do anything for present riders and push TOD mostly for the benefit of developers. How is ION actually helping people who take transit? Doesn't save them time and adds a transfer.

Depends on your focus. One focus could be to allow younger generation to own a home. Those TOD are just that.

Not really. Where are the full buses in downtown London before Covid? They have a long way to go before approaching anything like what you might see on Finch, Jane, Sheppard, edtc.

True, but that doesn't mean Finch is the gold standard for LRT.

You can add buses. Here's an easy question. Would you rather be on a longer tram that comes every 15 mins or a shorter bus that comes every 5 mins? That's what this comes down to. And I for one, don't buy that people are more likely to use transit just because it's a choo-choo, especially not if there are additional transfers and time penalties involved.

In every other city where LRT is successful, it's been built to offset overcrowding (such that demand is sufficient to maintain high frequencies after conversion to LRT). The cities that build LRT just to induce riders almost all have terrible ridership numbers because the are usually incompetent at building the bus services and TOD policies to feed the LRT. I fully expect London would fall into this category.

You must be one of those people in suburbia that want a single ride from your house to where ever you want to go. Take Ion for example. No route followed the LRT. In fact,crossing the city isn't that easy to drive. having this line is a good start at densifying the city. That is what is needed. Not more Mcmansions for miles around like York Region. Hence why VIVA is crappy service at best.

A picture taken just after the lanes were built. The point here is that this is a 70% solution that was accomplished for the cost of buckets of paint. Yeah, it's not perfect. But return on investment is substantial. And they can improve on it anytime they want, with barriers and enforcement. When London can't even commit to painting a few lanes, I really wouldn't hold out for them building an entire feeder bus network to make a multi-billion dollar LRT successful.

Also, you still haven't answered my question. What's your response to the homeowner/commuter in a new subdivision on Wonderland who will get nothing for decades with your ideas? What would you tell those people?

This isn;t about those far flung areas. That is the bad thing about the Ottawa system. They are not focused on moving the most amount of people all over. They are focused on moving the commuters in and out of the city.. That is why their system is built as it is. If they were doing it better, there would be no interlining downtown.

Its not that its bad, its that its not necessary for good transit.

One great way to build up density, something that is lacking in most places, is to build a transit line and then let developers build the buildings that will increase density. No, I do not want to make developers richer, but I also want to see housing grow. This isn't the 1950s when you would build your own home from a sears catalogue.

Since when could you just "extend the length of an LRT train"? Its possible, but its not the easiest thing in the world.

So long as the system is built for it, it is easier than adding more buses or extending buses.Ottawa has shown bendy buses are bad in snow and double decker buses are bad on BRT legacy stations.

And LRT is any better how? There are 2 options here. Either you have a pavement with embedded tracks like what we have on the Spadina Streetcar, where the car literally can do the exact same thing as with bus lanes, or we can have exposed tracks like in the Queens Quay tunnel where idiot drivers still get on there, get stuck, and now all service is stopped until a tow truck arrives to take them out. In short, LRT doesn't solve this problem.

Or, we have a separated ROW for the transit

Which for on street BRT, is extremely easy to do and replace with LRT.

LRT doesn't solve this issue, as I just said.

What about those places that tunnels are needed?

Increasingly, it's looking like his entire argument for London to get LRT is, "But Waterloo and Hamilton have them." What's good for the people of London seems entirely irrelevant.

And this is all aside from the fact that London's politicians don't want to pay for an LRT system. They can barely muster up the coverage to pay for half the BRT corridors planned.

It isn't that simple. It seems that simple, but there are bigger reasons for one over the other. If all you think the argument is based on is because others have it, then you have not been paying attention.