[TransitBart]

Can anyone tell me why we are all so afraid of light rail? what the irrational insanity about this is? Any midsize European city (the size of Hamilton, London, Kitchener/Waterloo) has a decent streetcar network. Personally, for the city building opportunity, and the permanence I'd jump at it each time. We really are a bunch of transit peasants. Buses are fine as transit. They just don't deliver the whole package. Something is amiss here when a city the size of London can't see its way clear to an opportunity to transform its downtown. Hats off to those who had the courage in Kitchener Waterloo. I think that investment will pay off in spades over time.

Postscript. If the vision-less crowd running the show in Toronto, Hamilton and London can't get it right, I have no illusions that Metrolinx/MTO/the Province will not step in and force construction on needed network infrastructure for GTHA. That the parochial fools running Brampton can't see the value of the LRT running from Port Credit GO to Brampton GO linking interregional with local is a shame. It means that our city politicians really are that dense.

The province can't allow the cities to choke themselves. It's nice to have everyone on board, but 2/3 of the provincial GDP and about 25% of Canada's GDP come from the GTHA. Not making these investments is affecting the whole country. Every citizen - even in outlying areas - will benefit from thriving cities which are the source of our collective Canadian wealth.

 

[jsjaker]

TransitBart hits it right get on!

 

[Burnt creek]

Something is amiss here when a city the size of London can't see its way clear to an opportunity to transform its downtown.
.

Maybe thats the problem. And thats the biggest hurdle that LRT advocates face, namely what evidence is there that an LRT at grade transforms or revitalizes anything? We know that subways and subways stations attract homebuyers and businesses because we have seen it. We know that residential real estate costs more when its close to subways. We know that businesses like to be close to subways because staff and customers can get there more quickly and with fewer delays and hassles. But there is no such evidence of the same effect occuring with Streetcars or LRT's running up and down a street. Adding a street car service along St Clair, didnt transform anything in that neighborhood.

I dont know if they made the right decision to go with bus rapid transit. But, from reading those two articles, i liked that they asked the right questions. Such as, whether it is competitive with the car, how many people it can move, or how fast it can get people to their distination. Thats what the debate should centre around, people and users.


Ps.: i should add that i was in London not too long ago for a day. It would seems to me that a street like Dundas would be ideal. It seems wide enough.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Maybe thats the problem. And thats the biggest hurdle that LRT advocates face, namely what evidence is there that an LRT at grade transforms or revitalizes anything? We know that subways and subways stations attract homebuyers and businesses because we have seen it. We know that residential real estate costs more when its close to subways. We know that businesses like to be close to subways because staff and customers can get there more quickly and with fewer delays and hassles. But there is no such evidence of the same effect occuring with Streetcars or LRT's running up and down a street. Adding a street car service along St Clair, didnt transform anything in that neighborhood.

I dont know if they made the right decision to go with bus rapid transit. But, from reading those two articles, i liked that they asked the right questions. Such as, whether it is competitive with the car, how many people it can move, or how fast it can get people to their distination. Thats what the debate should centre around, people and users.


Ps.: i should add that i was in London not too long ago for a day. It would seems to me that a street like Dundas would be ideal. It seems wide enough.

Yes, there might be less condo and office developments along St. Clair Avenue East. However, St. Clair Avenue West is another story all together.

 

[Jonny5]

Yes, there might be less condo and office developments along St. Clair Avenue East. However, St. Clair Avenue West is another story all together.

Seriously? Comparing development on St. Clair East to St. Clair West?
St. Clair West is one of the best examples of "we're building it because they have already come". I like how you include an already existing building that is being converted from office to condos. This is the exact argument that damages the case for LRT.

 

[junctionist]

The point is that plenty of condo development is happening on St. Clair West after the ROW project. To say that there hasn't been any condo development after the ROW project is ignorant, whether or not the development is actually correlated to the improved streetcar infrastructure.

 

[44 North]

Ultimately I think St Clair isn't the greatest example of a before/after, considering it already had streetcars prior to the ROW's construction. LRT-izing the roadway (and the complete capital works that goes along with such a conversion) definitely improved the area, not to mention allowed for the planning dept to hyperfocus on rezoning/upzoning. But IMO much of that would've happened without the ROW and by keeping the streetcar as-is. The "LRT" merely accelerated this (inevitable) process.

Either way, BurntCreek seems out to lunch. There's ample evidence that street rail (whether modern "LRT", or a rickety old trolley) improves property values. There's a reason why cities the world over have (re)embraced the technology that once ran along their streets a century ago. My Layman's guess as to why? Simply put: streetcars/LRT are better than buses.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Ultimately I think St Clair isn't the greatest example of a before/after, considering it already had streetcars prior to the ROW's construction. LRT-izing the roadway (and the complete capital works that goes along with such a conversion) definitely improved the area, not to mention allowed for the planning dept to hyperfocus on rezoning/upzoning. But IMO much of that would've happened without the ROW and by keeping the streetcar as-is. The "LRT" merely accelerated this (inevitable) process.

Either way, BurntCreek seems out to lunch. There's ample evidence that street rail (whether modern "LRT", or a rickety old trolley) improves property values. There's a reason why cities the world over have (re)embraced the technology that once ran along their streets a century ago. My Layman's guess as to why? Simply put: streetcars/LRT are better than buses.

Should be where they implemented streetcars and/or light rail as an actual means of commuting and travel, rather than a tourist attraction.

 

[crs1026]

There's only one thing wrong with BRT: the bus.

If a bus manufacturer were to design a vehicle that was quiet, roomy, and stable, I wonder if this would still be true. With electric vehicles coming, and vehicles heading for "self driving" capability, I wonder if one could build a bus with a "LRT Mode" switch that would mimic the behaviour of an LRT - smooth stops and starts, forced adherence to a very fixed path, etc. When you enter a BRT guideway, the vehicle is forced into this mode. If at some point on the route, the vehicle reverts to a "normal" roadway, the mode cancels.

There is a lot of room here for something much less expensive than LRT, with a lot more flexibility in routing and scheduling.

- Paul

 

[Cobra]

Something is amiss here when a city the size of London can't see its way clear to an opportunity to transform its downtown.

I'd say the province's history to let cities fend for themselves in terms of operational costs, it's hard to make that pitch to resident who wants no parts in drastic tax increases to make up for it. In the end, it's a lack of political courage as most politicians are looking out for themselves first and really would prefer to get re-elected than having their own "Overground" mix with "Underground". It's just easier to leave that political risk to the next guys after they retire...politics...

 

[robmausser]

Oh well more money for Toronto.

If London, Hamilton, Brampton don't want it, thats fine, they were given the chance.

 

[jcam]

Don't think that LRTs are always the right choice though. We've never seen a business case for Finch West of LRT vs. BRT have we? I've heard it said that Finch ridership could easily be handled by seperated BRT, but politically they wanted it to be LRT.

I find it refreshing that London chose the economical route that can be upsized to LRT when its lifecycle runs out and the population actually warrants it. When there are limited funds to spread around, why are we giving a hard time to a city that's arguably taking the prudent approach, and thereby leaving money in the pot for other projects?

 

[TOareaFan]

Oh well more money for Toronto.

If London, Hamilton, Brampton don't want it, thats fine, they were given the chance.

Yeah, toronto has never rejected a fully funded LRT....oh, wait, never mind

 

[rbt]

I find it refreshing that London chose the economical route that can be upsized to LRT when its lifecycle runs out and the population actually warrants it. When there are limited funds to spread around, why are we giving a hard time to a city that's arguably taking the prudent approach, and thereby leaving money in the pot for other projects?

Agreed. Looking at the London decision it makes sense. LRT ridership isn't expected to be there for a long time and this plan is a bit more flexible and upgradable (with some pain, though Ottawa seems to be surviving) in 30 years.

 

[ssiguy2]

The problem is that London is still stuck with the at grade CN at Richmond & Oxford and is only getting $500 million of infrastructure as opposed to the $800 million it wanted.