News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 30K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.9K     0 

Haljackey

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
636
Reaction score
428
I love how London is now only building the two most useless BRT legs of the original plan, while the busiest corridors will continue to operate in mixed traffic. Just excellent planning all around.

I mean ya... but at least
tumblr_lgedv2Vtt21qf4x93o1_40020110725-22047-38imqt.jpg


-----


The reasons why the south and east legs were approved is that they run on their own new lane- no existing car lanes will be eaten up, and that they provide transit connections to London's industrial lands in the east and south.

The downtown loop was a surprise pass, but at least that sets up the possibility of new routes in the future. Also this funds a lot of infrastructure work below street level that desperately needs to be replaced/upgraded.

Many voters last election were pissed that the councilors they elected pledged to be anti-BRT and yet voted for these routes. There could be some revenge votes this time booting these councilors out... we shall see.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 25, 2016
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
1,854
I love how London is now only building the two most useless BRT legs of the original plan, while the busiest corridors will continue to operate in mixed traffic. Just excellent planning all around.

Which legs were going to be in mixed traffic?

So these voters want less rapid transit? The feds and QP should send that money to Hamilton or KWC instead.

I feel it is more about dieting. The votes don't want to lose lanes for them to drive in.
 

robmausser

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 16, 2013
Messages
3,829
Reaction score
5,907
The west leg had BRT running in mixed traffic right in the middle of the route, not at the end. The stretch on Wharncliffe you see here- the purple dashes- was the mixed traffic portion.

before-and-after.jpg
.

The route nixed-
west-connection-brt-london.jpg



While not the best, gotta start somewhere. Maybe in time that mixed traffic area could have been fixed up.

In all LRT/BRT maps for London, its always 2 lines that run as "L" shapes and meet in the middle. One would naturally make two intersecting straight lines, but I always see it like this instead.

Is there some kind of service pattern reason for this? Do people more often than not want to go South and then East and North and then West?

Just wondering why this always is the conclusion for the routing.
 

Haljackey

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 12, 2010
Messages
636
Reaction score
428
So these voters want less rapid transit? The feds and QP should send that money to Hamilton or KWC instead.
Yep. London's a do-nothing city for the most part. We said no to provincially funded highways and now we're doing the same to the province/feds with half of the BRT route. We say no a lot, which means our tax dollars spent for the upper tiers go elsewhere in the province/country.

Ideally we should have approved the full route as LRT and sent to the upper tiers for funding. They'd probably come back with a hybrid or full BRT offer instead, and we should have just taken that.

Which legs were going to be in mixed traffic?
Just the west leg had mixed traffic running on a N/S stretch of Wharncliffe Road. As others have stated it could be been routed on another road or perhaps have a lane taken out for BRT but it was because of this mixed traffic segment that it failed to pass a vote for construction. I think they should have done it and then eventually built a proper route for the mixed traffic part in the future.

The East leg has a long-term proposal to extend the route in mixed traffic to the London Airport. A full separated BRT lane isn't needed here, but I'd like to see it get built to at least Clarke Road one day.

The South leg also has a proposed mixed-traffic extension from White Oaks Mall to the Highway 401 Interchange, connecting to a proposed park-and-ride lot. This one I want to see as a full separated BRT lane hopefully and the Wellington/401 interchange should have enough room on the overpass to support an extra BRT lane each way.

In all LRT/BRT maps for London, its always 2 lines that run as "L" shapes and meet in the middle. One would naturally make two intersecting straight lines, but I always see it like this instead.

Is there some kind of service pattern reason for this? Do people more often than not want to go South and then East and North and then West?

Just wondering why this always is the conclusion for the routing.
This I can't answer. Maybe it was just logistically easier to make 2 L's rather than a N/S and E/W route? I also find it kind of surprising the two lines that will still exist with half the route built. I think the two half Ls should just become one 'backwards' L.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 25, 2016
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
1,854
Yep. London's a do-nothing city for the most part. We said no to provincially funded highways and now we're doing the same to the province/feds with half of the BRT route. We say no a lot, which means our tax dollars spent for the upper tiers go elsewhere in the province/country.

Ideally we should have approved the full route as LRT and sent to the upper tiers for funding. They'd probably come back with a hybrid or full BRT offer instead, and we should have just taken that.

With what they have done in K/W, it wouldn't surprise me if they would have approved 1 LRT line to start.

Just the west leg had mixed traffic running on a N/S stretch of Wharncliffe Road. As others have stated it could be been routed on another road or perhaps have a lane taken out for BRT but it was because of this mixed traffic segment that it failed to pass a vote for construction. I think they should have done it and then eventually built a proper route for the mixed traffic part in the future.

The East leg has a long-term proposal to extend the route in mixed traffic to the London Airport. A full seperated BRT lane isn't needed here, but I'd like to see it get built to at least Clarke Road one day.

The South leg also has a proposed mixed-traffic extension from White Oaks Mall to the Highway 401 Interchange, connecting to a proposed park-and-ride lot. This one I want to see as a full separated BRT lane hopefully and the Wellington/401 interchange should have enough room on the overpass to support an extra BRT lane each way.
Mixed traffic is not rapid.
 

ARG1

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 28, 2020
Messages
2,029
Reaction score
4,986
City:
Toronto
With what they have done in K/W, it wouldn't surprise me if they would have approved 1 LRT line to start.


Mixed traffic is not rapid.
It's not rapid, but that doesn't mean that improvements can't be made to make it more rapid. Viva Blue doesn't have dedicated lanes throughout its entire length (in fact less than half), yet it still gets the rapid designation via (admittedly weak) TSP, all door boarding, off board payment, longer stop spacing, etc.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 25, 2016
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
1,854
It's not rapid, but that doesn't mean that improvements can't be made to make it more rapid. Viva Blue doesn't have dedicated lanes throughout its entire length (in fact less than half), yet it still gets the rapid designation via (admittedly weak) TSP, all door boarding, off board payment, longer stop spacing, etc.

I am not against improving services, just don;t call it rapid. Call it express as that is more what it is like.

Whenever I look at this thread - I see "missed opportunity" - so disappointing knowing the province was going to pay for an LRT

It reminds me of the mess of the K/W and Hamilton plans that has seen one built and one planning to be built. Eventually, London will have a wonderful LRT system that will work well for the city and the citizens. Maybe this municipal election will be the one that changes things enough that an LRT happens sooner than later.
 

tmlittle

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
197
Reaction score
294
I am not against improving services, just don;t call it rapid. Call it express as that is more what it is like.



It reminds me of the mess of the K/W and Hamilton plans that has seen one built and one planning to be built. Eventually, London will have a wonderful LRT system that will work well for the city and the citizens. Maybe this municipal election will be the one that changes things enough that an LRT happens sooner than later.
Yeah, as a KW resident it's very easy given a few years to see the downsides of the LRT being "watered down" - the one way stations are irritating, the cycling facilities being cut from the plan makes LRT streets a bit of a cycling dead zone, etc. But the one thing I'm thankful of is that the alternative, a pathetic pseudo-BRT, wasn't implemented instead, or we'd likely have seen that plan watered down further until it was a slightly faster express bus mostly moving in mixed traffic, where transit improvements go to die.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 25, 2016
Messages
2,901
Reaction score
1,854
London already has express rush hour buses.

So, along those routes, improve the services,like POP on board, less stops for those routes, more frequency, lane queue jumping, etc.Even then, adding bus lanes would be prudent as needed.

Yeah, as a KW resident it's very easy given a few years to see the downsides of the LRT being "watered down" - the one way stations are irritating, the cycling facilities being cut from the plan makes LRT streets a bit of a cycling dead zone, etc. But the one thing I'm thankful of is that the alternative, a pathetic pseudo-BRT, wasn't implemented instead, or we'd likely have seen that plan watered down further until it was a slightly faster express bus mostly moving in mixed traffic, where transit improvements go to die.

Sounds like a mixed success. Some good, but some bad. I wonder if they could make the one way section a loop of it's own? Or even have some trains loop back using it.
 

tmlittle

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 25, 2019
Messages
197
Reaction score
294
View attachment 418983
In an alternate reality where Metrolinx buys the Guelph sub, Id like to see 30 min trains stopping at Fanshawe and the Airport
This is absolutely the kind of thinking we need approaching the 2030s for what the next step to push for is. Especially in terms of being like, regional Ontario cities have had a big population influx, lots of it sprawl, and how can rapid transit happen in that situation. In Waterloo Region, Kitchener and Waterloo have both sprawled out pretty much to their municipal boundaries and a lot of development is shifting to small towns. I think development of proper regional systems would be good - you can see cases like Simcoe LINX, but it's totally egregious there isn't more of a regional system around London, given its size and significance.
 

Top