News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

BRT related announcement tomorrow?

Media Advisory: Infrastructure Announcement in London - Canada.ca

Members of the media are invited to an infrastructure announcement with Peter Fragiskatos, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities and Member of Parliament for London North Centre; Arielle Kayabaga, Member of Parliament for London West; Prabmeet...
www.canada.ca www.canada.ca
 
A major zoning review is underway in London at the moment, proposing to amend building height limits in 3 types of Protected Major Transit Station Areas (PMTSAs), following the addition of Richmond/Oxford and 100 Kellogg as transit villages. The changes are as follows:
  • Downtown-Type Place (downtown core) - revised height limits in TSA5 Zone (20s), TSA6 Zone (45s), and TSA7 Zone (45s);
    • TSA5 is defined as the peripheral edge of the downtown core, TSA6/TSA7 are defined as the central areas of the downtown core.
  • Transit Village-Type Place (Oxford/Wonderland, Wellington/Bradley, Oxford/Highbury, Richmond/Fanshawe Park, Richmond/Oxford, 100 Kellogg) - revised height limits in TSA3 Zone (15s) TSA4 Zone (30s);
    • TSA3 is defined as the peripheral edge of a transit village, TSA4 is defined as the central area of a transit village.
  • Rapid Transit Corridor-Type Place (Oxford Street, Wellington Street, Richmond Street, Dundas Street, and a small section of Western Road) - revised height limits in TSA1 Zone (15s) and TSA2 Zone (25s);
    • TSA1 and TSA2 define specific streets, with TSA2 also applying within 150m of a rapid transit station within the Rapid Transit Corridor-Type Place.
Mixed-use buildings are also going to be permitted generally in all three of the PMTSAs. They have also included some maps in the application. They did not actually label which specific TSA Zone is which, which is really annoying. This will have some pretty major implications for development along the under-construction and future proposed rapid transit corridors, but I ultimately don't think it is appropriate or ambitious enough to have a height limit of 45s in the downtown core. The downtown core zone itself is also something I consider a bit too small, I am of the opinion that it should be extended north to connect with the Oxford/Richmond transit village and east toward Adelaide. Also, interestingly, the rapid transit stations map shows proposed stations along Western Road, which means they might also be considering a future BRT branch up Western Road alongside the Richmond Street leg.

PMTSA1.png

PMTSA2.png

PMTSA3.png

PMTSA4.png

PMTSA5.png
 
City of London is considering changing the designation of where the future North BRT corridor is going to be located, switching it to Wharncliffe/Western Road instead of utilizing Richmond Street north of Oxford. I personally think this is the right move since Richmond north of Oxford has lots of houses fronting out onto the street, and the road allowance is very narrow. Building a proper BRT on that corridor would involve a lot of expropriation for road realignment, and would likely meet more resistance. The Wharncliffe/Western Road corridor is much wider, the road is less awkward, and it would run right through the middle of Western.

The deputy mayor has also stated in the article that they are looking to explore additional BRT corridors, including suggestions of an East BRT extension along Oxford to YXU, and a longer West BRT corridor along Oxford to West 5 (Oxford/Westdel Bourne). They are looking to leverage the annual federal transit funding that is supposed to come online in 2026 (provided a potential new government doesn’t immediately remove this funding).
 
Last edited:
ericmacm said:
City of London is considering changing the designation of where the future North BRT corridor is going to be located, switching it to Wharncliffe/Western Road instead of utilizing Richmond Street north of Oxford. I personally think this is the right move since Richmond north of Oxford has lots of houses fronting out onto the street, and the road allowance is very narrow. Building a proper BRT on that corridor would involve a lot of expropriation for road realignment, and would likely meet more resistance. The Wharncliffe/Western Road corridor is much wider, the road is less awkward, and it would run right through the middle of Western.

The deputy mayor has also stated in the article that they are looking to explore additional BRT corridors, including suggestions of an East BRT extension along Oxford to YXU, and a longer West BRT corridor along Oxford to West 5 (Oxford/Westdel Bourne). They are looking to leverage the annual federal transit funding that is supposed to come online in 2026 (provided a potential new government doesn’t immediately remove this funding).
Click to expand...
Sadly they won't use both corridors. The Richmond one would allow expansion to Masionville easily. Warncliffe and Western Rds makes sense.
 
micheal_can said:
Sadly they won't use both corridors. The Richmond one would allow expansion to Masionville easily. Warncliffe and Western Rds makes sense.
Click to expand...
The Wharncliffe/Western road corridor will still allow for this - Richmond and Western intersect north of the campus and from there it is just a short trip up to Masonville, which they are still planning as the terminus of the North BRT. It wouldn’t really be any different than what will happen at Highbury/Oxford on the East BRT corridor.

The Richmond corridor has less options for TOD, there are too many houses along the road, and they would also have to reconstruct the bridge over the Thames. It would come at a much higher cost for lower gain.
 
As it currently stands, existing bus service between Western U and downtown London that use Richmond seems to be a few mins faster than comparable routes down Western Rd/Wharncliffe. At only 5km, I would say the opportunity for meaningful time savings of dedicated lanes would be somewhat limited. The city should really think about if they want to pour money into a Wharncliffe BRT which would be less direct and basically provide comparable travel times to existing mixed-traffic routes on Richmond.

To meaningfully reduce travel times for Western students/staff, it may make more sense in this case to just do some targeted transit priority measures along Richmond, while beefing up the service frequency to reduce wait times.

On the other hand, one advantage of the Wharncliffe alignment would be that riders on the future West London BRT travelling to Western U wouldn't need to travel into downtown to transfer onto the northbound BRT route, and instead could transfer at Oxford/Wharncliffe.
 
ericmacm said:
The Wharncliffe/Western road corridor will still allow for this - Richmond and Western intersect north of the campus and from there it is just a short trip up to Masonville, which they are still planning as the terminus of the North BRT. It wouldn’t really be any different than what will happen at Highbury/Oxford on the East BRT corridor.

The Richmond corridor has less options for TOD, there are too many houses along the road, and they would also have to reconstruct the bridge over the Thames. It would come at a much higher cost for lower gain.
Click to expand...
Fair point.
For TOD, generally,I have seen smaller lots bought up one by one and then something bigger built on them. London is still coming to grips with being a big city and planning for that future. Reminds me of Mississauga.
 
The north leg won't happen unless the BRT can run on it's own lane. The old Wharncliffe plan had it running in mixed traffic on it's way to downtown. Western Road was recently widened to 4 lanes, so people either need to accept losing that new lane to the bus, or widen again which would need a rail overpass replacement that was just replaced ~10 years ago.

I need to see the routing, and what they plan to do with the mixed traffic section on Wharncliffe before I am waking up to reviving the extremely disliked north leg.
 
Haljackey said:
The north leg won't happen unless the BRT can run on it's own lane. The old Wharncliffe plan had it running in mixed traffic on it's way to downtown. Western Road was recently widened to 4 lanes, so people either need to accept losing that new lane to the bus, or widen again which would need a rail overpass replacement that was just replaced ~10 years ago.

I need to see the routing, and what they plan to do with the mixed traffic section on Wharncliffe before I am waking up to reviving the disliked north leg.
Click to expand...
Is it any better than going up Richmond?
 
micheal_can said:
Is it any better than going up Richmond?
Click to expand...
I assume yes since they're trying again with this route?

Running the north leg up Richmond would have lost a lane for sure, and that was extremely disliked by pretty much everyone. Richmond also has a rail level crossing near Oxford Street where super long, slow freight trains block the road, messing up travel times and schedules. A underpass was looked at for the LRT plan but dismissed due to cost and construction complexity. The BRT plan kept the level crossing, and again pretty much everyone disliked that.
 
The original idea of having LRT/BRT up Richmond was so stupid one knows hardly where to start.

The LRT would have required digging up Richmond Row and demolishing several old buildings in the process. RR is the city's premier shopping, restaurant, and nighlife area and would have destroyed many of the businesses along the route. The tunnel was needed to get under the rail crossing near Richmond. The BRT wouldn't have a tunnel and therefore was at the whim of the freight line which would make the system unreliable. In both cases, Richmond, especially north of Pall Mall, all the way up to Western is far too thin.

Wharncliff/Western Rd should have been the first choice as the rail corridor has a bridge over Wharncliff and would be vastly easier to combine with a western leg towards Hyde Park which also is a more populated road with a lot of apt towers and infill opportunities. The North/West legs could have been interlined. The further expansion of the East Leg to London aairport is a good idea as the area is also home to a lot of commercial/industrial employment.
 
ssiguy2 said:
The original idea of having LRT/BRT up Richmond was so stupid one knows hardly where to start.

The LRT would have required digging up Richmond Row and demolishing several old buildings in the process. RR is the city's premier shopping, restaurant, and nighlife area and would have destroyed many of the businesses along the route. The tunnel was needed to get under the rail crossing near Richmond. The BRT wouldn't have a tunnel and therefore was at the whim of the freight line which would make the system unreliable. In both cases, Richmond, especially north of Pall Mall, all the way up to Western is far too thin.

Wharncliff/Western Rd should have been the first choice as the rail corridor has a bridge over Wharncliff and would be vastly easier to combine with a western leg towards Hyde Park which also is a more populated road with a lot of apt towers and infill opportunities. The North/West legs could have been interlined. The further expansion of the East Leg to London aairport is a good idea as the area is also home to a lot of commercial/industrial employment.
Click to expand...

The challenge is that it is surface or nothing. The other challenge is that any disruptions are bad disruptions.
There are places surface RT makes sense,and there are places where a tunnel RT makes sense. RR is an example of where it should be a tunnel. It is also a place where a TBM could be used to minimize the disruptions. But, since they are trying to do RT on the cheap, it is a non starter.
 
Using a TBM for BRT seems absurd to me.

Go LRT or full subway if you're doing that. If you were you should be tunneling through all of downtown/Richmond Row- at least from Oxford Street to York Street where the Via Rail station is makes the most sense (via Richmond & Clarence Streets).

Extensions for the approved routes are already planned.
-The east leg is going to the airport- it may run in mixed traffic for now but that's not really a problem as Oxford east of Fanshawe College isn't that busy. Eventually it can run on it's own lanes.
-The south leg will go from White Oaks Mall to south of the 401 ending at a commuter parking lot. This will also be close to the new Costco. Costco may not be that practical for transit users, but it's a cool place for carpoolers as you can pull off a Costco run while you're switching to car.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top