News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

ARG1 said:
Trust me, it would've probably been slower as an LRT.
Click to expand...
It is going the wrong way for it to have worked.. Also, it was not close enough to me for it to have worked as well. There are things like this that you need to accept about suburbia. That is why focusing on the downtown and the closer parts and the parts that are large fare generators is the key.
 
The fact that you think transit planning for a city of half a million should be based entirely on your commuting experiences (mostly in the GTA) and the opinion of a few relatives in London, says a lot.

What other multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects should we just ignore good engineering and design practices for?
 
kEiThZ said:
The fact that you think transit planning for a city of half a million should be based entirely on your commuting experiences (mostly in the GTA) and the opinion of a few relatives in London, says a lot.

What other multi-billion dollar infrastructure projects should we just ignore good engineering and design practices for?
Click to expand...
I noticed you have not said you were from or lived there and whether you used transit or not in London.

Actually, my commuting experiences are all over Canada, well, at least in 3 provinces.....and 7 different places.So, no I don't have a vast experience, but I have a good grasp on the challenges commuting by transit in Canada.
 
ARG1 said:
No it isn't. Abandonment is the major sign of urban decay. Even the ugliest of ghettos are still a representation of life, its less of a question of existence as much as it is a question of how much of a city they take up. San Francisco is a massive L when it comes to ghettos and being ugly when it comes to the amount of Ghettos - and even then the last thing I'd call san francisco is in a state of "urban decay" or "lifeless". On the other hand, when most of your offices are abandoned and unused - that's a much bigger sign that something is truly wrong with your city. It means your city no longer holds any economic power, and is reliant on external forces to remain sustainable.

Define what you mean. Fine is definitely underselling it. Its definitely an extremely usable local transit network - and is a great example for the rest of North America to follow, the importance of service compared to infrastructure.

???

What route doesn't have enough frequency for the demand? The only thing I can think of is maybe certain streetcar routes, but even then we just ordered 60 new streetcars in addition to the existing 20 we have.

?????????????????????????????

I have absolutely NO idea what you're trying to say here.

A lot of cities were leveled, and while it did do a lot to improve transit, it in no way is a requirement - and those cities are proof of that. Most european cities already had massive transit networks prior to WW2 - especially cities like Vienna, Berlin, London, and Paris. They were building tons of transit even before they were leveled, and post WW2 only saw a moderate increase of transit construction overall.

This has nothing to do with the war...
Click to expand...
San Francisco is 10x more walkable and a lot more aesthetic than London, Ontario is, and is one of the most aesthetic cities on the continent...
 
micheal_can said:
I noticed you have not said you were from or lived there and whether you used transit or not in London.

Actually, my commuting experiences are all over Canada, well, at least in 3 provinces.....and 7 different places.So, no I don't have a vast experience, but I have a good grasp on the challenges commuting by transit in Canada.
Click to expand...

The fact that you don't get there's a world of transit systems (usually better) beyond Canada says a lot.

I already discussed my personal experience with transit in London. But I've also lived in 4 countries on two continents, lived in 4 provinces, and been to 9 provinces. Including traveling to a dozen countries on 4 continents. I've had my fair share of interaction with both good and bad transit. And here's what I say: I'm not a transit engineer. I listen to the guys that do this for a living and try and understand their rationale to have informed discussion.

Edit: Forgot New Zealand. Make that 5 continents.
 
Last edited:
kEiThZ said:
The fact that you don't get there's a world of transit systems (usually better) beyond Canada says a lot.

I already discussed my personal experience with transit in London. But I've also lived in 4 countries on two continents, lived in 4 provinces, and been to 9 provinces. Including traveling to a dozen countries on 4 continents. I've had my fair share of interaction with both good and bad transit. And here's what I say: I'm not a transit engineer. I listen to the guys that do this for a living and try and understand their rationale to have informed discussion.

Edit: Forgot New Zealand. Make that 5 continents.
Click to expand...

I have used the following systems, outside of the places I have lived.
Vancouver
GO
Montreal
Boston
New York
Norfolk/Hampton Roads
Jacksonville
San Diego.
Honolulu

I have yet to get to Africa, Europe, Asia and Oceania.

The problem is that the politicians do not listen to transit engineers, but instead listen to their base. So, if your base is car centric, you are not going to see changes that will actually do any good.
 
micheal_can said:
The problem is that the politicians do not listen to transit engineers, but instead listen to their base. So, if your base is car centric, you are not going
Click to expand...

Arguing that politicians should pander to their ignorant base, against the advice of experts, is not the insightful stance you think it is.

Also, transit advocates who claim to be better educated on these issues should definitely not be pandering to the public.
 
Luckily London didn't go with the "look Mom, I have LRT too!" mantra that many cities have which is usually based upon penis envy than sound transit planning.

Anyway, the LRT debate is over and even if London were to get a cool billion for one, it would still never fly. Western doesn't want it, Richmond Row merchants don't want it, and the downtown would fight it tooth and nail...............it has already been pulverized by endless construction and 2 years of COVID and the downtown vacancy rate has soared. London is awash with empty store fronts and the last thing they need is yet more years of construction for an LRT that won't be any faster than a bus.

The challenge for London is to try to serve Western and the booming northern suburbs and I think the only way to do it is to follow the CP rail corridor.
 
Just because a city has a rail system doesn't mean it has a good transit system. Rail also does not equate to better service or faster speeds. Torontonians are about to discover that when Eglinton & Finch LRTs open up and they find that they aren't moving any faster than the bus they replaced.

Londoner want good transit and the BRT system will provide that. One also has to look at the cost advantage of BRT. Is it better to have a small LRT serving fewer people or a much larger BRT system for the same price serving tens of thousands of more people and hundreds of more destinations? Also, the LRT/streetcar advantages over buses have been greatly reduced it the last few years.

BRT systems now offer the fast boarding of LRT with low floor accessible entry/exit, advance stations, and real time arrival. The vehicles are also vastly superior as they are completely wheelchair accessible, smoother riding, and very importantly electric which offers far faster acceleration, a much quieter ride, no pollution, and better ability to climb steeper grades than the traditional. Due to being electric the cost savings of electric LRt and diesel buses has been greatly reduced. Due to larger buses, they also have the carrying capacity of streetcars. China has deployed electric double articulated buses on their many BRT systems and the buses are 28 meters.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Just because a city has a rail system doesn't mean it has a good transit system. Rail also does not equate to better service or faster speeds. Torontonians are about to discover that when Eglinton & Finch LRTs open up and they find that they aren't moving any faster than the bus they replaced.
Click to expand...

I agree. That means the LRT has to be designed right.

ssiguy2 said:
Londoner want good transit and the BRT system will provide that. One also has to look at the cost advantage of BRT. Is it better to have a small LRT serving fewer people or a much larger BRT system for the same price serving tens of thousands of more people and hundreds of more destinations? Also, the LRT/streetcar advantages over buses have been greatly reduced it the last few years.
Click to expand...

So, let's save money but crate more sprawl onto prime farmland? Remember, some of Canada' fertile land is around the London area. In the last 10 years, s I have watched huge chunks of land become single family homes and big box stores. BTT will only make it more desirable to live out in these new subdivisions. Buy building something smaller, but over all better where it is put in, it will become desirable to live closer to it and to the inner city.

However, if you want sprawl to happen, then BRT is the way to go. Just ask Ottawa about the greenbelt supposed to be the edge of the city.....

ssiguy2 said:
BRT systems now offer the fast boarding of LRT with low floor accessible entry/exit, advance stations, and real time arrival. The vehicles are also vastly superior as they are completely wheelchair accessible, smoother riding, and very importantly electric which offers far faster acceleration, a much quieter ride, no pollution, and better ability to climb steeper grades than the traditional. Due to being electric the cost savings of electric LRt and diesel buses has been greatly reduced. Due to larger buses, they also have the carrying capacity of streetcars. China has deployed electric double articulated buses on their many BRT systems and the buses are 28 meters.
Click to expand...

Articulated buses do not do well in snow. Ottawa has proven this, and is one of the reasons to going double decker, which then killed people by hitting a station infrastructure.
So, we can model London's RT of of something that has shown many flaws, or we can model it after something better.

I know, crap is the method we will choose.
 
One only has to travel to Norfolk, Detroit, Milwaukee and Cincinnati to see an LRT system moving less than 5,000 riders a day. Then there is Tucson that is less than 8,000. They all offer 15 minute service. We can add Buffalo to the mix. Phoenix.is the only system moving more than 15,000 a day through low density.

Don't recall what the numbers are for KW line and not happy with the line,

Ottawa has been a nightmare since proposed as well today. Had issues when we were in Ottawa in Aug.

Need to use the right technology based on current numbers as well 25 years from now.

As much as I support LRT, London will be over kill for it

I even have issues with Hurontario line due to stops locations and going off route, let alone if the loop happens.

Given the fact London only has a few articulate buses, better off using DD buses with stations built for them for a BRT system.

My experience is based on riding 26 systems in Europe, no less than 60 systems in the US and a dozen or so in Canada. Then there are systems I have seen in the US and Canada first hand.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top