05-25-2015, 02:27 PM
London has spent a couple of years now talking about the possibility of BRT. The most likely candidates are the north-south Wellington-Richmond corridor (from Fanshawe in the north past the University to White Oaks in the south) and the east-west Oxford corridor. The London Transit Commission (LTC) has been operating the 90 and 91 express services, which are limited stop peak-service routines, for a while, presumably to help make a case as to why BRT is needed.
Shift London is the public consultation process launched a few months ago. The site asks for feedback on a number of different routings, but the London Free Press has more recently reported that Oxford and Wellington-Richmond are the “preferred corridors.” It seems to be the general consensus that the plan is BRT, but the possibility of LRT has been maintained. Most interesting to me from that Free Press article is the plan for a tunnel on Richmond to avoid the tracks crossing near Central Ave; that would be a huge proportion of the plan’s cost.
The proposed cost of this system is apparently $380 million, and London expects to seek provincial and federal contributions (naturally).
There are a lot of similarities between LTC and GRT. Both serve similar-sized populations, though LTC’s ridership is considerably higher. As in Waterloo, UWO (along with Fanshawe College) is a huge trip generator, and students are a huge part of LTC ridership.
But I think it differs from Waterloo in that there is no one logical corridor in which most travel occurs. I would also argue that London sprawls more than Kitchener-Waterloo does, and that, to serve enough people to get widespread support, a rapid transit system would be much longer than 19 kilometres. London is also a single-tier municipality, represented by ward councillors who might be especially unwilling to vote to fund higher-order transit in someone else’s ward. There are no regional councillors representing broader areas at large as in Waterloo Region.
For those reasons, I think that BRT would likely be the better choice than LRT in London. I’m surprised, though, that there seems to be relatively little mention of LRT. Certainly Londoners have not (yet) had the same debate about technology that happened in Waterloo.
I think it will be an interesting one to follow. The attitude in London towards transit is very typical of many smaller cities in North America: the bus is for students, and people who cannot afford cars. There is some hope that this could change with the new mayor and council, and the departure of the LTC earlier this year, but it may be a challenge to convince Londoners to pay for a big-ticket rapid transit system. Particularly when they discover it involves losing car lanes, and maybe a few front yards.
Shift London is the public consultation process launched a few months ago. The site asks for feedback on a number of different routings, but the London Free Press has more recently reported that Oxford and Wellington-Richmond are the “preferred corridors.” It seems to be the general consensus that the plan is BRT, but the possibility of LRT has been maintained. Most interesting to me from that Free Press article is the plan for a tunnel on Richmond to avoid the tracks crossing near Central Ave; that would be a huge proportion of the plan’s cost.
The proposed cost of this system is apparently $380 million, and London expects to seek provincial and federal contributions (naturally).
There are a lot of similarities between LTC and GRT. Both serve similar-sized populations, though LTC’s ridership is considerably higher. As in Waterloo, UWO (along with Fanshawe College) is a huge trip generator, and students are a huge part of LTC ridership.
But I think it differs from Waterloo in that there is no one logical corridor in which most travel occurs. I would also argue that London sprawls more than Kitchener-Waterloo does, and that, to serve enough people to get widespread support, a rapid transit system would be much longer than 19 kilometres. London is also a single-tier municipality, represented by ward councillors who might be especially unwilling to vote to fund higher-order transit in someone else’s ward. There are no regional councillors representing broader areas at large as in Waterloo Region.
For those reasons, I think that BRT would likely be the better choice than LRT in London. I’m surprised, though, that there seems to be relatively little mention of LRT. Certainly Londoners have not (yet) had the same debate about technology that happened in Waterloo.
I think it will be an interesting one to follow. The attitude in London towards transit is very typical of many smaller cities in North America: the bus is for students, and people who cannot afford cars. There is some hope that this could change with the new mayor and council, and the departure of the LTC earlier this year, but it may be a challenge to convince Londoners to pay for a big-ticket rapid transit system. Particularly when they discover it involves losing car lanes, and maybe a few front yards.