When reading over the materials on this website, I am appalled that our city politicians and planners are not talking about implementing Light Rail Transit sooner. Kitchener/Waterloo has been approved to build a light rail system and they will be BUILDING this system around 2012-2013. The entire system will be PAID FOR BY THE PROVINCE. Why is London not planning and demanding the province pay for a similar system in London pronto? Unfortunately, it is due to a total lack of vision and leadership at City Hall. What is London's excuse? Planners and politicians say that London is not large enough for LRT. That is a load of rubbish - Kitchener is no bigger than London is and they are getting funding for LRT. Both Calgary and Edmonton were building their light rail transit systems when they were the size of London. London planners and politicians simply have no vision whatsoever. They are basically refusing to take the same money that Kitchener/Waterloo is being handed. When we finally wake up to the vision of Light Rail, there will be no money handed out to build it and it will cost twice as much to build the system. Doesn't this sound like the same dithering our city did years ago when we had the opportunity to build a good in city road system? We lost and Kitchener build their excellent highway system. More dithering is London's loss.

i agree with what your saying.
we should plan for light rail now and London is far behind in planning and new ideas compared to place making ideas around the GTA.

but when i look at Kitchener and Waterloo now, there city is cut in half by a loud noisy highway, which has made the city long and narrow, caused it followed the development of the highway. just on what you said about there freeway, i see it more as a negative that i think we benefited from. i wouldn't want a highway ripping through London.

I agree to. We are too far behind and if we don't start now it will soon be too late

I am not sure too many people are complaining about the highways in Waterloo Region. I was just there and had to drive across the city. It was a pleasure to drive on. We do know that a highway is no longer possible in the city of London, but a light rail transit system is. There just has to be political vision to sell it to Londoners.

London could support a north-south light rail/subway line, to connect; Masonville, UWO, St Joesph, Oxford St, Victoria Park, Downtown, Soho, Victoria Hospital, Southdale, White Oaks Mall.

Londoners just need to be willing to plan for it.

Let's look at a few components of an efficient, easy to use transit system and who has them:

CENTRAL BUS TERMINAL
K-W: Yes, also an intercity bus terminal
London: No

SATELLITE BUS TERMINALS
K-W: Yes at every major transit hub
London: At least two

MAINLINE EXPRESS BUS
K-W: Yes, iXpress
London: No

GPS TRACKING OF INDIVIDUAL BUSES
K-W: Not available to the public
London: Recently made available

PLANS FOR LRT:
K-W: Yes
London: No

PERCENTAGE OF LABOR FORCE USING PUBLIC TRANSIT
K-W: 5%
London: 7%

Given that London has statistically higher transit ridership than Kitchener-Waterloo it's mind boggling that the city's transit system is so far behind.

At rush hour, the "expressway" is still jammed there. And Waterloo Region is a bunch of nodes of population, unlike London's ring around rings. One plan does not fit all. Once you put down rail lines, you have to hope the population around them stays or goes up (it is called transit oriented development), otherwise, it is a wasted investment. Bus Rapid Transit is much more flexible and less expensive.

Yes, I agree that every city is different, but I don't think that means that light rail doesn't work in every city. It just means that you plan the lines differently. For anyone to think that BRT is as good or better than LRT, I think they need their head examined. That's like saying taking the Greyhound bus to downtown Toronto is the same as taking a train.

The other thing you have to do is define what BRT will be in London. London's BRT plan is not BRT at all. In Eugene, Oregon, they have built EmX - a real BRT line with dedicated lanes and true stations. In Victoria they are planning the same type of system. London's BRT plans show advanced green lights and that's about it. It's hardly BRT. It has no dedicated roads and offers no real reason to get people out of their cars. Another point is that most cities that build BRT desire to convert their BRT to LRT asap. Ottawa is an example of this.

People that are against LRT really do not understand how people think when choosing transportation alternatives and this is the problem. Go to any city in the world that has LRT and you will see why people forsake their cars to get on the train. And you will see why all of these cities praise their systems. These systems are defining points of their cities. London, UK is known for the "Tube" trains. Paris is known for their "Metro". Vancouver is known for their "Skytrain". Unfortunately London, Ontario is known as a city with no vision.

To those folks comparing London and the Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge area, let us share some facts. A rough rule of thumb for considering light rail transit is a population of 900,000 people. The Tri-Cities are in the 550,000 population range and hugely influenced by the Greater Toronto Area commuter shed. It is entirely appropriate for them to be planning for light rail transit because they have a high growth rate. London, on the other hand, is just over 350,000 and experiences a very modest growth rate of about 1% to 2%per year. Looking down the road, London's growth is defined by its "Urban Growth Boundary" in the Official Plan. Full buildout within that area is expected to take from 50 to 75 years and an ultimate population of 675,000 people.

Secondly, the Tri-Cities, by their very geographical layout are 3 distinct nodes that need to be tied together and an LRT system is a practical means of doing that.

Even though 'the math' doesn't seem to be there for a London LRT, we're not giving up. SmartMoves wants to plan for the potential development of LRT routes. Like most muncipalities, the first step is an improved, express bus service. The latest lingo for this is "Bus Rapid Transit" and the London Transit Commission already has conceptual plans for this that will be scrutinized in the SmartMoves study. Bus Rapid Transit, or BRT, involvesthe establishment of key routes in the City, increasing the number of buses and the frequency, providing them a "transit advantage" by allowing them to trigger traffic signal changes, providing "queue jump" lanes to get around backed up traffic, and perhaps ultimately providing them with their own dedicated lanes or sharing "high occupancy vehicle" lanes (HOV's). Ultimately, such BRT routes could evolve into LRT routes as demand goes. A good example of such a staged approach is York Region's "VIVA" BRT system.

In the meantime, you can be assured that our colleagues over at LTC are squeezing every penny in their budget to give you the best service that they can. This is borne out by industry statistics.

"And that's the rest of the story" but we'd still love to here more from you LRT folks. Please come out to the November 10th Workshop at the Western Fair. Check this website for more details.