[GreatTallNorth2]

LTC pitches big overhaul
Thu, January 4, 2007
The $105-million proposal contains measures to make public transit preferable to cars.
By JOE BELANGER, FREE PRESS CITY HALL REPORTER

Dedicated bus lanes, special traffic signals planned.
In the biggest overhaul in its 130-year history, London Transit wants to spend $105 million over the next nine years to whisk passengers across the city faster.

The key goal is to avoid future gridlock by getting more drivers to leave their cars at home and take the bus.

"We're not asking everybody to get out of their car, but change can occur," said Larry Ducharme, LTC's general manager. "It's not pie in the sky. It's doable with proven technology and service designs. Can we influence change? Yes. If the price is effective and we match the price with quality service, we'll influence change."

The plan includes:

- A new transit system design based on key nodes -- shopping areas, major schools and businesses -- and major road corridors.



- $68 million spent on 102 replacement buses and 32 additional buses to expand service.

- Implementation of bus rapid transit, or BRT, with pickups on some routes every five minutes during rush hour, depending on demand.

- BRT routes fed by buses providing basic service in neighbourhoods surrounding shopping, business and school nodes.

- The introduction of "transit priority measures" -- some already underway -- for the BRT corridors, including dedicated bus lanes, special traffic signals giving buses a jump at key intersections and a computerized traffic signal system that gives buses priority to stay on schedule.

- Dedicated bus lanes expected on only the four corridors with the highest demand, including Richmond Street, Oxford Street East and all or part of Western, Wharncliffe and Wonderland roads.

- New bus designs and shelter facilities along BRT corridors to add comfort and make boarding easier and faster.

- A $16.5-million satellite bus facility to ease congestion at the Highbury Avenue headquarters.

"We should have started on this yesterday, but we can't, so we have to start today," said former city controller Russ Monteith, chairperson of the London Transit Commission.

Monteith said London can't wait for gridlock once there's another 100,000 people.

"Eventually, we'll get to the point where we have to do it anyway, but it will cost us more money. So the earlier we start planning the system the cheaper it will be and the better it will be."

The long-term strategy goes to the commission for approval this month.

The plan then heads to city council where it's expected a transit working group will develop a final plan with public participation.

"This may not be the final plan, but you've got to start somewhere and the sooner the better," Monteith said.

If approved, bus riders could see some changes by early next year, including the BRT.

If the strategy works, city buses would be carrying 54 per cent more passengers, or about 28 million riders a year (from the current 19 million), by 2024.

In other words, 10 per cent of all travel during London's rush hours would be by bus -- a major goal of the city's transportation master plan.

Aside from capital costs, LTC staff estimate the added annual operating costs will total about $19 million by 2024.

LTC's proposed 2007 operating budget is about $49 million with taxpayers contributing $18.3 million and the rest coming from fares and provincial subsidies.

"No matter what we do, it's going to cost lots of money because we're either going to have more people taking the bus or we're going to have to build wider roads to accommodate all the cars that will be out there," said Monteith.

Another benefit of the move is environmental with fewer cars and less air pollution.

For the plan to work, Ducharme said, the LTC needs to be involved in the city's land-use planning with policies encouraging and supporting transit included in the official plan, which is now under review.

The plan also calls for a comprehensive parking strategy that reduces the number of parking lots downtown, drives up the price and makes bus travel more financially attractive to motorists.

Ducharme said he'd like to see BRT operating on a few routes next year.

"This isn't something we can introduce in 2024," Ducharme said. "We need to introduce it this year and next or we aren't going to get where we want to be by 2024."

---

BASIC SERVICE:

Will still be provided to communities surrounding key nodes such as malls, schools and major business areas at 30-minute intervals, the same as now.

SECONDARY SERVICE:

(Oxford Street West, Fanshawe Park Road West) Provides 15-minute service during rush hour, 30-minute service at other times. Transit priority measures would include traffic signal priority for buses behind schedule and a special traffic signal at some locations so buses get through busy intersections before other traffic. It includes passenger amenities such as better shelters and larger buses.

PRIMARY SERVICE:

(Dundas Street, Wellington Road) Buses at 10 minute intervals during rush hour with one traffic lane dedicated to buses and high occupancy vehicles. Other transit priority measures could include traffic signal priority for buses and a special traffic signal so buses get through busy intersections before other traffic. It includes enhanced passenger amenities such as better shelters and larger buses.

BRT SERVICE:

(Richmond Street, Oxford Street East, Western Road and parts of Wonderland and Wharncliffe Roads) Bus service at five-minute intervals during rush hour, reduced to 15 minutes in off hours. Traffic signal priority for buses behind schedule and a dedicated buses-only lane.

[upinottawa]

^ is city hall going to cough up the money?

Even though I like the idea in principle, most of the plan will likely get shot down. Could you imagine BRT lanes on Richmond? They cannot expand the road to 6 lanes (the houses are already to close to the street in many parts of Richmand) and they cannot reduce the road to only 2 lanes for cars and 2 lanes for buses (of course they could but it would be very politically unpopular).

To be honest, most of the people I know in London would be upset by the idea that a bus would have priority over their car.

The above being said, long live the LTC (I am a UWO grad who loved his USC bus pass).

[ldoto]

:previous: This is good news if the city agrees!:shrug:

[MolsonExport]

London busses are horrible. They smell, have no seats, and constantly lurch. Not to mention, the schedules, and the asinine amount of time it takes to get from point A to point B.

[miketoronto]

The best thing Ontario could do is invest for LRT in all Ontario cities.

London, Kitchener, Windsor, Ottawa, Hamilton, should all have LRT systems in place.

Its time to bite the bullet and really build quality public transit for once again in Ontario.

[flar]

It will probably take years to get this stuff going but at least the wheels are in motion. London has some major transportion challenges. When I lived in London, the service between downtown and Western was great, but almost everywhere else had poor service, especially south on Wellington. For BRT to work, the connecting routes need to be upgraded.

Another big problem for London is that a large proportion of the population comes from smalltown SW Ontario and they really like to drive everywhere. That will become more of a problem in the future, as even now traffic is worse than when I lived there despite some road upgrades. It takes a long time to get around the city and a lot of new development is taking place along the outskirts. Obviously it will become more important to move people more quickly across the city, BRT will have to be appealing to the these people to be a success ( a tall order).

The biggest problem is the type of development. Southwest London is really sprawling in a bad way but even all the highrise apartments at (for example) Oxford and Wonderland and Westmount aren't good for transit either. The buildings are so far from the roads its like a 5 min walk to get to the bus stop. The design of Cherry Hill is much more amenable to public transportation.

BRT is the way to go for London because there is really nowhere to build an innercity freeway and traffic keeps getting heavier on the main cross-city roads.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Major LTC plan backed
Fri, January 5, 2007
Former city councillor Sandy Levin suggests council "go big'' on the system or "go home.'' Reaction
By IAN GILLESPIE, FREE PRESS CITY HALL REPORTER

A former city councillor said it's time for London to "go big or go home" when it comes to public transit.

Sandy Levin, who also served on the London Transit Commission, was among observers who yesterday lauded a proposed $105-million, nine-year overhaul of the city's bus system.

While not everyone interviewed yesterday embraced the LTC's plan for a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system, several agreed it's a good start to a debate.

"If city council doesn't accept this plan, it's not accepting a big-city transit system that's important for a creative city that is environmentally responsible," Levin said.

"The alternative is the status quo and that just means our public transit system gets worse and the traffic congestion gets worse."

The BRT system would move passengers faster across the city along major routes, using policies and technology to give buses priority on the roads and at intersections.

The aim is to entice more drivers to keep their cars at home, easing air pollution and traffic congestion and saving the city tax dollars on road widenings.

Most observers agreed the transit plan has to be debated in the context of the city's overall transportation management plan, which includes all forms of transportation and parking.

"I think it's generally a good plan and there's no doubt we need to invest more in our buses," said Gerry Macartney, general manager of the London Chamber of Commerce.

"I think the big stumbling block will be whether we can afford it or, maybe, whether we can afford not to."

If approved and the system works, the LTC says buses would be carrying 54-per-cent more passengers, or about 28 million riders a year (up from 19 million), by 2024.

In other words, 10 per cent of all travel during rush hour would be by bus -- a major goal of the city's transportation master plan.

The LTC is expected to approve the plan this month before it's sent to city council and a new transit working group in February.

For the plan to work, the LTC says it needs to be involved in the city's land-use planning.

The plan also calls for a comprehensive parking strategy that reduces the number of parking lots downtown, drives up rates and makes bus travel more financially attractive to motorists -- a suggestion Deputy Mayor Tom Gosnell says he's not convinced will work.

Gosnell, the city's budget chief, wants to spend millions of tax dollars on downtown parking garages to draw more offices to the core.

"By and large, I've always wanted significant emphasis put on mass transit and I think this report is a terrific starting point," Gosnell said.

"But you can't solve all the problems downtown with just transit. If it was that simple, it would have been solved by now. It's all about balance."

But will council -- hampered by a heavy debt load and high tax hikes in recent years -- buy into spending $49 million (its share of the $105-million capital cost) and an estimated $19 million in operating costs by 2024?

"I don't know," said Coun. Harold Usher, chairperson of council's environment and transportation committee and the LTC's vice-chairperson.

"So far, I find council one-track-minded and look at these kinds of issues in isolation. We can't look at transit alone and we can't look at parking alone."

---

REACTION

"London Transit needs to be seen as an attractive, viable and timely alternative to cars and this plan puts us in the right direction. . . . It's important to have a system that doesn't just reach people who need to use the bus but reaches those who will also use it as an alternative." -- Stephen Turner, chairperson of the city's transportation advisory committee

"I think it's pie in the sky, a classic case of putting the cart before the horse. We're suffering from terrible traffic congestion, a very poor road system as it is now and a major portion of this plan is to dedicate our major arterial roads to bus lanes. The result (of higher parking rates) would be that people simply would not go downtown. The underlying thing we have to keep in mind is the fact people are not going to leave their cars." -- Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen, who instead favours better roads and lower taxes

"If we don't get more people using the buses, we're not going to be that special, viable, creative city. One of the things we need to achieve that is a good, viable transit system that gets them where they want to go and back home, efficiently and at a reasonable cost, safely." -- Coun. Harold Usher, vice-chairperson of London Transit Commission and chairperson of council's environment and transportation committee

"If you do the math, you reduce the money the city would spend building or widening roads and invest in transit instead. Financially you're going to be ahead in the end." -- Sandy Levin, former city councillor and member of London Transit Commission

"Whether this is a plan that is going to change people's views about their cars and buses, I don't know. But we need this kind of dialogue if we're going to be one of the leading municipalities in Canada." -- Gerry Macartney, general manager, London Chamber of Commerce

[upinottawa]

I think the major problem with the plan (from a political point of view) is that the BRT proposal will require the building of new lanes for the most congested streets, i.e. Richmond, Warncliffe Road, etc.

From a financial point of view that is the worse case scenario as it would require both spending on BRT (and related technologies) and road expansion.

The real question is can an effective BRT system be implemented in London without having to expand roads?

Also, what does the LTC preceive BRT to be? Nicer buses that make fewer stops or something like Ottawa's transitway? The first option is cheaper, the second option would be more effective (although it still all comes down to dollars).

[upinottawa]

From today's Free Press:

Public transit a tough sell

Fri, January 5, 2007
By IAN GILLESPIE

We know it's the right thing to do.

But can anyone pry our fingers from our steering wheels? Can anything convince us to forsake our beloved cars, vans, trucks and SUVs in favour of public transit?

More specifically, can a $105-million overhaul and upgrade by the London Transit Commission get Londoners out of their cars and into city buses?

One local expert isn't sure.

"You've got to try and attract people to public transit," says Douglas Leighton, an associate professor in the history department at Huron University College who teaches a course about automobiles and modern culture. "It's a battle worth fighting.

"But I think it's an uphill battle," he says.

It seems silly to argue against the logic of the LTC's new proposal, which involves spending mounds of money on buses, shelters, dedicated buses-only lanes, special traffic signals and a new satellite bus facility.

Clearly, the threats posed by global warming and local gridlock are just two compelling reasons to applaud the plan. It makes rational sense.

But when it comes to our cars, we're not all that rational.

"The problem is that the motor car offers a lot of things on a lot of different levels," says Leighton. "Our cars have become cultural extensions of ourselves."

As Leighton points out, the first obstacle the LTC must overcome is the incredible convenience of driving one's car to work.

"We're all really busy," he says. "I sometimes bike, I sometimes walk and I sometimes take the car (to work), but the car is a lot faster than the other two.

"That time pressure is one thing I don't think the transit commission can really come to grips with, although it can try."

More buses will help. So will buses-only lanes and special traffic signals that give special priority to buses. (Although given the city's sporadic success with synchronized traffic lights, I'll believe it when I see it.)

But as Leighton observes, London is a city that's bisected by a river, lacks any decent in-city freeways and is plagued with roads that often narrow at key points. (And where, I wonder, is the city going to put a buses-only lane on already over-crowded roadways like Wharncliffe Road? And how in the world do our municipal leaders think they're going to increase transit use when they continue to build giant developments at the far edges of the city?)

But time and geography aren't the only obstacles.

Equipped with sophisticated climate controls, heated seats, beverage coolers, MP3 hook-ups, DVDs and the rest, the modern car has become a kind of travelling cocoon.

"The car offers a refuge for modern, harassed human beings," says Leighton. "Cars provide privacy and time-out for us. And that's what people value."

But there's a more subtle, perhaps more powerful reason why it'll be tough to convince people to leave their car at home. And that's the identity factor.

"Our cars are symbols of our success," he says. "And whether it's a rusty old beater or the latest BMW, it's a way of saying, 'I'm successful, I've arrived -- I've got wheels.' "

He's right. I've spent a fair share of my life riding mass transit and never owned a car until I was in my early 30s. But it's also fair to say that during that time, I never considered myself lucky: My main thought as I waited at bus stops, sat on subways or clung to a ceiling strap while standing in the aisle of a bus careening round a corner was that some day -- maybe when I was more successful -- I'd be driving my own car.

Others seem to agree. According to figures released Wednesday, Canadians bought more than 1.6 million new vehicles last year -- up two per cent from 2005 and topped only slightly by sales in 2002.

Are there many people who would really rather take a bus than drive a car?

I think not. And the big challenge is to change that and coax people onto public transit.

"But the question is, how do you do that?" says Leighton. "And I'm not sure having jazzier or sexier buses or whatever will do it."

[Snark]

..

[upinottawa]

For proposed BRT routes, see page 23 of the following document:

http://www.londontransit.ca/Pubs/GrowthStrategy.pdf

(unfortunately, the quality of the image is poor)

[ArchiCAD]

The best thing Ontario could do is invest for LRT in all Ontario cities.

London, Kitchener, Windsor, Ottawa, Hamilton, should all have LRT systems in place.

Its time to bite the bullet and really build quality public transit for once again in Ontario.
Why would a city like London with a 5km downtown to urban fringe radius be in need of a light rail system?

[miketoronto]

As far as I am concerned the plan is not good as it could be. 10% of commutes by transit is all they want to capture.

That to me is not enough, and really does nothing.

All our cities should be reading for much higher market shares of transit commutes then a tiny 10% which translates into not many riders or cars taken off the road.

Another thing that must happen is development has to be centred in downtown London again. If London keeps sprawling and puts all the jobs out in the outskirts, then transit will never work.

Transit only works when you got people going to the common centre. You can capture some outlying areas with good transit. But overall, people are not going to hope a bus to go from the west all the way to the east to get to work. They will take it downtwwn though.

Anyway I would like to see oru transit systems aim higher. 10% if not a good figure.

The old Metropolitan Toronto Gov for example had plan for transit. And it worked. The old METRO gov was able to get 45% of metro residents(yes even the suburbanites) to take public transit to work.

Why don't our cities today have aims that high anymore? Lets think big again.

[flar]

I wish I could be as idealistic as you Mike and agree that goals should be set high, but LRT wouldn't be feasable for London, mostly because jobs are not centralized in London. Industry is concentrated on the eastern outskirts and along the 401 to the south. Western is way north and Victoria Hospital is south of downtown along Wellington. A lot of development is occuring on the west side of London. Lots of these are those windy road subdivisions and the auto culture is strong. People living in the west and southwest often use the 401 to go around the city to the extreme east. I'm not surprised there is resistance to spending on transit. 10% ridership is a reasonable goal. The north-south corridor from Western to White Oaks is the most likely focus for BRT.

[upinottawa]

I wonder how rapid they want the service? When I attended UWO, the LTC set up the EXPRESS (was numbered internally as the 18). The Express ran from downtown to campus along Richmond. The AM Express stopped at all stops downtown on Richmond Street and made limited stops after crossing Oxford, i.e. Oxford, Cheapside, and Huron. The bus stopped at all campus stops.

The PM Express stopped at all campus stops, and at Huron, Cheapside, and Oxford (then all stops south of Oxford).

The Express was marginally faster than the 6 Richmond (although it got stuck behind the 6 and 13), but it was hardly bus rapid transit. When Richmond was jammed with traffic, the Express went nowhere.

I believe they replaced the Express with a more frequently running 6 Richmond (the 6 ran every 20 minutes during the day back then).

For service to be truly rapid, any Richmond express bus would need its own lane. Again, that may be tough to obtain and expensive to build.

[miketoronto]

I wish I could be as idealistic as you Mike and agree that goals should be set high, but LRT wouldn't be feasable for London, mostly because jobs are not centralized in London. Industry is concentrated on the eastern outskirts and along the 401 to the south. Western is way north and Victoria Hospital is south of downtown along Wellington. A lot of development is occuring on the west side of London. Lots of these are those windy road subdivisions and the auto culture is strong. People living in the west and southwest often use the 401 to go around the city to the extreme east. I'm not surprised there is resistance to spending on transit. 10% ridership is a reasonable goal. The north-south corridor from Western to White Oaks is the most likely focus for BRT.

Flar, I know it is idealistic. But is this country and its cities going to be serious about making sustainable cities and transport, or are we going to just take baby steps and not really change anything.

If our cities are serious, then they have to back public transit, and put in the proper land use plans to make transit viable.

If London is going to continue to sprawl, and everything, then all this transit investment is going to have little impact.

Cities like London had higher transit market shares in the 80's then now. And they did it with nothing bug regular bus service.

[ldoto]

Very good ideas! people:worship:

[upinottawa]

Another issue of concern: the major winners in this plan (other than the LTC) are the UWO and Fanshawe students. Unfortunately, neither group tends to vote (or influence) municipal elections.

For this project to work, the provincial and federal governments must make transit a priority. Cities the size of London (and with the car culture) are unlikely to fund any type of (real) rapid transit if they must go it alone.

[GreatTallNorth2]

I think the province and the federal government are already making transit a priority with multi-millions of dollars in gas tax being given to the cities. London is receiving lots of money specifically for capital improvements to transit which definately would include what they are proposing. If you do the math, we are talking about 10 million dollars a year in capital expenses. London is getting more than that already. The biggest concern will be whether London politicians can think outside the box and do the proper planning for this to work. I don't see this project as something that is radical for a city with a metro population of close to 500K.

[upinottawa]

The plan is not radical for a city with a metro of close to 500K, but it is pretty radical for London. Adding additional BRT/HOV lanes to Richmond, Warncliffe, Oxford, Dundas, Wonderland, and Fanshawe Park Road will involve a significant financial cost for road expansion. The ROW for Richmond, Warncliffe, and Dundas (in particular) are very tight and would not allow for additional lanes without significant expense.

I suspect that London taxpayers will not want their ever increasing property taxes to go towards additional road construction to provide traffic lanes that they cannot drive on using their cars. Remember, the gas taxes will not cover all additional buses (including normal replacement) and significant road upgrades). That being said, I could be wrong.

Now, if the federal government and the province said they would fund a BRT line (or two) in London (i.e. dedicated one time funding -- like the Ottawa LRT project), then I could see portions of this project going forward.

I support transit, but for me to become a believer in this project, I would need to see a concerted solid commitment from both the feds and the province that they will dramatically improve public transit in Ontario. Without that, I cannot see a majority of London's councillors getting on board this project.

[miketoronto]

The gas tax money is really not that much.

The Ontario gov use to pay for 70% of transit projects, before the 1990's budget cuts.

The gas tax does not even cover that much. So Ontario is spending less now then before on transit.

We are so behind now its not funny.