[GreatTallNorth2]

I wanted to start a thread on London Transit, mainly dealing with future plans for the system. I don't know about you, but I am a little underwhelmed by London Transits future plans. They are talking about Bus Rapid Transit, but really it is just enhanced bus service. No right of way and no stations. Anyways, I thought I would share a letter that I wrote to our mayor, our controllers, city councillors and LFP editor and the responses.

Dear Annie Marie Decicco Best,

I wish to inform you that London, Ontario is once again "missing the train" by not planning right now for a rapid light rail transit system. Just look at every other city in Ontario our size or larger and you will find that they are in the planning stages and beyond in building rapid light rail systems in their cities. Take for example the cities of Kitchener/Waterloo/: this area has been planning a light rail system for several years now at the cost of $300 million. It will probably be in operation in five years or less.

http://transitea.region.waterloo.on.ca/

Where will Kitchener get the money to build this system, you ask? The province has committed to paying two-thirds the cost of building it and the province is asking the federal government to pay for the balance. That means the entire capital cost of Kitchener's light rail transit system will be paid for by the upper levels of government. Similar projects will take place all over the province in Toronto, Mississauga, Hamilton and York Region. All of these projects are being funded by a government initiative called Move Ontario 2020.

http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/news/Product.asp?ProductID=1383

My question to you, Anne Marie, is this: When is London going to come up with a solid plan to build a similar system and why would you allow the province and federal government to build Kitchener a light rail system and not want the same for the citizens of London?

London Transit is in the planning stages of what they call a "Bus Rapid Transit" system. They are correct that it is a bus system, but "rapid" it is not. It is not rapid because it does not have "right of way" or dedicated roads for buses. It also does not have real station stops. The proposal I have read makes me embarrassed to be a Londoner and it will not get people out of their cars and onto transit.

I hear catch phrases used in our city such as "London is a creative city" and "London is progressive" and I have to scratch my head. The only London I know that is creative and progressive is the one across the pond.

Anne Marie, the time is now to start action on light rail. Gas prices are rising and Londoners want real solutions to our transportation problems. Tomorrow, the money will not be handed out by the province and the system we wish we had will cost four times as much. We lost out thirty years ago in building a proper expressway system (unlike Kitchener). Please ensure we don't lose out again.

Yours truly,
XXX

Response #1
Mr XXXX
Thank-you for your comments. As Ward 4 Councillor I would like to hear more about the funding by other levels of government. I think you should appear in front of the Environment and Transportation Committee to explain more. I will forward your email to the ETC secretary to contact you to set a time for your appearance if you are interested in speaking to us about this matter.

Best. Wishes

STEPHEN ORSER
Councillor, Ward 4

Response #2
Hi Stephen,

Perhaps Mr. XXXX would like to read the final report of the LTC Long Term Working Group's final report which will be coming before Council through ETC in the next few weeks. The report will also refer to funding from other levels of government and we, in fact, had a presentation from Kitchener/Waterloo last yaer about what they had done. Thanks.

Nancy
Nancy Branscombe

City Councillor - Ward 6
London, Ontario

Response #3
Dear Mr. XXX,
Greetings! Thanks for your note. Let me assure you, we have not missed the train. We are on top of it. It is a matter of timing, population, size and growth. We are getting there and are planning for it. As the Chair of the LTC I will refer your letter to Mr. Larry Ducharme, the LTC General Manager, who I noticed you copied.

If you wish to review our plans I or Mr. Ducharme or a member of his planning staff would be happy to review them with you.

Warmest personal regards,

Harold Usher, P.Eng., DTM
Councillor Ward 12
Chair London Transit Commission

[LondnPlanr]

In short, well done.

Make sure you follow up with your responses, and yes, take up Harold on his offer to review their 'plans'. Cripes, I'll join you!

Get in touch with me via personal message if you want.

[MolsonExport]

Well done. I am with you on these arguments.

[worldwide]

im just finishing up my diploma here in vancouver that would allow me to qualify for jobs as a planning assistant or planning tech. im seriously considering looking for a planning job in london, preferably with london transit, or at city hall. what do you guys think my chances would be? and do you think that a job in planning in london would be a good alternative to working out west? i really like london and i know the city very well. i would love to lern more about the city and help it progress into the future.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Well, I got a great response from Anne Marie herself. It shows that she did not read the email.


Response from Mayor Anne Marie
Hi XXX:

In fact, we have supported efforts and plans with our colleague cities for rapid transit between the Windsor to Quebec corridor. I agree, it is the way of the future, and hopefully, both the provincial and federal governments will work toward building it.

Sincerely,

Anne Marie DeCicco-Best
Mayor

[flar]

I've never had high hopes for transit in London. So many of London's little club of "leaders" simply don't care about public transit.

[worldwide]

hahaha that is too funny GTN2

[FazDeH]

You know I've been as questioning of Londons leadership as most on this forum, but I've actually had a chance to sit down and talk with the Mayor recently, and one thing I asked her was about transit as I use it, and the area of the city I live in doesn't have good transit coverage.
She said the city does have a short term plan to expand coverage and that an LRT line is something they are considering, the expense for such a project however is why they have kept it simply on the city planning room floor.
That statement resulted in alot of questions from me, mostly about inovation and partnership with the private sector to reduce the cities finacnial commitment to which I got a big "well that's something we've been considering" . I have to admit that the conversation left me still with questions, but sadly the mayor had to continue serving tables. It's really funny having the mayor of the city bring you a beer, if any of you want to exeperience that you should try Friday Night Lights, Saturdays shes there and its generally slow so she actually has time to chat, and she didn't seem to mind as I tried to be as polite as possible without saying "Why is the city doing NOTHING to prepair for the future?!"

[GreatTallNorth2]

I am sure that Anne Marie is a nice person. I talked to her several years back and she was indeed friendly. The problem, however, is that she does not possess the qualities of a leader.

After she emailed me, I sent her a response telling her that she did not read my message properly. She then sent me another email (yesterday) saying that she misunderstood my original message, but that Nancy Branscombe was looking into the situation regarding transit. Contrast that with Kitchener's mayor. He has been at the forefront leading Kitchener to a place where LRT is probably going to happen soon. Our politicians are not stepping up and making noise about good transit. They don't even know what good transit is. Instead, we spend our time talking about the small, petty issues at City Hall.

[MolsonExport]

The city definitely needs a change of leadership and vision.

[ssiguy]

I think the first thing london Transit should do is extend the late-night routes. Midnight is ridiculous especially for a university/college town like London and we live in a much different world than 1970.
Not all routes have to be later but maybe the 10 busiest or so running til atleast 1:30, preferably 2:00, epecially on the weekends.

[FazDeH]

^^^ I completely agree about extending the bus schedules. I could think of at least 4 or 5 bus routes that the city should have late hours for. I think it would be a cheap substitution to cabbing for the public, lets face it, if you go downtown on a Friday or Saturday night, getting home is the last thing you want to worry about, but there are so few options. And I think it would help reduce the problem of drinking and driving, so the police would have less to worry about.
Major bus routes should have a last bus leave downtown by 2:30am, I think that would be really well recieved. The Richmond, Oxford east, Kipps, Wellington, Westmount to name afew. Basically the most used student buses, maybe even at a reduced rate... something to think about.

[worldwide]

the 9A and 9B whitehills should run until midnight instead of finishing at ~7pm and no service on sundays.

and then the 6 richmond could just turn into the 9C at UWO from midnight to about 2 or 3 am

also the 19 should run a bit later than it currently does, and the 17 needs much more frequent service.

[ldoto]

Wed, May 28, 2008


London commuters frustrated with parking downtown will soon have a new option.

The City of London and London Transit have joined forces to offer a $50 monthly park-and-ride pass.

Beginning June 1, Londoners will be able to park their vehicles at a municipal parking lot located north of Dundas Street and take a bus downtown.

“The city has a supply issue of long-term parking close to the core area,” said Larry Ducharme, general manager at the London Transit Commission.

Long term means parking a vehicle for eight hours, or the length of a work day.




Commuters can leave their car in one of the two parking lots with access from English Street, Elizabeth Street, Adelaide Street and Queens Avenue. They can then board a bus on Dundas Street between English and Ridout Streets on routes 2 Dundas, 7 Wavell and 20 Cherryhill anytime from Monday to Sunday.

A London business manager said the program should help the weekday parking crunch downtown.

“Anything that can alleviate the problem of parking downtown during the week is positive,” said Bob Usher, manager of the Covent Garden Market and London Downtown Business Association board member.

Participants will be issued a special parking and transit pass. They will be able to claim the federal tax credit for the bus pass portion of the expense.

The park and ride will be a pilot program for a few months to gauge interest. The pass will be continued if there is a good response, said city parking manager Shane Maguire.

The program was motivated by a 2006 city parking study that highlighted a need for more long-term parking downtown.

“A number of long-term parking spots in the downtown have been lost in the last year to construction and other development,” said Maguire.

The park-and-ride may have spin-off benefits for the surrounding Old East area. The manager of the Old East Village business improvement area said she will be watching the program with interest.

“It remains to be seen if the people parking their cars will come into the Old East commercial corridor,” said Sarah Merritt. “Anything that brings people into the area can only be of use to us.”

[MolsonExport]

Egads, I read this somewhere else!

[upinottawa]

If London was to build a light rail line, from where to where would it run? If the light rail vehicles were to run in mixed traffic there would be more options than if the vehicles were intended to run in separate lanes. However, if the LRVs operated in separate lanes (and I do not mean grade separated), the system would be more effective and could draw better ridership numbers.

That being said, I could not imagine London politicians (and the electorate) supporting the coversion of two lanes on Richmond, Dundas or Oxford to exclusive use by LRVs. Also, I could not imagine London politicians supporting a line from downtown to UWO/Masonville (such a line would be heavily used during the 26 weeks of university classes, but would receive light traffic during exams and the summer).

Anyone have in mind a proposed route that could be politically feasible?

[Koolfire]

If London was to build a light rail line, from where to where would it run? If the light rail vehicles were to run in mixed traffic there would be more options than if the vehicles were intended to run in separate lanes. However, if the LRVs operated in separate lanes (and I do not mean grade separated), the system would be more effective and could draw better ridership numbers.

That being said, I could not imagine London politicians (and the electorate) supporting the coversion of two lanes on Richmond, Dundas or Oxford to exclusive use by LRVs. Also, I could not imagine London politicians supporting a line from downtown to UWO/Masonville (such a line would be heavily used during the 26 weeks of university classes, but would receive light traffic during exams and the summer).

Anyone have in mind a proposed route that could be politically feasible?

Yes, It would be a matter of making a deal with CN. Their lines would give you access to the South, Northwest, NorthEast (Airport and Fanshawne if you go up Highbury and the East on Oxford to the Airport) and the Southeast. So spots are too narrow to build two tracks and a little property acquisition might be needed. It's not going to drop you off a Dundas and Richmond but a frequent bus loop would do fine. And when the time is right you build a North to Southwest Metro. Calgary's first line started with a deal with CP.

[GreatTallNorth2]

I think the best way to get light rail in London is to start with this question: how do we get the CN or CP tracks outside the city? If we could accomplish this, it would be a double blessing. We could remove the headaches of long trains running through the centre of the city and replace them with light rail trains moving passengers in the city. This idea would take a strong willed visionary in the mayor's city...something we do not have.

[MolsonExport]

London today:
No freeways, no LRT.
Extreme amounts of development on the periphery.
Dead-end major arteries (Wellington, Sarnia Road, Gainsborough/Windermere)

London tomorrow:
Gridlock.

[manny_santos]

I think the best way to get light rail in London is to start with this question: how do we get the CN or CP tracks outside the city? If we could accomplish this, it would be a double blessing. We could remove the headaches of long trains running through the centre of the city and replace them with light rail trains moving passengers in the city. This idea would take a strong willed visionary in the mayor's city...something we do not have.

There is a proposal that was produced in the 1970s that would have routed freight rail traffic outside of the city, and created rapid transit corridors. One copy of it can be found on the main floor of Weldon Library. Very interesting stuff, which also included various road widening proposals - some of which have YET to be built!

[upinottawa]

Even if it was feasible (boy would it be expensive to convince one of CN or CP to abandon its tracks), I wonder if light rail on London's current rail corridors makes any sense. Many of the major population areas of the city would not be served by such a system.

That leads me to think that light rail would need to be at grade on major roads in order for the investment to be successful and to be approved. However, as stated above, it would be a difficult sell to remove lanes for cars on Richmond, Oxford, Dundas, etc. Light rail could work on Wellington Road South (as the street is wide enough), but unfortunately the neighbourhoods south of Commissioners are very suburban and not very transit oriented.

Looking at the current LTC map, the following appear to be the largest corridors served by LTC:

- Downtown to UWO/Masonville (Richmond or Warncliffe/Western)
- Downtown to Fanshawe (Dundas or Oxford)
- Downtown to White Oaks (Wellington)
- Downtown to Dundas East (Dundas)

It does not appear as if any of those corridors would be well served by light rail on existing tracks.

Some one better versed in these things may have a different take.

[Koolfire]

Even if it was feasible (boy would it be expensive to convince one of CN or CP to abandon its tracks), I wonder if light rail on London's current rail corridors makes any sense. Many of the major population areas of the city would not be served by such a system.

That leads me to think that light rail would need to be at grade on major roads in order for the investment to be successful and to be approved. However, as stated above, it would be a difficult sell to remove lanes for cars on Richmond, Oxford, Dundas, etc. Light rail could work on Wellington Road South (as the street is wide enough), but unfortunately the neighbourhoods south of Commissioners are very suburban and not very transit oriented.

Looking at the current LTC map, the following appear to be the largest corridors served by LTC:

- Downtown to UWO/Masonville (Richmond or Warncliffe/Western)
- Downtown to Fanshawe (Dundas or Oxford)
- Downtown to White Oaks (Wellington)
- Downtown to Dundas East (Dundas)

It does not appear as if any of those corridors would be well served by light rail on existing tracks.

Some one better versed in these things may have a different take.

I'm not saying for CN to abandon there tracks. Just asking to build in there right of way. Let them have one track so they can make local deliveries and let VIA rail still come downtown. CN would probably look at a proposal that would include new track that bypassed the city as it would be an operational improvement from not having to slow down when entering the city.

Second I suggested that the Northeast route at Highbury to go North to Fanshawe and head East on Oxford to the Airport as there is enough space without having to demolish buildings.

Third the south line will go right by the hospital. There it could go west to Wellington by building the line just south of Commissioners Road.

Dundas east can be served by spur off the Northeast line at Highbury that follows CP's right of way east. This is assuming that Southeast line isn't enough service for that area.:rolleyes:

I already said that a line to UWO would be the last to be built as it would have to be a Subway. There is no space anywhere to build a dedicated LRT ROW on the surface.

Keep in mind that LRT is meant to be the backbone of a transit system. It's not going to serve small corridors well as stops are usually more then 1 km apart. One stop is meant to serve 3 ,4 or more communities.

[SlickFranky]

I've often thought the same thing; that London should be putting serious effort into getting those trains to route around the city. But whenever I whip out a map, the rail lines really don't go to the right areas for a LRT system. As one would expect, they spend most of their time in semi-industrial areas, and even where they intersect major streets/avenues it's not usually in the right spot. And you guys are right, many of our major arteries cannot spare a lane of traffic for transit r.o.w. So in the end I'm not too surprised we haven't had a heavy push for any sort of rail transit.

So I'm thinking now, maybe our arrangement is better suited to a commuter-rail / park-n-ride system. I'm picturing a small scale setup, maybe 6-10 total stops. With a system like that in place, St Thomas will want access. From there...who knows, maybe we could get seasonal/weekend service to Port Stanley again.

Only if the lines were available of course...which would cost a fortune. Maybe all I really want is better regional rail...either way, those freight trains are in the way, and I would still support moving them south of the 401.

[Koolfire]

I drew up a map with possible stations that are within 10 minute walk (from centre of circle to the black line) and 20 minute walk or about 3 minute bus ride (green line). The red line is LRT that would us CN track.

All that is missing is North and a Southwest line to get about 75% or more of London within 20 minute walk of a station. Some of the neighbourhoods on the fridges are just not going to have good coverage.

http://i247.photobucket.com/albums/gg138/koolfire_ssp/london.jpg

[FazDeH]

I would personally be on board for the idea of light rail, but given the present restrictions, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
**Koolfire, your plan is really ambitious. Keep in mind that much larger cities only have 1 or two lines servicing the most heavily trafficed areas of town. Take Edmonton for example, even now with the expansion project on the LRT they will still only have one line.
I agree with you regarding the concept that we need LRT, but I think for maximum use the lines would need to be from Masonville down Richmond connecting to Wellington to Whiteoaks, and then eventually from Dundas east at Argyle to either downtown or further west. with bus connections at all stops.
At present we need to consider simple ideas. For example during rush hour, and lets face it, rush hour is BAD in London, we could have carpool dedicated lanes only. It's drastically reduced traffic in other cities because of the reduced number of cars on the road.
Something else I've seen out west was reversable lanes,. for example, Oxford,... during high traffic times, 3 lanes could be devoted to one direction of traffic instead of two. The same could be done on Commissioners, Wellington, Highbury and Adilade.
Other ideas could be as simple as ride discounts on buses during busy times of the day, unless a person has a bus pass, in which case some sort of compensation could be made.

[upinottawa]

Koolfire: I like your spirit, however I cannot imagine such a system ever being approved.

Faz: I think your ideas -- especially regarding reverseable lanes -- are reasonable and should be considered.

On the transit end of things: it would be interesting to see more "express" services like the UWO Express (does this still exist) that provides some limited stop service. It would also be good to see buses have some priority at intersections.

Unfortunately, light rail will be a difficult sell in the near future.

[Koolfire]

On the transit end of things: it would be interesting to see more "express" services like the UWO Express (does this still exist) that provides some limited stop service. It would also be good to see buses have some priority at intersections.



The 6 and 13 became express in the morning when it got full.:haha: I remember so many times getting on at Mills st and after the Oxford stop it was too full to take anymore passengers so it didn't stop till Campus. LT should consider a route that goes from UWO to Fanshawe. I had lots of friends that always had to transfer at Oxford and Richmond.

As for my plan being ambitious, I was thinking that would be a built out system in a time span of 30 years or so after the first shovel goes in the ground. Expanding each line accordingly. Both Edmonton and Calgary had some idea of were future expansion was going to go. I'm just trying to give an idea of how a fully built out system on existing tracks would look like.


I also was toying with the idea of letting the LRT run in Mixed traffic on Waterloo up to CP's line from downtown then take the CP line over to Pratt's Lane. (I recall that the townhouses there are owned by the University. If they are maybe a little push from students and alumni might make the University donate the needed land.:cheers: ) From there head north to Western Road and either run it along Western Road or through campus. Then continue up the western side of Western Road till Richmond then cross to the east side for Richmond near were Richmond and Western meet and take it up to Masonville.

[FazDeH]

***Upinottawa, there are no express lines, but I think they would be a really good idea running from hub to hub. As for priority at intersections, the LTC is actually installing electronic devices on the buses that will change the lights, the same concept as emergency services vehicles.
Maybe something we might be overlooking is lane priority, instead of commiting a lane of traffic on a major road to just mass transit, maybe a concept of buses come first,... double or triple buses with limited stops travelling down the road, where bylaw a car in front has to move aside, that in conjunction with the "intersection flashers" would make for a very speedy travel time from any corner of the city to downtown. How hard would that be? Pass a bylaw, purchase several larger buses and have the flashers installed. We could even go H2 powered to be green. They could also integrate this whole park and ride program, instead of driving from westmount or masonville to downtown, go to the mall hop on a direct service bus that will get you there in 5 minutes. I think that would be a much cheaper and easier transit fix.

[ldoto]

People in the west end of London who'd like to be bussing it instead of taking the car are in luck.

The LTC is expanding two west-end bus routes in August.

Sections of the 19 Oakridge and 20 Cherryhill lines will be replaced with extended routes bringing more Hyde Park-area residents into the fold. They've been asking for service for a while, now.

Other areas in the city that don't currently offer bus service will be getting it in the coming years.

Bus routes are scheduled to be expanded to Summerside next year, and Lambeth in 2010.

[Koolfire]

People in the west end of London who'd like to be bussing it instead of taking the car are in luck.

The LTC is expanding two west-end bus routes in August.

Sections of the 19 Oakridge and 20 Cherryhill lines will be replaced with extended routes bringing more Hyde Park-area residents into the fold. They've been asking for service for a while, now.

Other areas in the city that don't currently offer bus service will be getting it in the coming years.

Bus routes are scheduled to be expanded to Summerside next year, and Lambeth in 2010.

I'm always amazed that people will complain about not having service but choose to live out there. :koko:

[upinottawa]

From today's London Free Press:

Moving forward on public transit
By Paul Berton

In terms of long-term transportation planning, London isn't exactly on the cutting edge.

We lag Kitchener-Waterloo, to name just one nearby example, in presenting a comprehensive transportation master plan that targets public transit and is aggressive enough to attract federal and provincial money -- money that is readily available.

Some cities are already well on their way to building inner-city light rail systems. It will be some time yet before London has a plan for a bus system that addresses the realities of the 21st century.

But with the cost of gas, automobiles, repairs, parking, land, road building and time spent in congestion all skyrocketing, there's no time to lose in catching up and offering Londoners better and more convenient alternatives to the automobile.

London's transportation master plan, completed in 2004, was really a plan for roads. The London Transit Commission did a master plan in 2006, but the two need to be integrated. That was the purpose of the long-term growth working committee, which looked at the big picture and reported to council recently.

Now London needs a new transportation master plan that could dedicate some of the money previously aimed at road widening to beef up public transit.

"The London Transit Commission has gone as far as they can with the budget we've given them," says Coun. Nancy Branscombe, who headed up the committee. "We need to get the public engaged, we need a cultural change."

A cultural change indeed. There will be those who say the system isn't good enough, so they're not going to use it; and others who say we must use the system first if we are ever to improve it.

Light rail systems are prohibitively expensive. That's fine if they're being used well, like, say, GO Transit in Toronto, because of the money they save on other infrastructure.

But we may have to take baby steps here first with buses and graduate to something more efficient. We may need bigger buses, express buses and dedicated lanes, and they are no doubt coming along with other improvements already announced by LTC .

But what we need more than anything, as Branscombe says, is a cultural change, a new way of thinking, an acceptance that public transit is not as cumbersome as too many of us believe.

[ssiguy]

That's very true but I wouldn't hold up GrandRiver Transit as a panacea. It ridership level is exactly one half of London's. Actually, when compared to other mid-size cities in the country London does very well.

HOV, express buses are a good idea and I think one prioity is to extend the hours of operation. No service past midnight is absurd.

[manny_santos]

The transit system in Columbus, Ohio is purely a system of local bus routes and express routes. The more I think about it, the more I think London might be best served by a system like Columbus - however I don't know how well the system in Columbus works. Anybody have any insight?

Assuming that it is a good idea, I think that all major neighbourhoods throughout the city (Oakridge, Byron, Masonville, etc.) should be served by at least one express route. Not to say that there should be one separate route for every neighbourhood, you would have one route for example that would start in Byron and go to the airport via Oxford Street, with stops at Hyde Park, Wonderland, Wharncliffe, Richmond, Quebec, Fanshawe College, and Clarke.

[miketoronto]

The London Transit Commison serves almost the same number of riders each day as the transit system in Columbus, Ohio. It should be noted that the Columbus system serves a larger population base, and also a larger central city with much higher amounts of jobs downtown, than London.
So that should tell something that London's ridership is already at about the same level.
Also London moves two to three times the % of people each day by transit, than Columbus.

London should just do like Edmonton does. In Edmonton, buses operate into transit centres at major malls, etc. During peak hours, many buses after entering the transit centre, operate non stop to downtown Edmonton and also the area universities, colleges, and West Edmonton Mall.
Buses mostly operate on a 30 minute timetable and are timed to meet at the transit centre.
There is then a high frequency route that opereates between these transit centres and major areas like downtown.
Seems to work well in Edmonton and it arrested a ridership decline that was happening there.

[MolsonExport]

I'm always amazed that people will complain about not having service but choose to live out there. :koko:

well, people make choices like that for a multitude of reasons. I live in NW sector (Hyde Park) but while I value transit, it ranked far down my list of priorities, which were:

1. quality of housing for price
2. neighborhood quality/price
3. accessibility to UWO (employment)
4. accessibility to services and shopping
5. educational facilities for children
6. recreational options (not that much currently, but it is a short drive to Grand Bend)

[ssiguy]

What about London doing a "BLine" type service?
Just on about the busiest 6 routes with articulated buses, stops about every km, all entry boarding on POP basis. Proper shelters, running every 5 minutes all day long and these could be the only buses in the system that run til maybe 2AM? It has been VERY successful in Vancouver and the 98BLine to Richmond say an 70% increase in ridership and 40% of those riders were new to transit.

[manny_santos]

I was reminded today of why I'm not happy to be back in this city. I was waiting for a 17 Oxford West bus on Oxford east of Wharncliffe (which runs every half hour), at a clearly signed temporary stop due to the construction along Oxford. I was waiting with a middle-age woman and two elderly women.

When the bus finally showed up - after sitting in front of the Alibi Roadhouse plaza for about four minutes - it kept going by without stopping, even when I waved my arms.

The middle-age woman called London Transit, mentioned the two elderly ladies (who had already ventured off the sidewalk onto the construction area to catch this bus), and you know what they told her?

The driver was told to skip certain stops because he was running behind!!!

We pay sky-high taxes for this. Just re-affirms my sour attitude about being back in this city after being in Mexico City for over three weeks. Here I pay $1.90 per ticket for this lousy service, while down there I paid 17 cents CDN to use the subway and 42 cents CDN to use a bus - both very reliable. Shame.

[DB_in_Cbus]

You're just in luck - I lived in London for 4 years and now am in Columbus. Columbus and London are very similar is a lot of ways, but where they differ greatly is the highway system. You're never more than 2 miles from a freeway in Columbus, so getting around the city is very easy. Add that to the fact that the city is very laid-out (London is much dense, and the neighbourhoods run together), and public transit is basically a non-option for most of the population. Public transit has an advantage in London because there are no highways, so most times there's little time difference in taking a bus or taking a car (unless you're going to Hyde Park, or somewhere else equally distant).

There's also a strong stigma against public transit in most mid-sized American cities. It's seen as something that poor people do, and poor people are "natually" criminals, so many people see using public transit as an outright danger. I don't agree of course, but many of my friends do.

I've noticed very little difference in the bus system between London and Columbus. The busiest Columbus route is even the number 2! The crosstown buses here would be the equivalent of the 2 or 13 in London. The local routes run every 1/2 hour or less, too, so it's very similar to London.

Interestingly, there's a movement in Columbus to either bring back a street car or Light Rail. I really think though, because of the highway system (you can get form downtown to the outer suburbs in 15 minutes), it simply wouldn't fly. London is much more primed for light rail simply because of the lack of highways.

[manny_santos]

London Transit continues to have poor service. The following is a Letter to the Editor I have had published on lfpress.com (http://www.lfpress.com/).

In my travels I have used public transit systems in Toronto, Mississauga, Brampton, New York, and Mexico City, in addition to London. London Transit has, by far, the most awful level of service.

On June 15, I finished my work shift at Western and went to catch my usual 10 Wonderland bus. I had to walk slightly further to the stop because of construction. I was right on time for the bus and was running for it, but the driver pulled away without even letting me on.

In a city like Brampton or Mississauga, one must only wait a few minutes for the next bus. In London, it's half an hour. I am just lucky I was not trying to get to a job interview.

We pay sky-high taxes in this city for such a poor level of service. Shame on the City of London for not taking steps to develop a real transit system like Kitchener-Waterloo is in the process of doing. Hopefully future generations will not make the decision I have made to leave London once I am done school because of the lack of progression on mass transit here.


So far there's one comment, agreeing with me. Between this and what happened earlier in June, I'm just about ready to throw up my hands with London Transit.

There's also a strong stigma against public transit in most mid-sized American cities. It's seen as something that poor people do, and poor people are "natually" criminals, so many people see using public transit as an outright danger. I don't agree of course, but many of my friends do.

I think there is some stigma against public transit in London as well, although the socioeconomic types of people you see are vastly different from one route to the next. You've got relatively well-behaved Western students and Fanshawe students on some routes (emphasis on relatively), and on others you've got angry people who yell at their wives on their cellphone.

I also think there is less stigma against public transit in cities where it is faster to get somewhere by taking public transit than driving. London is certainly not such a city.

P.S. Come to think of it...I guess I'm not the only person on this forum who works at Western either.

[ldoto]

London Transit cleared the road yesterday for a dramatic expansion by breaking ground on a satellite bus facility on Wonderland Rd. S. The $19-million garage and maintenance building will be able to handle 100 buses, half as many as the current fleet. LTC general manager Larry Ducharme said the building would help expand the volume and efficiency of service, combined with the introduction of new technology.

"We are at capacity and with the rate of growth we see for ourselves we need this new facility," said Ducharme. The building is being paid for by a $10.4-million provincial grant and an $8.6-million federal grant. Both contributions came from increased gasoline taxes dedicated to improving transit services.:cheers: :cheers:

The LTC now has 192 buses, seven more than the official capacity of the existing storage and maintenance facilities. The LTC plans to add 100 buses by 2024 when it has set a goal of increasing annual ridership 30% to 28 million. The building will be located in the opposite corner of the city from LTC headquarters at Highbury Ave. and Brydges St. Ducharme said the new satellite location on Wonderland Rd. near Wharncliffe Rd. is in a fast-growing area.

"As the city grows west and this area requires more service, this makes a more strategic starting point for the buses," he said. Ducharme said the LTC will soon launch a new Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service he described as "light rail without the rail". He said the BRT buses will be larger and travel express routes between major destinations in the city. He said the BRT service would eventually travel on designated lanes. Now that it can track buses with GPS, Ducharme said, London Transit is introducing more new technology to improve service.

Automatic voice response will allow riders to call the LTC and find out when the next bus will arrive at a specific stop in real time. The same service is becoming available on the LTC website and through mobile applications. Buses en route will be able to send a signal to delay or extend signal traffic lights to speed up service.

[ldoto]

Transit plan includes GO trains :D

Tue, September 15, 2009

'It is a different way of thinking' :yes: :yes:

A four-line streetcar route shaped like a cross, with downtown London in the centre and the arms reaching north, south, east and west.

Two rectangles of bus routes intersecting those streetcar lines. GO trains heading east and west, and light rapid transit rail heading to smaller centres.

And all along the routes, people-friendly streets with commercial, retail and residential development built at key connections.

An ambitious plan unveiled yesterday at city hall turns the idea of London's transit system on its head.

Instead of buses and streetcars being an afterthought to development, the transit system would actually determine where and how the city grows.




"It is a different way of thinking," city planning and development manager John Fleming said yesterday after a short presentation to politicians. "We use transit as a way for sparking growth and attracting investment."

The plan, called an urban structure plan, is a long way from being implemented.

The city's planning committee merely commented on the plan and referred it to several other city agencies, such as the London Transit Commission, for comment.

"I like what we're trying to do, but most of us won't be around when it happens," Cont, Bud Polhill said.

"We are just beginning the discussion," agreed city planner John Fleming.

But it's a discussion Londoners should have, he added.

Cities across the U.S. are using the same principals to guide development in their major activity centres and residential neighbourhoods, and link the two, said London's urban designer, Sean Galloway.

In Toronto, all you have to do is look down from the CN Tower to see where the thriving, mixed-density neighbourhoods rise -- at the subway stations that lead to the core, he added.

Mixed residential-retail and commercial neighbourhoods would thrive in London where the streetcar, bus and rail lines intersect, Galloway said.

In London, the major centres of activity include the downtown, the University of Western Ontario, Fanshawe College, the hospital campuses, the airport, Innovation Park and, at the centre, the downtown.

The transit system would move people within London, and to London.

"Downtown should be the centre of Southwestern Ontario and we need transportation that allows that to happen," Galloway said.

[manny_santos]

I wonder what routes they're looking at for this. I still think the 1973 plan should be used in part, including use of the CP Rail corridor.

[ldoto]

CITY PLANNING: Some believe how Londoners get around will determine how the city grows

By JONATHAN SHER

Last Updated: 9th November 2009, 9:39am


With hundreds of millions of dollars in development at stake, politicians and bureaucrats have begun to debate how Londoners should move around in future and how the city should grow.

Already, some advocates of cars, buses and light rail seem on a collision course.

Deputy Mayor Tom Gosnell dismisses the idea the city should consider building a light-rail passenger service to stimulate development along rail corridors. Light rail, he said, is for cities with populations near one million, not smaller cities like London growing at a snail's pace.

"Light rapid transit -- our grandchildren can worry about that," he said.

His comments come as the city embarks on a year-long effort to plan transportation needs for the next 20 years. Citizens will be invited to weigh at 6 p.m. tomorrow at Western Fair's Carousel Room.

Such city planning is done every five years. But this time there's a twist -- a growing belief the choices made about how to move people affect how the city grows.

That change in focus is being pushed by city planners who see transportation as a tool to create vibrant communities where homes, retail and services are all an attractive walk away.

Planner John Fleming and urban designer Sean Galloway point to Charlotte, N.C., where 6,000 residential units have been built or are proposed near stops of its two-year-old light rail system.

"(Transportation planning) is not just about meeting existing needs. We need to look to the future," Fleming said.

But it's clear not all have the same vision.

Gosnell questioned whether city hall should be directing development.

"How much involvement will there be for the private sector on where they want to invest?" Gosnell asked.

Coun. Paul Van Meerbergen said city hall needs to focus more on maintaining and expanding roads already too burdened by traffic.

"The belief that most families will use transit is not realistic," he said.

Also concerned is a commissioner at London Transit, Coun. Harold Usher.

London Transit wants dedicated traffic lanes for express buses -- rapid bus transit -- and the preferred routes and nodes in which they intersect are different than shown on a map of light rail drawn up by city planners.

"(Bus rapid transit) -- that's what the public is thinking," Usher told city planners last week.

Those differing views make a challenge out of creating a transportation plan, said the official with that role, city road chief Dave Leckie.

"There is paradigm shift to make streets more into people places rather than just a conduit for vehicles," he told the city's community and protective services committee.

"I'm not sure where to take it through the transportation master plan . . . I'm struggling with how much weight (this) has from council."

Where some see conflict, Fleming sees a chance to discuss how choices about transportation will shape London's growth and its neighbourhoods. Though the map created by planners isn't a blueprint, it's a starting point.

"Light rail transit would be a major benefit to the city. It makes sense to phase it in," he said, adding there could be a transition from express buses to light rail.

Unlike motor vehicles, a train channels people to specific and limited places. And where it stops, there's the potential to build an exciting mix of homes, business and public space where people want to live, work and play.

"It can attract significant (private) investment," Fleming said.

Though buses stop, too, their routes can change overnight -- and that lack of permanence doesn't create incentives for investors.

Where buses stop will be different, too, Galloway said.

A bus might stop at a mall to serve the flow of shoppers, but Galloway sees that as a poor choice for a train. He wants stops in places where pedestrians -- not cars -- are king.

"London is at a critical moment, moving to the next phase of becoming a bigger city," he said.

That step -- building a light rail passenger service -- has been already taken by regional rival Kitchener-Waterloo and may be taken as soon as January by Hamilton.

Kitchener-Waterloo, which began planning in 2002, plans to spend $790 million, and hopes upper government funding could enable service to start in 2014.

Hamilton is expected to decide soon whether to create a line for express buses or a light rail.

If London is to compete with its own vibrant neighbourhoods, light rail should be part of that evolution, Fleming said.

He has a supporter in Coun. David Winninger.

"I don't think we can wait until we have 800,000 people to be well-positioned for the future," he said. "If we don't start planning now, the train will have left the station."

jonathan.sher@sunmedia.ca

-- -- --

HIGH SPEED RAIL LINES: Hoped-for route between Windsor and Quebec City.

LIGHT RAIL: Colour-coded, red the highest priority; others are brown, blue and orange. Could begin as express bus routes. Rail option could be streetcars or light trains.

GRAND AVENUES: Streets without light rail, pedestrianfriendly with treed medians, large boulevards with double tree rows, wider sidewalks and street parking.

EXPRESS BUS ROUTES: Routes that loop though the city.

GO TRANSIT RAIL LINES: Commuter trains connecting outlying municipalities.

[manny_santos]

There should be no further outward geographical growth of this city. There are just going to be further transportation problems if we keep letting the city expand outward, and if we keep catering to developers who insist on building residential developments with huge lots and commercial developments which do not facilitate pedestrian access. Just because soccer mom families like these developments doesn't mean we should allow them. Infill needs to be used extensively as well.

One example is the intersection of Wonderland and Riverside. That southwest corner should have commercial development on it. There was a group led by Monica Jarabek who opposed the development, but it would've provided a pedestrian-accessible shopping area for an area that has no other commercial development, especially as one goes westward on Riverside. Residents in that south part of Oakridge are forced to drive in order to get basic services. That land is otherwise wasted. True, we need green spaces in London, but there are plenty of green spaces nearby closer to the river.

It's bizarre how the so-called environmentalists in London don't want pedestrian-friendly commercial development in residential areas. I'll never forget Gina Barber's pleas to not allow Tim Hortons in Byron almost a decade ago, even though its addition has made the chain pedestrian-accessible in the north part of Byron. People in Byron used to drive to other parts of the city and back just to get a Tim Hortons coffee, but now they can either walk there or drive a short distance.

The city has got to start permitting more small commercial development in otherwise residential areas. Part of the transportation mess exists because people like myself who live in a huge low-density residential area have to drive just to get groceries or other basic services. There need to be more areas like Wortley Village all over the city. If people could work and shop close to where they live, no matter where they live in urban London, they wouldn't need transportation.

Once traffic patterns are changed, then we might have a need for mass transit other than anything that would serve Western and Fanshawe.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Is anyone going to the public meeting at Western Fair tonight (November 10th)? If so, we should meet up.

[MolsonExport]

The city should explore streetcars. This past summer, I was in Oslo (city pop 600K, metro 1.5 million), and I was amazed with the variety and quantity of mass transit options. Streetcars can utilize existing streets, while moving greater quantities of people faster and perhaps farther in greater comfort, than rapid bus, but at a lower cost than light rail.

[ldoto]

Yellow cars challenging mainstays
TRANSPORTATION: London Taxi will soon be the largest cab company in the city, its co-founder says



Customers who call London Taxi will find drivers committed to service because they own a share of the company, co-founder Hasan Savehilaghi said.

"This is their company."

Customers won't notice a difference in fares because city hall sets them.

London Taxi will have more than 40 yellow cabs in service by week's end and soon more than 100 vehicles of the 300-plus plates whose number is capped by the city.

"We are going to be, in very short order, the largest cab company in London," Savehilaghi said.

For seven years, he had headed a coalition of drivers called the London Taxi Association that claims to represent 400 drivers. There are more drivers than cabs because a typical cab is operated round-the-clock by multiple drivers.

The association was formed to improve the industry and the lives of drivers, but those goals were impeded by companies focused solely on profits while placing most costs and risks on drivers, Savehilaghi said.

Owners of plates and those who drive pay for vehicles, maintenance, insurance and gasoline and face the risk of assault, he said.

The two companies, Aboutown Ltd. and U-Need-A-Cab, only cover the cost of dispatching calls, Savehilaghi said.

"That's the major reason why we formed the co-op."

The co-op is owned by 19 cab drivers and 31 owners of taxi plates, a number that might expand as more drivers and owners join the company, Savehilaghi said.

His claims were challenged by the family that's owned Aboutown Ltd. since the 1970s.

"I entirely reject that our drivers are not treated with respect," Aboutown vice-president Jamie Donnelly said.

Aboutown has the city's largest and longest-standing fleet -- about 170 cabs -- and has been at the forefront of improved service for customers and safety for drivers, he said.

Officials with U-Need-A-Cab couldn't be reached.

Savehilaghi says London Taxi will end a practice followed by Aboutown that had the company charge reduced flat rates to clients such as Canada Post, the city's hospitals and to customers who use the company's airport shuttle service.

That practice squeezes precious dollars out of the pockets of drivers, he said.

The new company will also charge drivers less each week for its dispatch services -- $100 weekly compared to $130 to $140.

Donnelly defended the lower flat rates as a common industry practice and private deals that aren't governed by the city bylaw.

[manny_santos]

I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion on the topic, but...what is everyone going to do if LTC goes on strike next week?

My coworkers are trying to set up carpools since many of us rely on LTC to get to work. Where I live, LTC is a must if you don't drive.

I guess Anne-Marie doesn't really want to get re-elected next year. Her stance on this issue has been disgraceful. On the bright side, a friend of mine at Western wrote Susan Eagle about the whole situation and she at least seemed willing to lobby others on Council to take action.