Written by: Mike Rice
Evaluation Process; the role of the environmental assessment, is to recommend preferred corridors and technologies.
Corridor Level Screening; i) develop long list of alternatives, ii) define corridor assessment criteria, iii) define detailed assessment criteria.
Preferred Corridors; i) develop a network of alternatives, technology revisited, ii) network assessment, define network criteria à preferred network, iii) Argyle Dundas East was 8th on the list, because of low employment density and growth and low congestion.
The evaluation process has led to preliminary corridors. These connect major destinations across the city. Rapid transit approaches may not look at each corridor.
Design will be based upon road width, target spreads for transit vehicles, cost, environmental and cultural heritage consideration.
Focus Areas Downtown
The two areas need to connect at a single, convenient transfer point, while servicing major destinations; train, bus station etc. The area has unique challenges and opportunities which require further study and input. The CPR crossing on Richmond St. is a barrier, a narrow road width, existing buildings, the river nearby, which lead to constraints with the available options.
Construct rapid transit tunnel from north of Central Ave. to north of Oxford St. This would allow vehicles to remain on schedule while freight trains cross.
Old East Village; the area is a “
main street” with narrow roadways and buildings built to the edge of the sidewalk, that create a distinct character.
Two-way rapid transit on Dundas St. leaves little room for traffic movement and parking.
King St. is an established major cycling corridor, eastbound which should be maintained.
Queens Ave., within the area is predominately residential. This is not suitable for rapid transit.
Western University; is the largest transit trip destination in London. Providing a central stop location on campus is important to maximizing coverage. The university master plan recognizes that rapid transit as an important tool for managing parking demand.
Rapid Transit Elements
Can carry 15,000 passengers every hour in each direction
Is confined to its track so it requires more people in “transfer” mode.
Can cost $40 to $100 million per route kilometer
Is a smooth fast ride and is perceived as an attractive choice by riders.
The permanency of rails provides assurances to the developer that the transit will stay.
Vehicles can be joined.
Requires a new maintenance and storage facility.
Bus Rapid Transit
Can carry up to 10,000 passengers in each direction.
Vehicles run primarily in dedicated lanes, but can operate in mixed traffic.
Has the flexibility to operate outside of dedicated lanes.
Vehicles are high capacity, accessible and offer comfortable seating.
Shops and Stations
The LRT and BRT stations and stop locations share many of the same characteristics. The permanency of stations and running way provide assurance for the development along the corridors.
By: Mike Rice
1) Modified radial network
· Committed to major destinations
· Focused on frequent transit network
· Limited transfers
· Routes may be less direct to all pedestrians
2) Grid based network
· Reduced downtown focus
· More direct routes
· Increased number of transfers
· Requires 10 – 15 minute headway on grid routes to facilitate transfers
· Can be inefficient use of resources.
Service Standards to consider
· Design criteria, route directness
· Service levels, proximity to services
· Service quality, effectiveness
· Efficiency, financial performance
· A five year service plan
· Build on the existing network
· Focus on frequent transit network and strategies
· Address immediate issues and opportunities
· Allocate 7,000 new revenue service hours
· Restructure or eliminate routes to match productivity targets
· Minimize impact on existing ridership
· Save 4,000 annual service hours and re-invest in the system
· Reduce duplication on corridors that do not require high levels of service
· Save about 10,000 hours annually
· Eliminate route 7 and re-adjust route 2A and 22
· Eliminate duplication on routes 24 and 16
Some proposed route re-structures
· Identify and re-structure routes where ridership is low
· Save 29,000 hours and return and enhance the system
· Route 1 terminate downtown
· Branch route 17 at Hyde Park Rd because of the demand
· Branch route 2A / 2B at Highbury Rd
· Branch route 6A / 6B south of downtown
Simplify the network
· Separate branch routes where they have little to do with the main route, example route 2C and 1B
· Enhance connections to key destinations, example at Argyle Mall
Expand Express Routes
· Expand on routes 90 and 91, and add 92
· 92 will go from Masonville to Victoria Hospital, via Adelaide St.
· 92 frequency will be 10 minutes at peak hours, 20 minutes mid-day.
Expand new residential and commercial services. Extend existing routes 3A, 24, 31, 34, 40.
Enhance weekday peak and base periods. Address overcrowding and enhance service on base arterial roads. Build ridership, 10 to 20 minutes peak service hours.
Improved Sunday Service
· New service on routes 9A, 9B, 19, 22, 24, 25, 31, 32, 35, 38, 39.
· Increase service frequency on routes that have 60 minute headway
· Start at 7am
· Improve Saturday services on many routes.
2019 Recommended Network Plan
o New and restructured routes
o Weekday and base improvements
o Off peak improvements
o Extended service hours on Sunday mornings, weekday evenings and Saturday evenings.
o All of the above are to be phased in by 2019. A major re-structuring of routes 2A and 25 is to be done in 2016. Ten minute service is to occur in the core of the city. Outside of the core, the service will be 20 – 30 minutes.