downtown london brt routing options · 2014-03-13 · 5. transit service routing options many of...

2030 London Transportation Master Plan

DOWNTOWN LONDON BRT ROUTING OPTIONS June 1, 2011

60114661-6945_App C_2012-02-06_Londondowntownroutes_V7.Docx

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1

2. Background ................................................................................................................... 2

3. Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 2

4. Principles of Routing / Criteria ..................................................................................... 3

5. Transit Service Routing Options .................................................................................. 4

5.1 Base Case ........................................................................................................................... 4 5.2 Option 1 ............................................................................................................................... 5 5.3 Option 2 ............................................................................................................................... 6 5.4 Option 3 ............................................................................................................................... 7 5.5 Option 4 ............................................................................................................................... 8 5.6 Option 5 ............................................................................................................................... 9

6. Option Comparison ..................................................................................................... 10

6.1 Benefits ............................................................................................................................. 10 6.2 Costs ................................................................................................................................. 11

7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 11



60114661-6945_App C_2012-02-06_Londondowntownroutes_V7.Docx 1

1. Introduction

As part of the 2030 Transportation Master Plan for the City of London, two BRT routes are proposed in

the near term to help the City achieve a transit mode share of 15% to 20%. Based on an analysis of the

various corridors of the City, a north-south route using Wellington Street to the south of Downtown and

Richmond Street to the north of Downtown was identified for the first BRT route, and an east-west route

using Dundas Street to the east of Downtown and Oxford Street to the west of Downtown was identified

as a second BRT route (see map below). Both routes would support City objectives for revitalization and

continued growth in the Downtown.

Stop/Station Locations in Preferred Transit Corridors

Source: Interim Report #2 : Towards a More Sustainable Transportation System

in London, 2030 Transportation Master Plan

March 2011

The Downtown routing of the BRT routes is important because it will have an impact on the perceived

quality and convenience of the new BRT routes and overall transit network. The Downtown is one of the

largest transit trip generators (the University of Western Ontario being the other), and so extensive BRT

coverage will be important for making these services convenient and useful to passengers, and for

achieving transit modal splits considerably higher than the current 11% . The Downtown will be the

meeting point of the proposed first two BRT routes. With investment in the supporting infrastructure for

BRT in terms of transit priority measures, enhanced shelters, sidewalks, etc., BRT may also have an

impact on urban development and, thus, attention to design will also be important.




2. Background

This memo addresses the question of what the best routings for the future BRT routes will be downtown.

Background information for this analysis came from:

Second interim report for the TMP update: Towards a More Sustainable Transportation

System in London;

Draft Downtown Plan documents;

Existing bus maps and schedules from London Transit Commission website;

Bicycle Master Plan: A Guideline Document for Bicycle Infrastructure In the City of London

March 2005;

Downtown Terminal report by Dillon Consulting; and

City of London staff review of the Dillon report.

3. Assumptions

The following assumptions were made in the development of the options and in comparing them:

Pedestrian-focus corridors are most likely to be located on Carling and Clarence, as these

streets have relatively little automobile traffic now and so the impacts on the overall

Downtown traffic network would be minimal.

Bicycle lanes are reserved on York, Colburne, Ridout, and Dufferin around Downtown.

Richmond Street will have full-time exclusive bus lanes in the curb lanes along its entire

length in the Downtown due to the number of buses projected to use it.

A new traffic signal phase for bus-only left turns from the curb lane will be needed. This will

impact any routings in which buses traveling southbound on Richmond Street and turning

left onto King, York, or Dundas; any buses traveling north on Wellington and turning left

onto York, Dundas, or Queens; or any buses traveling east on York or King and turning left

on Wellington, Waterloo or Colborne.

Routes 6, 13, and 2 are the routes most likely to be replaced by the first two new BRT

routes. The north-south route would likely replace much of routes 6 and 13 while the east-

west route would replace much of route 2.

Total transit fleet needs are the same in all options.

Operating costs of all options will be the same. While some route options may have shorter

travel times within the downtown, there would be longer travel times outside of the

downtown.

There is less congestion within the downtown core itself than on the primary arteries

leading into and out of the Downtown.

An off-street exchange is not assumed, but is evaluated for comparison purposes.




4. Principles of Routing / Criteria

The routing should create at transit presence in the Downtown, meaning that the streets designated for

transit should appear well used, and the services should be visible to as many people as possible. The

rationale behind this principle is that the more people who see the BRT services in their day-to-day

activities downtown, the more people who will use them. A related principle is that the stations should be

placed close to the trip generators and inter-city bus and rail services, the overall objective being to

maximize transit ridership and modal split for Downtown travel.

To that end, the following criteria are considered to be the most important for evaluating the

attractiveness of a routing option. Convenience, attractiveness, and safety for transit passengers is

considered the most important area, and adaptability to near- and long-term transportation plans are also

considered to be important. Traffic and parking operations, and operators’ amenities are considered to be

less important. Elements of the routing options that would have an impact on cost will also be noted. The

ability to convert the BRT routes to LRT routes in the future was not listed as a criterion because it is

believed that this option lies too far into the future to have an impact on a choice that must be made in the

near term.

Convenient, attractive, accessible and safe for transit passengers:

Proximity of stops to trip generators

Ease of transfers between BRT routes

Proximity of stops to inter-city bus and rail stations

No “splits” in route; stations serving same route in opposite directions are across the

street

Adaptable to long-term transportation needs:

Permanent pedestrian-only zones: assume that sections of Carling and/or Clarence

will become closed to motorized traffic in the long-term

Supportive of Downtown Plan and Transportation Goals:

Wider sidewalks

Temporary pedestrian-only zones; assume that Dundas will be closed to motorized

traffic several times per year for special events

BRT routes compatible with bicycle lanes

Traffic/Parking Operations

Driveway access to businesses, residences and parking

Roadway capacity for automobiles

On-street parking

Operator Amenities

Rest facilities

Capital Costs

Off-street exchange

Number of BRT stations and bus stops

New controlled intersection

Intersections with new transit signal priority




5. Transit Service Routing Options

Many of the options below are different than those presented in earlier periods of the study in that they

consider service along Oxford going west from Downtown, stop locations (shown by red and blue dots),

the use of transit signal priority (TSP), coverage provided by stations (shown by circles drawn around the

stops that indicate how far a person might be able to walk in a few minutes), and new information from

the draft downtown plan.

The Base Case is similar to the option that was presented in the Second Interim Report for the TMP

Update and which was used for estimating transit ridership through the study transportation model. Three

alternative approaches have been taken to try to improve upon this Base Case. The first approach is to

make the transit routes more direct, the second uses the one-way streets to get more space for operation

and bus stops, and the third and fourth consider refinements to better serve off-street exchange options.

5.1 Base Case

In the Base Case, the two BRT routes share two sets of stops, one near Dundas and Richmond, and the

second at Front and Wellington (close to the VIA station, which could potentially serve any future high-

speed rail station). A special traffic signal phase is needed at Richmond and York to allow for

southbound buses in the curb lane to turn left onto York and at Wellington and York to allow northbound

buses in the curb lane to turn left onto York.

Base Case Routing Pros: BRT routes avoid traffic congestion on Dundas Street

Less bus traffic on Dundas Street

Maximizes use of BRT on Richmond and the new exclusive bus lanes

There is a stop in front of the proposed high speed rail line

Good coverage of key destinations Cons: The routes are not very visible because they do not travel on the more

pedestrian-friendly streets




5.2 Option 1

This option makes the east-west BRT route more direct. There are still two shared sets of stations, one at

Richmond and Fullarton and on Dundas Street. This option may result in less free-flowing movement

because of the use of Dundas, but would gain greater directness and customer convenience. A special

traffic signal phase is needed at Richmond and Dundas to give priority for buses turning from the

southbound curb lane onto Dundas so that there is no conflict with other southbound vehicles. A special

traffic signal phase would also be needed at Wellington and Dundas to assist northbound buses turning

left onto Dundas.

Option 1 Routing Pros: There is a greater transit presence than the Base Option because the routes

use Dundas, which has more pedestrian traffic.

This options is more direct than the Base Option which makes the routing

pattern more intuitive to passengers

This option minimizes interference with bicycle routes

Cons: There may be more congestion on Dundas

There is no station that can be integrated with the inter-city bus or rail

terminals.




5.3 Option 2

Option 2 makes use of the one-way streets on King and Queens, increasing the options for wider

sidewalks and minimizing station area crowding. Many stops are still shared, but the route is “split”,

meaning that many passengers will not be able to make his or her return trip by going to the same stop

he or she got off the bus. This can create some confusion for transit passengers. In this option, transit

signal priority is needed at Richmond and King and perhaps at Wellington and Queen to assist with the

left turns.

Option 2 Routing Pros: The use of King and Queens allows for more space for bus stops

Cons: This route provides less transit presence because it is split and because it uses

less active streets

While coverage may appear to be very extensive, there may be situations

when the coverage is not ideal (e.g., when someone from City Hall wants to

travel south on the north-south line, the walk is quite long).




5.4 Option 3

In this option, an off-street exchange is located in a new north-south transit-only roadway between King

and York between Richmond and Clarence. This location allows for some proximity to the VIA station as

well as to the retail core. New transit signal priority would be needed at the intersections at Queens and

Clarence, at Richmond and King, at Wellington and York, and at Wellington and Dundas. A new

controlled intersection would also be needed at York at the southern end of the transit exchange to assist

buses exiting the transit exchange.

Option 3 Routing Pros: Close proximity to both the inter-city bus terminal and train station

Cons: Route is “split” and indirect which may create some confusion for transit

passengers

Less transit presence than a route using Dundas Street or using Richmond in

both directions

Clarence would no longer be available to become a pedestrian-only street




5.5 Option 4

In this option, an off-street exchange is placed between Carling and Queens west of Richmond. This

location is more central than the off-street exchange location in Option 3a. Transit signal priority would be

needed at Richmond and Dundas to assist with the left turns from Richmond to Dundas, as well as at

Queens and Clarence and at Wellington and Dundas, and a new controlled intersection would be needed

at Carling and Richmond.

Option 4 Routing Pros: This option provides fairly high transit presence because of its intense use of

Dundas and Richmond.

This option serves the central retail core well

This option offers direct routing and easy transfers

Cons: This option does not serve inter-city train station directly




5.6 Option 5

This option would move the north/south route and east/west route through the Downtown from Richmond

Street to Clarence Street between Central Avenue and York Street. This would require a Queue jump

lane/signal priority to the intersection of Richmond Street, Clarence Street and Central Avenue to access

Clarence Street. Clarence Street would also need to be reconnected to Richmond Street at this corner.

The east/west line would also be shifted west to Wellington Street, rather than Waterloo Street to make its

connection to York Street. This option would also require some changes to the signals/access from the

VIA Station at York and Clarence Streets.

The primary transfer points between both BRT lines and the regular service routes could occur at the

Dundas and Clarence intersection if the regular routes are not shifted to a one-way pair system using

Queens Avenue and King Street in the Downtown, or two transfer points could be established at Clarence

and Queens and Clarence and King is a one-way pair system is implemented for the regular service routes.

An additional BRT to BRT transfer point could be located on the York Street block between Clarence and

Wellington, in addition to the transfer points noted above to provide a connection to the VIA Station.

Option 5 Routing Pros: BRT routes avoid traffic congestion on Dundas Street

Less bus traffic on Dundas Street

Alignment would work with a one-way pair system for the regular routes

Would allow Richmond Street and Dundas Street to be closed for street events

without affecting service or requiring route alteration

Proposed stop at VIA Station

Good coverage of key employment destinations

Potential for future development of numerous underused parcels on the east

and west sides of Clarence Street




Cons: Routing is less visible through the Downtown, as Clarence Street not presently

as active as Richmond Street

Does not provide full coverage to entertainment designations on the wwest

side of Downtown (JLC, Market, Forks)

The geometric design of Richmond Street and Central Avenue intersection and

potentially Clarence Street is a challenge. Clarence Street is a north/south

road parallel to Richmond Street and currently does not connect to Richmond

Street but ends at a sharp angle.

6. Option Comparison

6.1 Benefits

The following chart suggests that the Base Option is the best in terms of customer convenience and safety,

followed closely by Option 5. Option 2 is the best in terms of meeting the transportation goals and needs of

the Downtown, followed by Options 1 and 5. Option 1 and Option 4 are slightly better at supporting traffic

and parking needs, and only the off-street options provide rest facilities for drivers. Given the high cost of an

off-street exchange, and the fact that they do not provide significant customer benefits over the other

options, they are not recommended for the short term. Option 2 is also discounted because of its poor

performance in terms of customer benefits. This leaves the Base Option, Option 1 and Option 5 are the best

candidates. They could be further refined to address any short-comings (e.g., further refine the stop

locations to improve proximity to trip generators) and to help select a preferred routing scheme.

Criteria

Approaches

Initially

Assumed

Routing in

Modelling

Use of

More Direct

Routing

Use of

One-way

Streets

Use of an

Off-street

Exchange

Avoid

Dundas

and

Richmond

Base Option Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

Convenient, Attractive

and Safe for Transit

Passengers

Proximity of stops to trip

generators

Ease of transfers between

BRT routes

Proximity of stops to inter-

city transit services

No "splits" in route; stations

together

Adaptable to Long Term

Transportation Needs

Permanent pedestrian

focus corridors

Supportive of Downtown

Goals

Wider sidewalks

Temporary pedestrian

focus corridors (Dundas)

Compatible wth downtown

bicycle routes

Traffic / Parking Driveway access for

businesses, residential, etc.

Roadway capacity for

automobiles

On-street parking

Operator Amenities Rest facilities

Overall Score 20 20 18 17 18 20

Legend: Strongly meets criterion .................. 3 points Somewhat meets criterion ............. 1 point

Meets criterion ................................ 2 points Does not meet criterion .................. 0 points




6.2 Costs

Criteria

Approaches

Initially

Assumed

Routing in

Modelling

Use of

More Direct

Routing

Use of

One-way

Streets

Use of an

Off-street

Exchange

Avoid

Dundas

and

Richmond

Base Option Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5

Capital Cost

Off-street exchange 0 0 0 1 1 0

Number of 2-way stations 5 4 4 4 4 5

New signal controlled

intersections 0 0 0 1 1 0

Intersections with new

transit signal priority 3 2 2 4 2 4

7. Conclusion

There was no obvious routing choice that satisfied all of the desired attributes. However, the Base Option,

Option 1 and Option 5 performed best in this analysis, and they could be further refined through future

planning work to undergo a more rigorous assessment, which could be part of an Environmental

Assessment.

downtown london brt routing options · 2014-03-13 · 5. transit service routing options many of...

Documents