London Transit Commission Transportation Demand Management Study

Transcription

1 London Transit Commission Transportation Demand Management Study Long-term Transit Growth Strategy - Final Technical Report July 2006 London Transit Commission Submitted by Dillon Consulting Limited

2

3 Executive Summary The Long-term Transit Growth Strategy recommends strategies to assist the City of London and the London Transit Commission (LTC) in meeting the 10% transit modal share target by 2024 recommended and approved in the 2004 City of London Transportation Master Plan (TMP). This represents an aggressive yet achievable increase in transit ridership from an existing mode split of 7%. The importance of achieving this transit mode share target cannot be over-stated; achieving it allows the City to avoid significant roadway investment - 22 more travel lanes per direction, if travel characteristics (i.e. mode share, auto occupancy, travel time) do not change, even with the implementation of the Council approved road projects. To achieve this objective, this report recommends the implementation of an Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Strategy. The Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Strategy promotes the use of higher order transit to improve the speed, frequency, comfort, and reliability of transit services on key corridors connecting primary transit nodes and activity generators (see Figure E-1). This includes connections between the four shopping centre sub terminals, the two post-secondary institutions, as well as two additional strategically located transit nodes with the downtown area. The Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Strategy will use a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) platform to provide premium level service to customers. BRT is defined as bus services that are, at a minimum, faster than traditional local bus service and that, at a maximum, include grade-separated bus operations. 1 The BRT system for London will feature higher levels of service and operating speeds, a range of transit priority measures, exclusive transit rights-of-way, faster passenger boardings, and a system image that is uniquely identifiable. Based on a strategic review of ridership potential in each corridor, the following corridors and general phasing was identified: 2. Short-term Richmond Street Western Road Dundas Street East 3. Medium-term Oxford Street East Wellington Road 4. Long-term Oxford Street West Wonderland Road Fanshawe Park Road 1 Source: TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit Dillon Consulting Limited Page i

4 G:\CAD\GIS\ London TDM Masonville Mall Fanshawe College Hyde Park Power Centre Argyle Mall University of Western Ontario Downtown Oakridge Mall Westmount Shopping Centre White Oaks Mall Legend BRT Corridor Link Node London Transit Commission Long-term Transit Growth Study Figure E-1 - Proposed Long Term BRT Corridors and Nodes May 2006

5 The success of the Enhanced Transit Corridors and Nodes Strategy and meeting the 10% transit modal split target can not be achieved by LTC alone; it will require the strong support of the City of London, including a re-examination of existing land use and parking policies and practices that influence transit usage. This inter-linked relationship between transit, land use and parking is illustrated below; one strategy can not occur without the other. Figure E-2 - Relationship between Land Use Policies, Parking Policies/Practices and the Long-term Network Strategy in Promoting Transit Use Land use is a key determinant of transportation choices. Land use that is supportive of transit service will attract a much larger pool of potential riders without having to invest as high a cost in the level of service, as occurs in an area that is not transit supportive. Creating transit supportive development can be completed through a series of policies and practices that influence urban structure, mix of land uses, density of development, distances to transit facilities / services, corridors / right-of-way, and pedestrian amenities. This reflects the notion that encouraging transit-supportive development is not a matter that can be dealt with by focussing on one subject alone (e.g. density). Rather, it requires a system of policies working together to encourage high-quality, transit-supportive communities. The Long-term Transit Growth Strategy makes a number of recommendations in support of the Enhanced Transit Corridors and Nodes Strategy: Dillon Consulting Limited Page iii

6 1. Submit formal comments to the City during the 2006 Official Plan Review 2. Adopt the Enhanced Nodes and Corridors identified in this report into Policy Documents 3. Publish the City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines to support transit supportive development. 4. Implement a "Transit Scorecard" for Development Review and establish a recognition program The "Good Transit" Award to recognize those that are helping to reach the City objectives 5. Update the Bonus Provisions in the Zoning By-law to include specific provisions for transit 6. Update the Downtown Community Improvement Plan and Programs and create Community Improvement Plans for Transit Corridors and Nodes to promote transit supportive development The parking strategy will also play an important role in achieving the 10% modal split target. Parking is potentially the most significant driver of choice transit use as many aspects of parking management significantly influence the decision-making process of commuters when determining their mode of transportation. The goal of this parking strategy is to support the long-term 10% transit mode split target by providing disincentives to single-occupant vehicle use, particularly during the peak periods. However, while the approach should encourage transit use, it must do so without stifling the development that will provide the very riders that the transit system needs. Evolutionary changes to the existing approach to parking, rather than revolutionary, is likely the most effective way to exert constant upward pressure on transit ridership. An evolutionary approach is much more likely to be accepted and, therefore, effective in increasing transit mode share. To achieve this goal, the following parking strategies were recommended in support of the 10% modal split target: 1. Develop a Comprehensive Parking Strategy with the objective of No Net Gain for the downtown parking supply; 2. Prepare a Park and Ride Strategy as a staging measure for transit expansion in suburban/ rural transit markets; and 3. Develop a Preferential Pricing, Location and Supply Strategy at City-owned parking lots and Park and Ride lots for transit patrons, particularly transit pass holders. Dillon Consulting Limited Page iv

7 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION Purpose Background Scope Approach TRANSIT OBJECTIVES Transit Mode Share Objective Transit Ridership Trends Key Transit Markets Markets by Trip-Type Future Land Use Pattern Key Markets for Increasing Transit Modal Share Potential Areas of Influence Potential Levers EXISTING CONDITIONS Long-Range Planning Framework City of London Official Plan (consolidated January 9, 2003) Transportation Master Plan Final Report (May 2004) Other Long Range Plans Summary City of London By-laws City of London Zoning By-law Site Plan Control Area By-law, Consolidated Central Business District Parking Facilities By-law Urban Works Reserve Fund (part of the D/C By-law) Summary Existing Practices Transit Practices Land Use Practices Parking Practices SHIFT Alternatives Program LONG-TERM TRANSIT SERVICE STRATEGY Introduction Review of Transit Industry Practices Service Strategies Higher Order Transit Opportunities Dillon Consulting Limited Page v

8 4.2.3 Summary Discussion of Enhanced Transit Service Options Strategy Framework Options Service Delivery Platform Vehicles Identify BRT Nodes and Corridors BRT Service Delivery Options Route Structure and Frequency Supporting Network Infrastructure Supporting Ancillary Infrastructure Summary Evaluation of BRT Components Recommendations Identify Ultimate BRT Vision and Phasing BRT/Transit Priority Triggers Bus Service Strategy Park and Ride Strategy Adoption of Nodes and Corridors into Policy Documents Ancillary Support Features Complimentary High Impact Service Adjustments Service Planning and Marketing Capacity Land Use Planning and Parking Supports LAND USE PLANNING SUPPORT TO TRANSIT Introduction Framework Review of Land Use Planning Policies and Practices Official Plan Polices Community Improvement Plans Development Practices Design Guidelines Summary Land Use Policy Options that Support Transit Planning Framework Official Plan Policy Recommendations Bonus Provisions in Zoning By-laws Community Improvement Plans Development Review Practices City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines A Postscript on Policy Recommendations PARKING POLICY AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT Introduction Scope of the Study Dillon Consulting Limited Page vi

9 6.2 Review of Industry Parking Policies and Practices Review of Municipal Parking Policy Options Review of Industry Parking Practices Discussion of Policy and Practice Options Parking Policy Parking Practices Development of a Parking Strategy Evaluation of Transit-Promoting Parking Mechanisms Summary IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY Recommended Plan Implementation of the Long-term Transit Strategy Implementation of the Land use Strategy to Support Transit Implementation of the Parking Strategy to Support Transit Appendices APPENDIX A City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines List of Figures Figure Overall Population Growth by Planning District... 8 Figure 2 Relationship between Land Use Policies, Parking Policies/Practices and the Long-term Network Strategy in Promoting Transit Use Figure 3 Proposed Long-term BRT Corridors and Nodes Figure 4 Relationship between Downtown Parking Spaces per Employee Ratios and Transit Mode Share for Canadian Cities Dillon Consulting Limited Page vii

10 List of Tables Table 1 LTC Ridership Trends (1988 to 2005)... 3 Table 2 Population Growth to 2031 by Planning District... 7 Table 3 - Long Range Plans in the City of London and Implications for Transit Table 4 Strategies to Strengthen Transit Nodes Table 5 Evaluation Criteria Explanations Table 6 Assessment of Individual BRT Components Table 7 - Toolbox of Transit Priority Without Infrastructure Table 8 - Comparative Review of City of London and York Region Official Plan Growth Management/Urban Structure Table 9 - Comparative Review of City of London and York Region Official Plan - Density Policies Table 10 - Comparative Review of City of London and York Region Official Plan - Mix of Land Use Policies Table 11 - Comparative Review of City of London and York Region Official Plan - Urban Design/Form Policies Table 12 Transit Ridership Forecasts Based on Density Designation Table 13 Downtown Parking Pricing in Typical Canadian Municipalities Table 14 Evaluation Criteria Explanations Table 15 Assessment of Individual Transit-Supportive Parking Strategies Table 16 - Long-term Ridership Growth Strategy Implementation Plan Dillon Consulting Limited Page viii

11 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose The Long-term Transit Growth Strategy - Transportation Master Plan identifies a range of service, policy, and operational practice strategies to assist the City of London and the London Transit Commission (LTC) to meet the growth in transit modal share objectives set by the 2004 City of London Transportation Master Plan. 1.2 Background The 2004 Transportation Master Plan (TMP) identified a multi-faceted transportation network and program strategy to meet the City s travel demands in A key component of the strategy was increasing the existing City-wide PM peak hour transit modal share from 7% to 10% by 2024, considered to be achievable with a range of aggressive actions on the part of the City and LTC. The importance of the targeted transit mode share objective cannot be over-stated; achieving it allows the City to avoid significant roadway investment that it will have to make to meet travel demands that will occur if the modal share remains constant. The 2004 TMP concluded that the City s major roadway network would require added capacity equivalent to 22 more travel lanes per direction, if travel characteristics (i.e. mode share, auto occupancy, and travel time) do not change, even with the implementation of the Council approved road projects. In considering the future travel demand characteristics anticipated in London, the TMP assumed other reductions in auto use that this report needed to be aware of, as they could impact the recommended transit strategies. These included: 10% of auto drivers with trip lengths less than 4 km will switch to cycling; 10% of auto drivers with trip lengths less than 2 km will switch to walking; and 5% of all home-based auto drivers will switch to carpooling. 1.3 Scope The focus of this assignment was to identify actions that could be taken by the City of London and LTC to drive the transit mode share objectives in the TMP. The project Terms of Reference indicated that the strategy should consider three primary business elements: Dillon Consulting Limited Page 1

12 Long-term Service Design; Land Use; and Parking. While considered important components to transit ridership growth, this study did not consider pricing strategies, marketing and education campaigns, or maintenance practices and focused instead on the above topics as directed by the LTC. 1.4 Approach The approach taken in this study is outlined below and forms the structure of this report. Key tasks in this study included: 1. Examine the markets to determine the best opportunities for ridership growth this includes a review of population and employment growth, existing market penetration and opportunities to build ridership. 2. Consider the existing conditions in the City of London this section looks at the existing basic service strategy, and land use and parking policies and practices to establish a baseline for evaluating strategies to increase the transit mode share. 3. Review available relevant technical materials and practices in other Canadian municipalities Other municipalities and key literature were reviewed to determine relevant practices that could be applied to London in terms of transit service strategies, parking policies that support transit, and transit supportive land use tools. 4. Identify actions with high or moderate potential to increase ridership and, therefore, mode share Several options are presented in this report that will assist the LTC in reaching its ridership objectives. It is important to note that service options should not be viewed in isolation and that all three components of long-range service strategies, parking policies and management, and land use planning need to be implemented to achieve London s modal split target. 5. Identify implementation barriers and potential strategies to overcome those barriers the discussion of options also identifies any barriers to implementation that will need to be addressed as well as strategies to move forward. 6. Recommend actions that can be taken to support achievement of a 10% transit mode split The final recommendations outline a transit service strategy and the required land use and parking support elements to achieve London s 10% transit modal share by Dillon Consulting Limited Page 2

13 2.0 TRANSIT OBJECTIVES 2.1 Transit Mode Share Objective The 2004 TMP set the City-wide PM peak hour transit mode share objective at 10%, an increase of 3 percentage points over 2004 conditions. This mode share increase is extremely significant. Population and employment growth will require transit ridership to grow by 19% by 2024 just to maintain a 7% mode share. For transit to reach the mode share target, transit ridership will need to increase by 65% by 2024 (from 17.1 million existing annual rides to 28.1 million annual rides in 2024). This translates into approximately 600,000 additional passengers per year between 2003 and a significant increase that will not be achieved under current planning and operating practices. 2.2 Transit Ridership Trends Past ridership growth trends as illustrated in Table 1 have shown an overall decrease in ridership between 1988 and 2005 of 2.6% (485,000 annual rides), while the transit service area population increased by 24% (68,200 persons). Table 1 LTC Ridership Trends (1988 to 2005) Year Population Growth Annual Ridership Transit Pass/ Population Percent Percent Mode Ridership Growth Cap Growth Change Change Share ,000 18,761, % ,000 4% 18,189, ,000-3% % ,000 1% 17,691, ,000-3% % ,000 1% 16,235,000-1,456,000-8% % ,000 1% 14,637,000-1,598,000-10% % ,000 0% 13,805, ,000-6% % ,000 0% 12,444,000-1,361,000-10% % ,000 0% 12,034, ,000-3% % ,000 2% 11,905, ,000-1% % ,000 2% 12,085, ,000 2% % ,000 0% 13,420,000 1,335,000 11% % ,000 0% 14,614,000 1,194,000 9% % ,000 7% 15,232, ,000 4% % ,000 0% 15,851, ,000 4% % ,000 2% 16,135, ,000 2% % ,000 0% 17,084, ,000 6% % ,200 1% 17,957, ,000 5% % ,000 2% 18,276, ,000 2% % Dillon Consulting Limited Page 3

14 Between 1988 and 1997, much of the decline in ridership was due to elements beyond the control of LTC, such as the economic downturn, and the loss of transit funding from the Provincial government. The upturn in the Canadian economy and the reintroduction of Provincial transit funding all helped to promote an increase in transit ridership after 1998, although ridership levels to this day have not reached 1988 levels. The LTC implemented some major initiatives in the mid to late 1990 s to increase transit ridership. In 1998, transit ridership saw an 11% increase from the year before, due primarily to the introduction of the Universal Pass (or U-Pass) at the University of Western Ontario. In 1999, a similar agreement was reached with Fanshawe College and ridership grew by another 9% that year. Between 2002 and 2004, ridership grew by 5 to 6% per year (just under 920,000 annual rides). Part of this large growth is likely attributable to the increase in students attending University of Western Ontario and Fanshawe College due to the double cohort year. This performance exceeded the ridership growth target of 600,000 rides per year required to meet the 10% transit mode split target by However, according to current ridership trends, 2005 ridership showed a growth rate of 1.7%. The first quarter of 2006 is showing a similar growth rate at 0.8%. Recent ridership spikes in 1998/1999 and 2003/2004 have primarily been a result of tapping into the post secondary school market with the introduction of the U-Pass. These markets represented an unparalleled opportunity for ridership growth and likely cannot be replicated in London. Future ridership growth will have to come from new travel markets and/or increased trip making by current users. The infiltration into the post secondary student market has neared its peak, and there needs to be reoccurring champion initiatives such as the U-Pass or significant enhancements in the design and delivery of service to attract and sustain the ridership required to meet the 10% modal split targets. 2.3 Key Transit Markets The analysis of transit ridership trends show the fluctuation of ridership growth throughout the past 16 years, and the importance of focusing on specific markets with the best potential to see real ridership gains. With the exception of some of the recent initiatives geared to the post secondary student market, current operating practices have responded to growth incrementally, extending services and increasing service frequencies where warranted to respond to demand. LTC operates a very successful system, with a high utilization and cost effective service delivery relative to its peer group; however, to reach its transit modal split targets, the City will need LTC to not only respond to existing customer demand, but to build transit demand by focusing on the choice rider and shifting single occupant vehicle drivers to transit. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 4

15 Building ridership requires a good understanding of potential transit markets. Potential growth markets for LTC are discussed below Markets by Trip-Type Home-to-Work Trips (e.g., Commuter Market) This is traditionally the key market for transit ridership, as the origins and destinations are predictable, the destinations are somewhat concentrated in the downtown, and the hours of demand are generally known. Recent trends have seen growth in employment outside of the downtown, and hours of demand spread slightly in response to general acceptance by most employers of flexible work hours (at least for office employees). The difficultly in capturing the commuter market with transit is the attractiveness of private automobile use. Currently, the availability of cheap parking in the downtown area coupled with minimal peak hour congestion makes the automobile an attractive travel option for the choice rider. In the future, as population and employment growth puts additional demands on the roadway network, some increased congestion will result. Transit will be able to penetrate this market by providing enhanced services along key corridors that are more competitive with the private automobile through transit priority features and increased service frequency and convenience. Employee pass opportunities provide another avenue to further penetrate into this market. Outside of downtown, the difficulty in attracting auto users to transit is compounded by low density at the work end of the trip (e.g., suburban industrial/office parks located in the east and south end of London). Transit will have to tap into this market through innovate service delivery options and enhanced land use and site planning that will further support transit use. Home-to-School Trips This is the second traditional market for transit properties, as the destination is fixed (i.e., the post-secondary campus or the secondary school), the demand is reasonably high, and students are generally in a socio-economic category that has limited access to private autos. The challenge of this market is the lack of predictability in the hours of demand for post-secondary students, as classes tend to run from 8:00 AM to 10:00 PM. LTC has had success penetrating the post-secondary school market with the introduction of the U-Pass at both the University of Western Ontario and Fanshawe College. With the introduction of the University of Western Ontario U-Pass, UWO student ridership increased by 50% during the first year of operation. Currently, students represent the highest total number of passengers in London s peer group at over 7 million riders, or about 44% of system ridership. This comprises mainly post-secondary school students, since the yellow school bus is under contract with the school boards in London to provide transportation to school for eligible primary and secondary school students. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 5

16 Home-to-Other Destinations These trips include all trips not captured by the first two categories, such as recreational trips, trips for shopping purposes, and others. Influencing these trips at the destination end is often difficult, due to the lack of predictability of the destination. Serving these trips is equally challenging in that the timing of the demand varies from day-to-day Future Land Use Pattern Transit is a geographically based service; that is, service and supporting strategies must generally be designed around nodes and corridors. Therefore, the projected land use patterns for the City of London were reviewed considering the trip types described in Section 2.3.1, and the markets with the greatest potential to contribute to increased transit ridership were identified. The City of London is anticipated to grow by approximately 93,000 people by 2031 within the Urban Growth Boundary. The Planning Districts where growth is anticipated at the 2014, 2024, and 2031 periods are illustrated in Table 2. The overall population growth distribution for 2031 is also graphically illustrated in Figure 1. In the long-term, six general areas of population growth are anticipated to occur. These are highlighted in Figure 1 and described below: Central North of Fanshawe Park Road Northeast Northwest Southeast Southwest the West London and Central London Planning Districts are anticipated to grow by 15,962 people the Fox Hollow, Sunningdale, Uplands, and Stoney Creek Planning Districts are anticipated to grow by 26,424 people the Huron Heights and Fanshawe Planning Districts are anticipated to grow by 10,181 people the Woodhull, RiverBend, Hyde Park and Byron Planning Districts are anticipated to grow by 23,146 people the Jackson and Bradley Planning Districts are anticipated to grow by 16,056 people the Talbot, Bostwick, Longwoods, and Lambeth Planning Districts are anticipated to grow by 12,984 people As illustrated in Table 2, the majority of growth over the long-term is expected to occur between 2014 and 2024; therefore transit services and supportive strategies must soon be in place to address growth in order for modal split targets to be reached. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 6

17 Intensification in the Central area will help strengthen existing transit services in an area that is already transit supportive. Given the existing nature of the downtown and its periphery, it is likely that this development will be higher density and supportive of transit services. Planning District Table 2 Population Growth to 2031 by Planning District 2004 Population 2014 Population 2024 Population 2031 Population Growth ( ) Growth ( ) Growth ( ) Overall Growth by JACKSON 2,148 8,245 15,482 16,929 6,097 7,236 1,447 14,781 CENTRAL 16,536 20,610 24,396 26,647 4,075 3,786 2,251 10,111 HYDE PARK 3,987 8,087 12,048 13,756 4,100 3,961 1,707 9,769 STONEY CREEK 5,097 8,460 11,671 13,172 3,363 3,210 1,501 8,075 TALBOT 1,211 3,474 6,490 9,098 2,263 3,016 2,608 7,887 UPLANDS 4,844 9,080 12,229 12,373 4,236 3, ,529 RIVERBEND 2,094 5,873 8,697 9,476 3,779 2, ,382 HURON HEIGHTS 19,859 21,996 24,393 26,631 2,137 2,397 2,238 6,772 FOX HOLLOW 398 1,108 5,022 6, ,914 1,745 6,368 WEST LONDON 15,051 18,878 20,002 20,902 3,826 1, ,851 SUNNINGDALE 1,697 3,385 4,631 6,149 1,688 1,247 1,518 4,452 BYRON 13,278 14,472 15,902 17,396 1,195 1,429 1,495 4,119 FANSHAWE 138 1,232 2,680 3,547 1,094 1, ,409 LAMBETH 3,159 4,188 5,109 5,356 1, ,197 WOODHULL ,630 2, ,876 LONGWOODS 1,082 2,100 2,625 2,919 1, ,837 BRADLEY , ,275 BOSTWICK ,000 1, ,063 OLD VICTORIA AIRPORT GLANWORTH TEMPO BROCKLEY OAKRIDGE 14,940 15,526 15,065 15, CRUMLIN 1,336 1,347 1,363 1, SHARON CREEK HIGHBURY WESTMOUNT 17,252 17,109 17,144 17, GLEN CAIRN 17,153 17,643 17,029 16, MASONVILLE 10,204 10,312 9,964 9, STONEYBROOK 7,010 6,699 6,460 6, NORTH LONDON 9,625 9,211 8,894 8, HAMILTON ROAD 16,413 16,249 15,671 15, EAST LONDON 10,244 9,776 9,413 9, CARLING 18,733 18,639 17,923 17, WESTMINSTER 13,471 12,890 12,446 12, SOUTH LONDON 13,981 13,371 12,866 12, ,112 SOUTHCREST 14,863 14,268 13,732 13, ,124 ARGYLE 27,111 26,921 25,962 25, ,179 MEDWAY 19,618 18,712 18,011 18, ,341 HIGHLAND 22,774 21,842 21,173 21, ,548 WHITE OAKS 19,073 18,196 17,506 17, ,561 Total 348, , , ,200 36,908 34,420 21,720 93,048 Dillon Consulting Limited Page 7

18 G:\CAD\GIS\ London TDM Legend Transit Routes Growth Boundary (2004) Population Growth Areas Growth from 2004 to FANSHAWE STONEY CREEK UPLANDS SUNNINGDALE STONEYBROOK AIRPORT FOX HOLLOW MASONVILLE HURON HEIGHTS HYDE PARK NORTH LONDONCARLING MEDWAY EAST LONDON WEST LONDON CENTRAL LONDON ARGYLE CRUMLIN RIVER BEND OAKRIDGE SOUTH LONDON SOUTHCREST WOODHULL HIGHLAND BYRON WESTMOUNT HAMILTON ROAD GLEN CAIRN JACKSON OLD VICTORIA BRADLEY TALBOT BOSTWICK WHITE OAKS WESTMINSTER HIGHBURY SHARON CREEK LAMBETH LONGWOODS BROCKLEY GLANWORTH TEMPO London Transit Commission Transportation Demand Management Study Figure Overall Population Growth by Planning District May 2006

19 To further build transit ridership, increased transit service will also need to be focused on the suburban areas mentioned above. This will involve greater involvement from LTC in the approval of development applications and a review of service strategies to service low-density areas effectively (discussed in the Short-term Transit Service Review report, under separate cover). Employment is expected to grow by 21% or 38,300 jobs by 2024, with the majority of employment growth being in the industrial sector to the east of Airport Road and south of Highway Key Markets for Increasing Transit Modal Share The land use projections and market analysis suggest a number of key markets with potential for transit ridership growth: Downtown or Central Area this section of London will continue to be key to transit ridership and presents opportunities for ridership growth. Given the mix of employment and residential uses, strategies in this market will serve home-to-work trips and home-toother trips as well. Key Arterial Corridors - as transit routes are generally linear, key arterial corridors have the potential to increase transit ridership through appropriate transit supportive land uses along the corridor. Transit can then provide higher frequency of service, improving convenience to users, and can potentially provide supporting infrastructure, such as transit priority at intersections and exclusive or semi-exclusive rights-of-way. The strategies for Arterial Corridors will include actions aimed at Major Nodes (i.e., concentrated centres of population and/or employment such as the downtown, University of Western Ontario, Fanshawe College, the major shopping centres and hospitals). These types of higher density residential, employment and institutional nodes are the traditional backbone of transit success for all systems and should be the focus of continued concentrated services, supporting amenities and focused land use and parking policies that support transit use. Suburban/Rural Markets this market is difficult to serve given low density of development. However, this market represents one of the largest areas of population growth in the City. The approach should use a combination of transit supportive development strategies for new developments or areas of intensification opportunities, and innovative service design to efficiently address the market. Penetration into each of these markets is essential in achieving the amount of ridership growth necessary to meet transit modal split targets by While transit service improvements will be focused on each market, other factors out of the control of LTC will also influence the amount of trips that can be attracted to the service most notably, land use patterns and parking availability and price. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 9

20 2.4 Potential Areas of Influence The Terms of Reference for this study focused on three areas of influence that traditionally can have significant impact on transit usage: 1. Transit Service providing fast, attractive service options that can compete with travel time experienced by auto users. Transit is closely linked with land use, parking and fare strategies, which create a market transit service strategies determine the best way to serve the identified markets. 2. Land Use development patterns are a major influence in setting the market for transit trips at both the origin and destination end of the journey. Urban and site design practices can have a significant impact on the attractiveness of transit for residential, commercial, institutional and employment sites. 3. Parking availability, location and price of parking have always been a primary determinant of auto use, particularly for commuter trips. These strategies are inextricably inter-linked as is illustrated in Figure 2. It is appropriate that LTC addresses them in an integrated manner. Other areas of influence that are not in the scope of the study include pricing strategies (i.e. pass options, fare strategies, etc.), and marketing. These are also important components to achieving London s transit modal split targets and should be further investigated. Figure 2 Relationship between Land Use Policies, Parking Policies/Practices and the Long-term Network Strategy in Promoting Transit Use Dillon Consulting Limited Page 10

21 2.5 Potential Levers This report focuses on parking policies and practices. It is important for the City to reach its long-term transportation goals, and to do so it must effectively use the tools it has at its disposal in a comprehensive manner. LTC service improvements alone will not be sufficient to reach this goal. Success will require a multi-faceted approach, promoting collaboration and cooperation among all City departments and the LTC. Some of the levers that were examined in this report include: Long Range Policy Documents such as the City of London Official Plan and Transportation Master Plan express the will of Council and the community. Long range plans set objectives, guide strategic decisions, and provide direction to staff on priorities for infrastructure investment and program development. Strong, transit-supportive longrange policies are the first step in moving London towards its transit objectives City of London By-laws Municipal By-laws are a key implementation mechanism for the City s policy directions, particularly those related to land use and parking. Zoning By-laws and Site Plan Control By-laws state rules that govern most planning approval decisions, which have a significant impact on development densities, site design, transit amenities, and on-site parking supply. Transit-friendly By-laws ensure that the spirit of the City s long-range policies is implemented in day-to-day decision making. Operational Practices These levers are operational decisions for existing infrastructure or programs; distinct from the creation of new infrastructure or programs, as this is usually a policy decision. Examples of operating practices include department coordination practices between LTC and the City, transit service strategy for a particular corridor or market, and pricing strategies for long-term parking downtown. Pro-transit operating practices are a necessary complement to the policy levers for the areas of influence being considered in this report. For example, a pro-transit zoning By-law that limits the number of off-street parking spaces for a particular development, is defeated if there is a large supply of unregulated on-street parking adjacent to the site. The ability to implement preferred practices is somewhat limited to City-owned or operated facilities or programs. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 11

22 (This page intentionally left blank) Dillon Consulting Limited Page 12

23 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS An assessment of the existing levers available to the City of London and LTC was completed to determine their ability to assist the City in meeting transit s long-term modal split targets. This was completed through a review of existing documents as well as interviews with City and LTC staff to obtain their view on long-term growth patterns and directions. 3.1 Long-Range Planning Framework City of London Official Plan (consolidated January 9, 2003) The key document related to transit-supportive land use and development policy is the City's Official Plan. The current document promotes land use planning and development that is conducive to the efficient operation and increased use of the public transit system and alternative modes of transportation. It does this through a variety of general and specific policies. Key transit supportive development policies are outlined below: Growth Management/ Urban Structure The Official Plan states that high and medium density residential development shall be directed to appropriate areas within and adjacent to the Downtown, near periphery of Regional and Community Shopping Areas and in selected locations along major roads and near Open Space. It also supports the long-term development of compact, transit oriented and pedestrian friendly activity centres (transit nodes) linked by transit priority corridors. This is seen as a positive policy in encouraging medium and high-density development in areas that are generally target areas for transit use. Compact urban form is also encouraged in a manner that avoids a scattered or leapfrog development pattern, maximizes the use of existing services, minimizes the loss of productive agricultural land, is conducive to the provision of public transit and minimizes the need for and cost of new infrastructure. Infill development and intensification of lands or buildings suitable for residential development is encouraged as a method of achieving this policy. Downtown Policies/Regional Centres Three relevant policies are stated regarding the focus on the downtown: 1. The Downtown shall be the primary business, office, institutional, entertainment and cultural centre for the City of London. 2. Efficient utilization of lands and buildings within the Downtown will be encouraged through the redevelopment of vacant or under-utilized land and Dillon Consulting Limited Page 13

24 functionally obsolete buildings, and the rehabilitation, where feasible, of buildings that are functionally viable but substandard in appearance or condition. 3. Regional-scale commercial facilities shall be located in the Downtown and designated Regional Shopping Areas. The encouragement of a vibrant downtown creates a node in London, which creates a "pull" effect for trips. To promote these growth objectives, the Official Plan also promotes improved accessibility of the Downtown by all modes of transportation. Densities Another positive aspect of the City's Official Plan is the planned densities for residential development, which are: Low density: Medium density: High density (outside central London): High density (central London): High density (downtown): up to 30 units per hectare up to 75 units per hectare up to 150 units per hectare up to 250 units per hectare up to 350 units per hectare Medium and high-density residential development is generally considered transitsupportive, and the focus in communities across Canada has been on encouraging transitsupportive development in single-detached neighbourhoods. Road Network The Official Plan promotes land use planning and development that is conductive to the efficient operation and increased use of public transit systems and alternative modes of transportation. This is essential in operating an efficient and effective transit service. Area Studies Area Studies are an implementation tool of the Official Plan that allow for the analysis and conceptual planning of a specific area of the City at a greater level of detail than discussed in the Official Plan. They address a number of issues at this more detailed level including: land use mix and compatibility; road alignments; municipal services; residential densities and affordability; road access points; and location of community facilities, etc. In the preparation and review of Area Studies, Section Public Transit Policies of the Official Plan states a number of considerations that should be taken into consideration to promote effective transit use. These include: Dillon Consulting Limited Page 14

25 1. Locating lands designated for the development of high density residential uses, office buildings and other primary trip generators in areas that have convenient access to existing transit routes, or that can be efficiently served through the extension of existing transit services. 2. Aligning arterial, primary and secondary collectors to link adjacent development with direct transit routes 3. ensuring connections between residential and employment areas to transit stops have sidewalks, walkways and/or other linkages, with appropriate lighting to ease pedestrian movement 4. Reducing pedestrian backtracking by developing street pattern designs and pedestrian circulation routes that reduce walking and travel distances to transit stops. It should be noted that while Area Studies allow for the analysis and conceptual planning of a specific area of the City, Area Studies (unlike Secondary Plans) do not form part of the Official Plan and do not have Official Plan status. Thus, there is less ability to enforce transit plans within this process. Urban Design Guidelines Section 2.11 of the Official Plan Transportation Planning promotes transit friendly, compact forms of development that encourage and facilitate an efficient public transit system. However, there is no specific mention of transit or transit supportive design criteria in either this section of the Official Plan, or Section 11 Urban Design Principles. Policies are in place for Pedestrian Traffic Areas, which state, new development should include street-oriented features that provide for the enhancement of the pedestrian environment, such as canopies, awnings, landscaped setbacks and sitting areas. London has been taking steps to encourage more transit-friendly development. In the Airport Road South Industrial Park, for example, design guidelines were developed that promote pedestrian connectivity to buildings, sidewalks, and policies that create commercial opportunities to service employees. This will allow transit to be more viable as the park develops Transportation Master Plan Final Report (May 2004) The goal of the Transportation Master Plan (TMP) was to provide strategic solutions for the existing and future transportation needs within the 20 to 25 year planning horizon for the City of London, and have these solutions adopted and implemented as transportation policies of the City. A number of alternatives were considered to meet the forecasted, single occupant automobile travel demands, ranging from infrastructure expansions to aggressive attempts to limit growth through Transportation Demand Management and promotion of alternative modes. The TMP recommended a hybrid of road system expansions and Dillon Consulting Limited Page 15

26 increased reliance on alternative modes, including increasing the share of travel using transit from 7% to 10% by The TMP recommended four main strategies to support this growth in transit usage: 1. Increasing and improving transit service to key transit markets; 2. Enhancing existing and adopting additional land use policies aimed at promoting density and supporting transit in primary transit corridors; 3. Continuing to develop the SHIFT program (City of London s Transportation Demand Management program Solutions to Help Individuals Find Transportation) to promote alternatives to automobile use and, through SHIFT, making a commitment to develop a comprehensive City-wide parking management program that would look at such issues as parking supply, design, pricing, funding sources and By-law policy tools in the context of balancing modal shift objectives and business and community interests (TMP pages 77-78); and 4. Incorporating transit enhancement policies into the Official Plan, including a recommendation to increase the transit mode split to 10% of PM peak hour trips by 2024, and a policy regarding an enhanced transit service within an enhanced transit zone. The TMP makes a commitment, through SHIFT (in cooperation with LTC and a number of municipal departments), to look comprehensively at existing parking supply, pricing, By-law policies and operational issues to identify changes required to support the shift in transit mode share to 10% use (TMP pages 77-78). It further commits that such programs developed through SHIFT be dynamic, supporting the concept that the City of London Comprehensive Parking Strategy be reviewed over time to make adjustments to policies or operational strategies as conditions change over the life of the Plan. The TMP recommended three critical steps for LTC to move forward with the goal of achieving a 10% transit modal split. These are: 1. Recommend where, when and how improvements to transit service can be made in order to move towards achieving the transit target set in this TMP; 2. Work in cooperation with the City to identify the transit priority measures and intersection locations for installation of these measures; and 3. Include the concepts and costs of these improvements in the next updated LTC s Three Year Business Plan. (pg. 84) The TMP also makes a number of recommendations the increase in revenue hours of transit required to reach the 10% modal split targets. This transit strategy is expected to add a total of 252,000 revenue hours (approximately 99 additional buses) to the services. This includes: Dillon Consulting Limited Page 16

27 Status Quo Changes - 102,000 additional revenue hours (approximately 32 additional buses) of new and extended corridors to keep up with population and employment growth. Enhanced Transit Strategy 150,000 additional revenue hours (approximately 67 additional buses) for enhanced services focused on the more built-up inner area of the City. Some recommendations where also made regarding service improvements for the Enhanced Transit Strategy. These include: enhanced frequencies on inner-city routes (15 minute service or better during the peak periods and 30 minutes during the off-peaks); improved crosstown service; upgraded Wellington Corridor services; enhanced services in the downtown (circulator service); other enhanced service area measures (such as transit shelters, real-time schedule information, installation of bike racks on buses, etc); and transit priority measures. Higher order transit opportunities were also considered in the TMP. It was concluded that HOV lanes, while not generally implemented in cities the size of London, should be studied further. However, its also higher order transit service such as Light Rapid Transit and Bus Rapid Transit would not be supported based on the forecasted population and suburban growth orientation, as well as the time required to develop higher density development nodes along main transit corridors. City Council endorsed this report and its recommendations in the fall of Other Long Range Plans The City of London has a number of other relevant long range planning documents on hand, which have direct or indirect relationship to transit. For example, a Community Improvement Plan can relieve developers of the requirement to build parking, thereby making transit more convenient, whereas urban design policies encourage pedestrian amenities in the design of buildings which provides the built form amenities needed to make transit more comfortable. Table 3 provides a summary of these other long range planning documents and their implications to transit. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 17

28 Table 3 - Long Range Plans in the City of London and Implications for Transit Long Range Plan Long-term Transportation Corridor Protection Study, 2001 Identify transportation corridors needed to serve longterm travel demands Main findings were incorporated into the TMP City of London Downtown Design Study, Urban Design Concept Promote mixed-use development in Downtown core Buildings should be built without a setback to maintain the continuity of the streetscape on streets considered important elements of the pedestrian environment Downtown London Community Improvement Plan, 1995 Encourage growth in resident population of Downtown and adjacent areas through new development and the renovation and conversion of existing buildings Encourage the consolidation and enhancement of a compact, pedestrian-oriented shopping area within downtown Encourage the provision of a high level of transit services in the Downtown Waives zoning regulations to eliminate parking requirements for residential development Downtown Limit temporary surface parking lots Downtown Millennium Plan, 1998 Identified by key stakeholders during public consultation offer inexpensive and convenient parking Downtown Waive development charges for residential development in the downtown Community Improvement Plan Options for Brownfield Incentives, July 2005 London doesn t have a large number of Brownfield sites. Sites are scatter throughout the City and there is no comprehensive inventory of Brownfield sites for the City Each site is considered on an individual basis Potential funding/grant programs being considered Implications for Transit The transportation corridors identified through this study were meant to serve all modes of travel, including transit. Mixed-use in the downtown creates live-work relationships, which may encourage transit use. A pedestrianfriendly environment in the downtown is conductive to transit use. Encouraging of a vibrant downtown creates a node in London which creates a "pull" effect for trips. Eliminating parking requirements and limiting the number of temporary surface parking lots is intended to discourage car trips to the downtown and encourage transit use. Encouraging parking downtown may conflict with intentions to increase transit ridership. Encouraging residential in the downtown will reduce sprawl, and is expected to encourage transit. Encouraging brownfield redevelopment (as a form of intensification) may help reduce sprawl, and is expected to encourage transit. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 18

29 3.1.4 Summary There is recognition in the City s long-range transportation plans that enhanced transit services will be required to reach higher transit mode split targets. There was also recognition that land use and parking practices will play an important role in reaching these targets. Based on the review of the City of London's Official Plan policies, it appears that additional policies promoting transit-supportive development are warranted. It is also clear that many of the City's other plans and regulations do not make significant reference to transit, and updates to some of these documents could provide better support to transit. The most significant long-range policy support for transit is the commitment to undertake a Comprehensive Parking Strategy for the City of London. 3.2 City of London By-laws Existing London By-laws were also reviewed based on their impact in promoting transit. This includes a review of the City of London Zoning By-law, the Site Plan Control Area By-law, the Central Business District Parking Facilities By-law, and the Urban Works Reserve Fund. A summary of the findings is included below City of London Zoning By-law Zoning is a method of regulating the use of land by designating properties for a specific range of permitted functions for example, residential, commercial or industrial areas. The City of London Zoning By-law regulates the use of land by designating properties for a specific range of permitted uses, densities, scale, and form of land uses in the City of London. The By-law also sets out parking requirements in each zone. Regulations in the By-law are based on the City's policies for controlling land use and development as set out in the Official Plan. Parking is dealt with through Section 4.19 in the City of London Zoning By-law. In general residential areas, minimum parking requirements are based on the type of dwelling unit. These are: Single detached - 2 spaces per dwelling unit Duplex dwelling - 1 space per dwelling unit Multiple dwelling spaces per dwelling unit Apartment units - 1 space per dwelling unit No maximum parking requirements are identified in the Zoning By-law. As well, the Downtown Community Improvement Plan waives zoning regulations to eliminate parking requirements for residential development in the downtown. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 19

30 Generally, for non-residential development, minimum parking requirements are identified as follows: Industrial developments - 1 parking space per 100 square metres Commercial office development - 1 parking spare per 45 square metres A bus parking space for use by public transit (3.75 metres by 15 metres) may be substituted for vehicle parking at the rate of 1 bus parking space for every 25 required vehicle parking spaces, for lands zoned Regional Shopping Area or Community Shopping area. The bonus zoning provisions in the Zoning By-law provides increases in density, height, and other allowances in exchange for the heritage status of buildings, public open space, and day care facilities. Some site specific bonus zoning provisions are outlined in the By-law, however, that are no bonus provisions for transit facilities Site Plan Control Area By-law, Consolidated 1997 The City's design standards for site development are set out in its Site Plan Control Area By-law. The By-law states that trip generating activity nodes/ generators such as the downtown, regional and community shopping areas, recreation, entertainment and cultural facilities, and high-density residential development shall be designed to facilitate pedestrian and transit use. The By-law also allows provisions to extend transit routes onto private property if warranted by ridership targets and to minimize walking distances on the following land uses: Residential developments (medium or high density) greater than 700 units Institutional development greater than 5000 m 2 GFA Commercial/Office development greater than 7000 m 2 GFA Industrial developments greater than 500 employees Recreational development greater than 5000 m 2 GFA On sites with transit routes, a number of other stipulations are presented, including routing specifications, and the location and design loading pads, transit stops, and passenger amenities. For developments abutting transit routes, it is encouraged that developers locate parking areas to the side or rear of the building. The By-law also refers to the applicable Zoning By-laws for the respective total number of required parking spaces. With respect to transit, the Site Plan Control Area By-law does not attempt to draw upon a relationship for parking requirements, or a reduction in the parking requirements, based on the area s accessibility to transit routes. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 20

31 3.2.3 Central Business District Parking Facilities By-law Governing the downtown, the Central Business District Parking Facilities By-law states, Parking shall be provided for all non-residential developments at the rate of one (1) parking space for 90.0 square metres of gross floor area. There are currently no maximum parking restrictions in place in the City of London. As with the Site Plan Control Area By-law, the Central Business District Parking Facilities By-law does not attempt to draw upon a relationship for parking requirements, or a reduction in the parking requirements, based on the accessibility to transit routes. However, the City s Cash-in-lieu policy, which does provide opportunity to reduce onsite parking requirements, is contained within this By-law and is described in more detail below. Cash-in-Lieu The current Cash-in-Lieu policy, as described in the Central Business District Parking Facilities By-law, adopted in 1991, results in a Cash-in-lieu value of approximately $10,600 per parking space. This provides a good avenue for the City of London to increase the amount of parking they manage through the collection of revenues to build city-owned lots. For residential developments in the downtown area, all parking requirements and the Cash-in-Lieu obligations are waived in an effort to minimize the on-site parking Urban Works Reserve Fund (part of the D/C By-law) In August 1999, the City of London enacted a Development Charges By-law under the authority of the Development Charges Act, which imposes development charges at specified rates whenever building permits are issued. A separate By-law recognizes the continuation of the Urban Works Reserve Fund (UWRF). The charges collected under both By-laws are used to fund growth related capital costs as defined in the By-laws. A portion of the total charge imposed upon development is paid into the UWRF. The UWRF is a fund from which developers are paid for the provision of certain types of infrastructure (stormwater management, water, wastewater, etc.) Claims against the UWRF are made by developers who, by agreement with the City, construct and pay for significant infrastructure to serve growth (but not for any internal works in a subdivision). A claim can also be made to the UWRF for road works that are safety related, such as turning lanes. The City accrues known outstanding claims by developers and sub-dividers against the Urban Works Reserve Fund to the extent that funds are available in the reserve fund, in accordance with the By-law. Developers are responsible for fronting all costs and make claims to the fund only after construction is complete. The developer must assume all of the risk, as there is no guarantee that a claim will be accepted. As part of the Subdivision Agreement, Dillon Consulting Limited Page 21

32 developers are required to state how much the anticipated claim to the fund will be upon completion of construction. The Civic Administration at the City reviews all claims to the fund. Payments to developers are staged over a number of years, as there is a limit on how much can be paid each year (i.e. $250,000 for SWM, $1,000,000 for road and sewer works, etc.). Given that developers are able to pre-build infrastructure under the UWRF mechanism, this has lead to some leapfrog development Summary Currently, there are no strong By-laws specifically aimed at using parking to promote transit supportive development. The Zoning By-law sets minimum requirements for parking, but does not look at maximum requirements. The waiving of parking requirements for residential uses in the downtown core is a good start, although experience has shown that the use of Cash-in-Lieu has been intermittent in the City. Site plan controls provide some guidance to site design with input from transit for large developments, but little on smaller developments. The Urban Works Reserve Fund has promoted some leapfrog development in London, which has been difficult to service by transit. 3.3 Existing Practices A review of the background material, supported by meetings with City of London and LTC staff on October 4 and 5, 2005, were undertaken to obtain the existing practices in the City of London that support the long-term transit modal split objective Transit Practices The LTC operates a mixture of a surface bus grid system combined with a radial system. Given the street system and the location of the major passenger generators, this is appropriate. In recent years, four transit nodes were added at strategically located shopping centres. Other nodes include the University of Western Ontario and Fanshawe College. As indicated in the Short-term Transit Service Review Report (under separate cover), LTC runs an efficient and effective system for a municipality its size. A large proportion of LTC s ridership comes from the student market due in part to the success of the U- Pass at University of Western Ontario and Fanshawe College. Transit services operate at peak frequencies between 10 to 30 minutes and off-peak frequencies between 30 to 60 minutes. All routes are considered local fixed routes, Dillon Consulting Limited Page 22

33 operating in mixed traffic. With the exception of an existing community bus, LTC currently does not operate any alternatives types of service, such as higher order transit, express or limited stop service, or alternative delivery concepts in low demand areas/periods of the day Land Use Practices The general management of land use practices currently in use in the City of London are divided into the following categories: Residential development densities Growth patterns Development approvals Growth Management/Urban Structure One of the most important "big picture" planning and transit issues for London is its pattern of growth. The City has grown in every direction over the last twenty years, which makes it difficult for the LTC to provide transit service to newly developing areas. While the reasons for this growth pattern include multiple considerations (servicing availability, existing road network, land speculation, and market forces), land use planning also plays a significant role. The fringe areas of the existing built-up area of the City of London are designated in the City's Official Plan as "Urban Reserve", but these areas are not assigned any priority or phasing for long-term development. Developers have also been allowed to pre-build infrastructure under the UWRF mechanism, which has lead to some leapfrog development. As a result, development is expected to continue creeping at all edges of the City unless it redirected, phased, or focused to targeted growth areas. Development Density London has experienced a moderate increase in the density of single-detached residential development over the past 15 years. In a recent presentation by London Staff to Council, it was reported that the lot sizes for single-family detached units had declined, from approximately 670 square metres in 1990 to 570 square metres in This translated into an overall increase in net density, from approximately 17 units per hectare to 20 units per hectare in the same period. However, it was noted that lands which have been designated for medium density residential are frequently being developed for low density forms of housing, albeit that these lands are being developed for single-detached units at relatively high densities. A discussion of adequate densities and density targets is provided in Section 5.0 of this report. Development Approvals/Urban Form The City s approach to development approvals provides for an integrated and generally streamlined process for the review of development applications. Applications are typically reviewed by City Staff for potential transit routes. Staff provided comments on Dillon Consulting Limited Page 23

34 the location of parking areas, transit routing, transit stops and passenger amenities. This approach is common to many municipalities across Canada. Recently, the LTC has taken a more active role in commenting on development applications, especially on larger scale projects. It is expected that the LTC may choose to comment more frequently on certain development approvals, based on the scale and/or location of certain development proposals and the potential impact to transit service. New Transportation Impact Study Guidelines are also under development by the City of London that give much more explicit consideration to transit requirements. As well, a recent amendment to the Planning Act now allows conditions of approval to be placed on subdivision plans based on lands being dedicated for commuter parking lots, transit stations and related infrastructure Parking Practices A review of the background material, supported by meetings with City of London and LTC staff on October 4 and 5, 2005, was undertaken to obtain an understanding of the existing practices in the City of London that support the long-term transit modal split objective. The general management of parking practices currently in use in the City of London are divided into the following categories: Downtown Parking Supply (Short and Long-term Parking); Downtown Parking Pricing; Arterial Corridor Parking Supply / Management; and Suburban / Rural Parking Strategies Park and Ride Lots Downtown Parking Supply (Short and Long-term Parking) The observed parking demand indicates that the overall short-term parking supply is adequate in the downtown mid-day on a weekday, but that the core of the City of London Downtown Parking Area (area bounded by Ridout Street, Fullarton Street, Clarence Street and King Street) does not have enough short-term supply to meet demands during the mid-day weekday period (on-street supply is fully utilized and off-street supply is at functional capacity). Short-term parking is generally very sensitive to the location of the supply; that is, as the trips are choice trips, there is not much tolerance for significant distance between the location of the supply and the ultimate destination (hence the observation of illegally parked vehicles during a time period when there is supply available). The observations showed that the overall long-term parking supply is more than adequate to meet the existing long-term demands in the Downtown Parking Area (utilization of 73%, well below the functional capacity of 85%). Observations also showed that the long-term parking supply in the core of the City of London Downtown Parking Area (area bounded by Thames River, Dufferin Street, Waterloo Street, Dundas Street) is at its Dillon Consulting Limited Page 24

35 functional capacity, given the long-term demands. Long-term parking is generally less sensitive to the location of the supply, as the trips are not choice trips, and there is a tolerance for a greater walking distance between supply and ultimate destination. Given this, it can be concluded that the existing long-term supply meets existing demands, and may even be slightly excessive, given the desire to promote transit. A significant portion of the existing downtown parking supply is in the form of scattered temporary surface parking lots. Permits to operate such facilities are granted through temporary Zoning that is in force for a three year term. Owners/ operators may apply to extend the temporary Zoning for further three year terms without limitation (i.e., an unlimited number of applications may be made to extend the temporary Zoning at the end of an approved term). Downtown Parking Pricing In the downtown area, the weekday hourly parking rate in the off-street lots average $2.81/hour. For long-term (daily) parking, the rates range from as low as $2 per day to a high of $12 per day with the average rate being approximately $6.50 per day. Monthly parking passes in the downtown area of the City of London cost, on average, approximately $75/ month 2. Arterial Corridor Parking Supply / Management On the arterial road network, the City currently has parking prohibitions and/or parking restrictions during peak commuter periods so as not to impede traffic and transit flow. Suburban / Rural Parking - Park and Ride Lots The City of London does not have remote parking lots. Some of the more recent suburban transit nodes have been located adjacent to semi-public parking spaces (i.e. Masonville Mall) SHIFT Alternatives Program The TMP established the Solutions to Help Individuals Find Transportation (SHIFT) Alternatives Program as a tool to assist the City in reducing SOV usage by 15% by Staff of the SHIFT Alternative Program is not mandated to lead transit-only initiatives, however, they are interested in working closely with the LTC and would incorporate transit into their toolbox of solutions to reduce single occupant vehicle usage. Each strategy of the program also has an education and promotion component built in to ensure Londoners are fully aware of strategies being developed and implemented, how these options affect them, and how they can use these new options. To date, the LTC has been limited in its involvement with the program. It should be noted that at the time of this report, no specific practices, programs and/or TDM 2 Rates represent an increase in downtown parking prices which occurred in Dillon Consulting Limited Page 25

36 Initiatives centred on transit, parking, or transit supportive land use planning had been communicated to the project team. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 26

37 4.0 LONG-TERM TRANSIT SERVICE STRATEGY 4.1 Introduction Section 2.3 of this report describes three key markets that were identified as keys to reaching the City s long-term transit modal split objective. These are the downtown or central area markets, key arterial corridor markets, and the suburban and rural markets. A review of current transit operations has yielded proposed modifications to the route structure to respond to the short-term population and employment growth occurring in London (addressed in the Short-term Transit Service Review Report). With the exception of some of the recent initiatives geared to the post secondary student market, current operating practices have responded to these markets incrementally, extending services and increasing service frequencies where warranted in response to the demand caused primarily by growth and by the adoption of Universal Pass programs. LTC operates a very successful system, with a high utilization and cost effective service delivery relative to its peer group. Radically altering the basic route and node structure was determined not to be the appropriate strategy effectively reaching London s long-term transit modal split targets. To reach this target, LTC will need to not only respond to existing customer demand, but to build transit demand in each market by focusing on the choice rider and creating opportunities to shift single occupant vehicle drivers to transit. Long-term strategies, however, must also be cost effective, flexible, and have the ability to be phased in over time. This will need to be done by providing enhanced transit services that are competitive with the private automobile, and will have the ability to capture the choice rider in all three of these markets. This is done through improving service reliability, trip time, comfort, and reducing waiting and dwell times for transit passengers for all three transit markets described above. It will be a combination of these elements that will make transit more competitive with the private automobile and allow it to better penetrate into the markets by capturing more choice riders, particularly the AM and PM peak hour commuter. To develop a long-term strategy for transit, a review of industry practices was completed to identify a range of enhanced transit options. Two strategic enhanced service options were then developed (including an option developed in the City of London TMP) and evaluated to determine the strategic direction LTC should align with to meet its long-term transit modal split targets. This is followed by a review of enhanced transit tools that can be used in the overall recommended strategy and an implementation plan. It should be noted that transit service delivery options to address low demand areas/periods were also explored and are discussed in detail in the Short-term Transit Service Review (under separate cover). Dillon Consulting Limited Page 27

38 4.2 Review of Transit Industry Practices Relevant transit industry practices that are applicable to the long-term vision of LTC were reviewed to help develop long-term transit service strategy options for LTC. This included a review of available technical industry reports along with a review of best practices and lessons learned from several Canadian municipalities. Technical publications from industry sources included: The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP); and The Victoria Transport Policy Institute. The technical review undertaken on industry practices is organized around enhanced transit services in other municipalities that will help build transit ridership through improvements in speed, quality of service, structure of service, and service reliability. This has been organized into service strategies and higher order transit opportunities. Relevant practices reviewed include the City of Ottawa, City of Winnipeg, York Region Transit, Grand River Transit, and the Halifax Regional Municipality Service Strategies City of Ottawa Service Strategy The City of Ottawa operates a fixed route, fixed schedule service that provide 15 to 30 minute service frequencies between major hubs/nodes, supplemented by 10 to 15 minute service during the peak periods. A number of express routes are also in operation, providing direct, non or limited stop travel between suburban neighbourhoods and the downtown. The service strategy is also supported by a 2 to 3 minute headway spine BRT service. Four types of services are operated in Ottawa that may be applicable to London. These include: 1. Transitway service a high frequency and high-capacity BRT service operating on the Transitway connecting major urban nodes. 2. Main line service regular routes operating all day on the Transitway and on city streets, providing community connections to activity centres, the downtown, and the Transitway. 3. Local service provides connections between residential and employment areas and rapid transit service and other major nodes. 4. Express service provide direct downtown service from residential areas during the peak periods Higher Order Transit Opportunities City of Ottawa The City of Ottawa s transportation system includes extensive surface transit routes and a dedicated bus-based rapid transit network (the Transitway) that make use of transit priority measures, exclusive rights-of-way provided by bus-only links between Dillon Consulting Limited Page 28

39 neighbourhoods, and a burgeoning LRT system. The City has also developed a network of Park and Ride lots that serve suburban and rural transit users and provide a hub to connect local routes with spine Transitway service. OC Transpo s 2002 transit ridership of 86 million trips is higher than any North American city of its size. At over 100 transit trips per capita, Ottawa has one of the highest transit utilization rates in Canada, trailing only Toronto and Montreal. This success is primarily due to its bus-based rapid transit network, use of transit priority tools, and it incorporation into Official Plan policies. Transit services, particularly higher-order services, are all supported by a multi-faceted infrastructure network. This includes semiexclusive right-of-way provided by transit priority features at intersection and by time based high occupancy vehicle and bus only lanes. The land use philosophy is to lead development with higher-order transit wherever possible. In the past, this meant early construction of BRT facilities to suburban neighbourhoods. Bus Rapid Transit and Transit Priority are engrained in both Ottawa s 2003 Official Plan and its recent Transportation Master Plan. The Official Plan states that the City will improve the speed and reliability of transit service by providing transit-priority measures to lessen delays on transit vehicles caused by other traffic and traffic control signals. Transit-priority measures will be implemented for those transit-priority corridors identified on Schedule D [showing existing and future roads designated as transit priority corridors] and at other opportune locations. These locations include the identification of where transit priority are warranted by surface transit needs, and where they are a staging measure toward future rapid transit lines. The formal identification of a transit priority as well as a rapid transit network validates program efforts and puts individual transit priority projects into a larger policy context. This lets staff focus on implementation and avoid the need to frequently revisit earlier planning 3. Some examples of transit priority features used in Ottawa that may be applicable to London include 4 : 1. Signal priority detectors are used in about 30 intersections in Ottawa. Detectors identify and distinguish buses from other vehicles and give them priority by manipulating the traffic lights to give the buses a green light or extend the advance turn phase if required by the anticipated bus 3 Source: ( City of Ottawa). 4 Source of pictures: ( City of Ottawa). Dillon Consulting Limited Page 29

40 movement. This tool allows buses to enter intersections without stopping at a red light giving transit a competitive advantage over the private automobile. 2. Transit priority signal indicator a separate signal (cigar signal) located within the traffic light that alerts the transit vehicle it can enter the intersection before other vehicles, thus allowing a transit vehicle to jump the queue and enter the intersection first. 3. Queue jump lane with advance stop bar these lanes allow buses to pull ahead of regular traffic that is stopped at an intersection by placing stop lines for automobiles back from the intersection. Stopping automobiles further back from the intersection allows transit vehicles the opportunity to pull in front of the traffic. 4. Left-turn from curb lanes buses are allowed to make left turns from the curb lane in specified queue jump lanes where left turn lanes are congested. This is used in combination with signal priority features Rapid transit in Ottawa provides a more effective use of system resources - it carries 60% to 70% of transit passenger trips, using only 20% of the system s operating resources (vehicles and drivers). On the other hand, feeder routes that provide neighbourhood access to the rapid transit system carry the remaining 30% to 40% of transit passenger trips but use 80% of operating resources 5. While this is a dedicated Transitway system, the Ottawa example indicates the impact dedicated transit corridors with priority treatments can make on ridership and the overall effectiveness of the system. Studies done on the effectiveness of transit priority features in Ottawa have shown that during peak periods, major bus routes without transit priority suffer a 20% to 40% rate of unproductive time (e.g. at red lights, queues, merges or scheduled time points). 6 The variability of operating conditions throughout the day and year worsen this situation. Since transit schedules are designed for the slowest operating condition, buses going faster than expected during off-peak periods must sit idle just to stay on schedule, which causes frustration for passengers and reduces the efficiency of the service. The implementation of transit priority features can reduce this unproductive time to as low as 5% to 15%. It also improves schedule adherence on all runs and boosts productivity to enable higher levels of service or lower operating costs. Transit priority opportunities for specific routes and corridors are evaluated using three groups of criteria: 5 Source: ( City of Ottawa). 6 Source: ( City of Ottawa). Dillon Consulting Limited Page 30

41 1. Problem Criteria the observed travel speed (higher is better) and variability in travel speed (lower is better) on affected routes (provided by data collection systems on buses that track vehicle location and speed, passenger volumes, and time spent at bus stops or other points of delay). 2. Benefit Criteria the number of buses and passengers affected, and the relative importance of the corridor within the overall transit system 3. Feasibility Criteria cost, technology and space requirements, impacts on other traffic, expected public reaction The transit priority program has become more prominent over the past 3 years and a commitment has been made to use transit priority to reduce delays to buses in mixed traffic wherever possible. The current strategy based on the 2003 Rapid Transit Expansion Study is also to implement transit priority in corridors identified for future RT service to build demand. Currently, the City is also preparing a 5-year capital plan for transit priority with an implementation schedule. Halifax Regional Municipality The Halifax Regional Municipality has implemented two higher order transit services in 2005 called MetroLink through the Urban Transportation Showcase Program. MetroLink will connect Cole Harbour and Sackville to downtown Halifax/Dartmouth through limited stop direct service using transit priority systems to reduce operating time. Corridors connect to feeder buses, bike paths, and Park and Ride lots. Buses offer comfortable seating, air conditioning, and wheelchair access. While the Portland corridor of MetroLink has only been in operating since the fall of 2005, the Park and Ride Lot at one of its stations is already full to capacity and plans are underway to expand the lot by 100 spaces by the early Spring of York Region Transit Priority Planning and Pilot Project Deployment The York Region Transportation and Works Department initiated a transit priority pilot project as their first building block to a region wide transit priority system in The project identified and evaluated routes and technologies for a transit priority pilot deployment with the intent of enabling modular expansion of the transit priority features across the entire region. The pilot was conducted on a 6 kilometre stretch of an arterial road in the Town of Richmond Hill. Eleven signalized intersections were retrofitted with infrared detectors and upgraded traffic controllers, and 30 buses were retrofitted with infrared emitters 7. Buses along the route operated at 15 to 30 minute frequencies. An evaluation of the pilot project found an increase in corridor transit travel speeds by up to 15% along with reduced delays to buses at signalized intersections. Delays to private vehicle traffic did not significantly increase. 7 Source: Urban Transportation Showcase Program: Dillon Consulting Limited Page 31

42 The cost of the pilot program was $500,000 for the planning, design, deployment and evaluation. City of Winnipeg In the City of Winnipeg, transit priority is also being implemented. The city utilizes diamond lanes and transit-only signals, transit-actuated signals, queue by-pass lanes, and transit only streets. All regional shopping centres and Universities have exclusive transit accesses (part of transit priority initiatives). These have been successful to date, and a recent strategic directions report has recommended the continued implementation of future priority measures. The City has recently begun reassess the potential for BRT services. Region of Waterloo - Grand River Transit iexpress Grand River Transit recently launched a BRT service in September 2005 through the Urban Transportation Showcase Program connecting major origins and destinations in Cambridge, Kitchener and Waterloo including downtown districts, major shopping malls, hospitals, and Universities. The service uses a combination of transit priority features at 15 key intersections and provides an express service with only 13 stops at 13 major stations. These features provide an improved operating speed up to 46% faster than a conventional transit services. Service frequencies along this corridor are a minimum 15 minutes during the peak period and 30 minutes during the off-peak period. Transit stations will soon be equipped with a new type of shelter design, with improved passenger amenities such as bike racks, passenger information, and real time schedule displays that show the arrival time of next buses. The cost of implementing the system is approximately $9 million, of which approximately one-third was provided by the Urban Transportation Showcase Program. Since the system is relatively new, no performance indicators are available to determine its impact on ridership Summary Bus Rapid Transit and transit priority corridors have been and are being implemented in a number of transit systems across Canada. The review of best practices illustrates BRT being implemented through exclusive corridors (Ottawa, Winnipeg), exclusive and semiexclusive lanes (Ottawa, Winnipeg, York), and transit priority (all). Limited stop service has also been implemented in a number of systems to reduce travel time. Overall, these systems have reported a positive impact with transit priority and BRT features in terms of travel time reductions and ridership (where measured). Dillon Consulting Limited Page 32

43 4.3 Discussion of Enhanced Transit Service Options Strategy Framework Options Two enhanced transit strategy framework options are presented in this section of the report: The first is the enhanced transit strategy considered in the City of London TMP which focuses higher levels of transit services in the more built-up, inner-city of the City where there is a greater propensity to use transit. For clarity, this is referred to as the Enhanced Zone Transit Strategy. The second is a proposed corridors and nodes approach to long-term service delivery, which focuses higher levels of transit services along key corridors that connect major origins and destinations. For clarity, this is referred to as the Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Service Strategy. Each is described in detail below. Enhanced Zone Transit Strategy Transit improvements considered in the City of London TMP are based on using an Enhanced Zone Transit Strategy to meet the 10% transit modal split targets. The strategy provides enhanced frequencies on all routes that enter the inner-city zone of the City, providing an improved downtown bus service, and the implementation of transit priority within the downtown area of the enhanced zone to improve travel speeds and increase service reliability. The rationale behind this approach is that the ridership gains would be most prevalent in the inner-city zone where ridership is currently high due to its destination as a major employment node, the higher density built form, and mixed land use. Other individual route improvements mentioned as part of this strategy include the implementation of a downtown circulator service, a new crosstown service between Westmount Shopping Centre and Fanshawe College, and improved services on the Wellington Road corridor. Since these services are not fundamental to the definition of the service strategy, they are not discussed further at this time. The strategy also states that higher order transit may not be appropriate for a City the size of London. The TMP noted that HOV lanes have generally not been put into practice in mid-sized cities (less than 500,000), but should still be considered. It also concluded that the population and employment forecasts and the suburban growth orientation of London s planning policies do not support the extremely costly introduction of higher order transit service such as Light Rapid Transit (LRT) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT). Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Service Strategy The Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Strategy promotes the use of higher order transit to improve the speed, frequency, comfort, and reliability of transit services on key Dillon Consulting Limited Page 33

44 corridors connecting primary transit nodes and activity generators. This includes connections between the four shopping centre sub terminals and the two post-secondary institutions with the downtown area. The goal of this strategy is to focus transit resources (capital and operating costs) on high potential corridors with the intent of making transit services in those corridors more competitive with the private automobile. This strategy is consistent with some of the Public Transit policies in the City s Official Plan, which states Council s support of the long-term development of compact, transit oriented and pedestrian friendly activity centres as well as Council s support of transit priority measures on designated routes linking major activity centres. The downtown market is a focus of this strategy due primarily to the high volume of both transit and auto trips attracted to this area during the peak periods. Providing higher order transit service to the downtown will help to further penetrate this market. The focus on nodes also provides improved service to the suburban markets, since many potential nodes are strategically located in peripheral areas of the City, thereby providing good connections to residential neighbourhoods. Finally, the corridor focus of this strategy provides improved service to the arterial market, by improving frequencies and speed of service on key arterials that connect to key markets and nodes, by servicing a high volume of passengers that would benefit from improvements, and minimizing traffic delays that would be offset by priority features. Higher order transit service within these corridors could take the form of transit priority features and/or semi-exclusive or exclusive transit right-of-way in corridors serving high bus volumes. Similar to the Enhanced Zone Strategy, improved transit service frequencies are recommended on these corridors. Strategy Evaluation One of the considerations brought forth with the Enhanced Zone Transit Strategy in the TMP was to provide all inner-city routes with a standard 15 minute or better service frequency during the 7-hour weekday peak periods (AM and PM) and a standard 30- minute frequency or better during the off-peaks (including Saturday and Sunday). This strategy would increase the level of service on 16 of LTC s existing routes that traverse the inner-city area. While it is recognized that these service improvements would help achieve the targeted transit modal split by 2024, the cost effectiveness of each service improvement is questionable. Of the 16 routes proposed for frequency enhancements, 6 are in the bottom 7 of the most unproductive routes in the system (in terms of cost recovery). Increasing service frequencies on these routes based on a standard policy of 15-minute peak and 30-minute off-peak service would dedicate system resources (buses and operating hours) to routes that may not gain the amount of ridership required to justify the increased expense. While the goal of better service frequency in the downtown area is appropriate, implementation should be in response to demand within the financial performance targets for individual routes and the system overall. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 34

45 The Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Strategy focuses system resources (capital and operating costs) on key corridors that are anticipated to generate the highest ridership return on investment. Routes currently operating on these corridors are good performers in the system. The other difference between the two strategies is their emphasis on higher order transit services. The Enhanced Zone Transit Strategy promotes some transit priority in the inner-city area, while the Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Strategy focuses on higher order transit (which includes transit priority and the potential for exclusive lanes) on high ridership corridors. In order to reach London s peak period transit modal split targets, it was recognized that some form of enhanced or higher order transit service would be necessary over the longterm. Transit must be able to provide the type of service that will attract more choice riders from the private automobile. This means providing a transit service that is more competitive with the private automobile in terms of travel time, operating speed, user convenience and comfort. As stated in the City of London TMP, reaching a 10% modal target will involve a large increase in capital and operating costs. To justify this expense, improved transit services must show an acceptable increase in transit ridership to maintain reasonable cost/recovery and service utilization targets. A blanket policy approach of increasing service frequencies on all inner-city routes, particularly on those that are poor performers, will not generate the ridership required to justify the added expense. The Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Strategy provides a cost-effective service by focusing system resources on corridors that will attract the highest potential of riders. A blanket policy such as the Enhanced Zone Transit Strategy will only generate applicable ridership returns on a few corridors. It can also be concluded that increasing service frequencies on routes will not be enough, particularly when congestion becomes an issue in the City. In the future, population and employment growth will cause vehicle volumes, delays, and average journey times are all expected to increase during the peak periods, even with increases in road capacity and transit service. While increased congestion provides a logical incentive for the choice rider to consider transit, buses competing with private automobiles in mixed traffic will do little to increase mode split in any meaningful way. The Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Strategy addresses this problem by focusing higher order transit on key corridors and provides the Transit service slowed by congestion is counterproductive. (Source: city_services/traffic/26_1_2_1_en.shtml) Dillon Consulting Limited Page 35

46 opportunity to not only implement transit priority features, but also exclusive ROW features along key corridors connecting to major activity generators. For these reasons, and based on the review of best practices and existing markets, it is recommended that the Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Strategy should be developed as the primary focus of moving forward. This approach will: allow a sufficient concentration of resources on key corridors in terms of frequency, travel speed and reliability to be more competitive with the private automobile; and connect various activity generators, providing convenient, fast, and reliable service to key destinations Service Delivery Platform Vehicles Both Light Rapid Transit (LRT) and Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) were examined as potential options to provide the Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Service Strategy for London. LRT operates on fixed guideways or tracks either in the median of a roadway or in an exclusive ROW such as a hydro corridor. These systems can carry between 350 to 650 passengers per train, or 8,000 to 26,000 peak direction passengers per hour in a corridor and operate at higher speeds than buses in mixed traffic. However, for a City the size of London, it is not expected that these corridor transit capacities will be reached by the 2024 time frame. LRT also comes at a significantly high cost and can have a greater impact on adjacent uses, therefore limiting its applicability to certain corridors. Capital costs have been reported at $53.2 M per mile and $324 per hour in operating costs 8, well above the cost of normal or enhanced bus services. In London s environment, feasible LRT corridors are not easily identified and introducing a rail-based component to the transit network would result in many more trips requiring transfers between vehicles, which is very negative from a users perspective. Given the implementation difficulties and increased costs, this study concurred with the City of London TMP in the dismissal of Light Rapid Transit (LRT) systems as an effective strategy to meet London s 10% transit modal share target. BRT is defined as bus services that are, at a minimum, faster than traditional local bus service and that, at a maximum, includes grade-separated bus operations. 9 Generally, BRT systems feature higher levels of service and higher operating speeds, a range of transit priority measures, faster passenger boardings, and a system image that is uniquely identifiable. It offers high quality public transportation that can meet or exceed the 8 Source: Mass Transit, Bus Rapid Transit Shows Promise, United States General Accounting Office, Source: TCRP Report 90: Bus Rapid Transit Dillon Consulting Limited Page 36

47 performance of many rail systems at a fraction of the cost and compete more effectively with the private auto. The benefit of BRT as a form of enhanced transit is that its application is flexible and can be tailored to meet the characteristics of the City in which it is applied, its population and employment growth rates, and the level of ridership attracted to the system as it builds. While it is recognized that there are few examples of BRT systems in cities the size of London (Eugene Oregon being one of the few examples), adopting the design principles and committing to a tailored made in London BRT service in the short-term will help London meet or exceed its long-term modal split target. Combined with the early implementation of cost effective BRT features is a strategy of identifying and protecting for further BRT service enhancements in the future. Moving along the spectrum from current, mixed traffic operations to transit priority measures to full BRT applications in priority corridors will provide a level of transit service that is increasingly competitive with the private automobile in terms of travel time, reliability, convenience, and comfort. The BRT approach also responds to the various transit markets analyzed above. The service is focused on arterial road corridors, connecting the suburban periphery with the downtown area, thereby providing a better level of service for all three markets. Another benefit of BRT is its adaptability in providing an improved level of transit service to different right-of-ways and urban characteristics. BRT components can be phased in over time, with certain components implemented as ridership grows; as population or congestion warrants dictate; or as funding becomes available. The implementation strategy is to adopt BRT elements that make sense to London at each phase of the BRT evolution. Committing now to an Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Strategy using BRT and adopting appropriate municipal policies to support this strategy is the key element in this study s vision of how LTC will do its part in achieving the necessary, long-term transit ridership growth. 4.4 Identify BRT Nodes and Corridors A network of nodes and corridors was identified based on the existing transit service operation, as well as future growth patterns, origin-destination patterns, and corridor characteristics. This proposed network is illustrated in Figure 3. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 37

48 G:\CAD\GIS\ London TDM Masonville Mall Fanshawe College Hyde Park Power Centre Argyle Mall University of Western Ontario Downtown Oakridge Mall Westmount Shopping Centre White Oaks Mall Legend BRT Corridor Link Node London Transit Commission Long-term Transit Growth Study Figure 3 - Proposed Long Term BRT Corridors and Nodes May 2006

49 Transit Nodes Transit Nodes are defined as major attractors and/or generators of trips that also provide a strategic location for multiple routes to meet and facilitate transfers. These are typically found in downtown areas, shopping malls, and at major institutions. The identification, designation, and strengthening of nodes is vital in supporting a strong transit system. Existing and potential new nodes were explored from a system perspective to help support ridership growth and the implementation of a long-term Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Strategy. Downtown Node - The downtown provides an ideal example of a transit node, as it is characterized by higher density development, a mix of residential, commercial and employment uses, and functions as both a major trip generator and attractor within the City. The downtown node should continue to be seen as the heart of the transit system and measures should be taken to enhance this role for both short- and long-term planning horizons. The downtown currently attracts approximately 14% of the AM peak hour transit mode share. Strengthened land use policies that encourage intensification as well as parking strategies that encourage transit use will be key to increasing the transit mode split to the downtown area. Other measures will include improved service to this node through the downtown circulator route, higher frequencies on inner city routes and the BRT strategy identified in this report. Peripheral Nodes - London s existing transit system is focused in the downtown and in six peripheral nodes: Masonville Mall and University of Western Ontario to the north; Fanshawe College and Argyle Mall to the east; White Oaks Mall to the south; and Westmount Shopping Centre to the west. Four of the peripheral nodes are in shopping centres, which also act as major trip generators in the City. These are very appropriate in the layout of transit services, integration with high traffic generators and opportunity to transfer to other routes and destinations. While the retail centres are not currently mixed use or high-density areas, these nodes have provided excellent locations for LTC to focus its services, and it is recommended that these locations be strengthened as sub terminals of LTC s operations in the long-term. As seen in many municipalities, these nodes can progress to a more intensive mix of commercial, residential, and employment uses that can increase transit utilization. This is also the case with the two institutional nodes, which are currently both major generators and attractors of trips for LTC. Upon review of the urban boundary and the developing areas, two additional nodes are suggested: Dillon Consulting Limited Page 39

50 Oakridge Mall - The service along Oxford Street will continue to grow and extend westerly. New services will ultimately be required along Hyde Park Road as it fills in with new development. This node would act as a viable anchor for the mid-west gateway in the City of London. Hyde Park and Fanshawe Park - The density of development and the level of employment being developed at Hyde Park (Wal-Mart) is such that a transit node should be developed. In the future, transit service to the west along Fanshawe Park Road and to the south along Hyde Park Road will emerge. The mall is a logical terminal point. The eight peripheral nodes (six existing and two emerging) identified above should be the next level of focus. These locations should be identified in the Official Plan as areas of nodal intensification and mixed-use development (including a 1 kilometre radius around each node) to help support their role as major transit hubs and as both attractors and generators of transit trips. Such designation followed by sub area studies will permit the City of London, LTC and developers to arrive at the appropriate balance of land use and transit objectives. These transit nodes should also have design guidelines that separate bus flow from normal traffic circulation; set out appropriate proximity for transit users to the buildings and establish transit priority in entering or exiting (left turns) the street system. The LTC operating strategy should continue to focus transit routes to these nodes, and direct new transit routes into these locations to improve connectivity in the network. The success of these peripheral nodes in helping to achieve the 10% transit modal split target is also dependent on the implementation of a number of transit service, land use, and parking strategies that support the City s modal split objectives. These are illustrated in Table 4. Table 4 Strategies to Strengthen Transit Nodes Category Strategy Land Use Strategies Focus intensification and mixed-use development within a 1 kilometre radius of the node to improve its role as a local generator/attractor of trips. Urban Design and Ensure appropriate connectivity for pedestrians between the Access transit terminal and local destinations. Transit Priority Implement signal priority/dedicated lanes in locations where a number of routes enter or leave nodes. Accessibility Promote connections between the specialized paratransit service and Low-floor buses at nodes, thereby allowing opportunities for persons with disabilities to transfer onto the low-floor accessible system. Transit Amenities Focus installation of information systems, shelters, pay phones, newspaper stands, bicycle racks in nodes. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 40

51 Category Park and Ride Connections Strategy Identify strategic opportunities for Park and Ride and Kiss and Ride locations in the node. LTC should enter into negotiations with landowners and developers to assess the possibility of dedicating some parking for these opportunities near transit terminals. Provide direct connections to other nodes, major destinations, etc with focus of routes on BRT corridors to help increase its competitiveness to the private automobile. Provide connections with the cycling network. Sub area studies at each of these nodes are recommended to identify and protect opportunities as described above and ensure the nodes are supported by and contribute to the success of the transit system. Bus Rapid Transit Corridors One of the primary steps in putting this Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Strategy in place is to select appropriate corridors that provide connections to major destinations and provide the largest benefit to transit passengers in terms of travel time savings, service reliability and convenience, and service frequency. Enhanced transit corridors selected were based on existing arterial corridors that connect peripheral transit nodes to the downtown area or other major destinations. Based on the flexibility of BRT design features, as well as the current ridership and land use characteristics of London, it was envisioned that a broad network of corridors that incorporated a wide range of phased BRT components (from transit priority only to corridors with exclusive bus lanes) would best help London reach its modal split targets. This flexible BRT approach is appropriate for a City the size of London, where large scale BRT investment may not be applicable in the short- to medium-term. However, the protection of BRT corridors and nodes is crucial to meeting London s modal split objectives. This approach is supported by a review of existing ridership and the growth patterns in London, which will be spread across several areas including north of Fanshawe Park Road, in the southeast and southwest, and in the west. The strategy also focused on the ability of enhanced nodes and corridor to penetrate into the downtown, suburban, and arterial markets. Defining such corridors followed a review of the current system and was based on the application of the following criteria: 1. Connectivity To attract choice riders and compete with the private auto, corridors should connect major trip attractors and generators without requiring transfers. This suggests a system of corridors connecting the downtown with the eight nodes identified above, as well as any arterials that connect the nodes and other major trip generators. This was the primary screening criteria in the selection of corridors to be protected. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 41

52 2. Benefit to Transit Corridors were selected that have the highest benefit to transit, including number of bus routes currently served, number of passengers, and opportunities for the biggest impact on time saving, etc. 3. Response to Growth BRT corridors should recognize both short- and longterm growth in population and employment. Corridors were selected that connect to areas of planned population and employment growth to provide an opportunity to increase ridership and to help influence development by encouraging strong land use policies along corridors that are transit supportive. 4. Delay Reduction Transit will benefit most from BRT priority features in corridors that are congested. This will provide a direct message to automobile drivers that there is a better way to travel as car occupants waiting in traffic see buses on BRT corridors passing them by. 5. Applicability of Corridor In numerous areas in London, physical constraints from existing urban form, heritage buildings, etc may limit the implementation of some BRT features. This is particularly the case when designating exclusive transit ROW or HOV lanes without the opportunity for road widening. However, this criteria played a less significant factor in selecting corridors due to the flexibility of BRT and the menu of transit priority options available that do not involve either taking away a lane of traffic or adding a lane for transit. Based on these criteria, the following corridors were identified as primary BRT corridors. Each corridor includes a summary of corridor characteristics that will influence the type of BRT development or phasing. It is important to note that as the City develops, other opportunities may arise to extend the enhanced corridors and nodes network to further support the 10% modal split target. Such opportunities may include the identification of an enhanced transit corridor to the southeast area with the expansion and redevelopment of the Airport lands, and to the northeast area with the growth in residential development. The decision to expand the enhanced transit corridor network should be based on the presence or planned development of a transit node which is seen as an anchor for high frequency rapid transit services. Much of this will depend on the design and land use patterns of development in newly developing areas. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 42

53 1. Richmond Street between Sunningdale Road and the downtown Connectivity Provides key connections to nodes and major destinations including Masonville Mall, UWO, the University, St. Joseph s and St. Mary s Hospitals, and the downtown Benefit to Seven bus routes currently traverse portions of this corridor, Transit operating at 10 to 20 minute frequencies during the peaks. Overall, average headways for all routes on sections of this corridor range from 3 to 20 minutes. The most frequent service occurs between Oxford Street and the downtown at 3.5 minutes between buses. Ridership on routes that traverse this corridor is Response to Growth Delay Reduction Applicability of Corridor also high. Rapid population growth will occur north of Fanshawe Park Road, which will add to demand for transit services from this new neighbourhood to key destinations south of Masonville Mall. Infill development is also planned for the downtown area and area around UWO. The London TMP identified no existing capacity deficiencies in this corridor. The corridor is well used and the limited ROW in the south end may lead to future problems with congestion. The London TMP recommends Richmond Street be widened from 4 to 6 through lanes between North Centre Road and Western Road in the 10 to 20 year time frame. This provides an opportunity for an exclusive transit ROW for a section of the corridor. However, there is little room for widening south of Western Road due to physical constraints. 2. Western Road/Woodward Avenue between Richmond Street (via Windermere Road) and downtown (via Riverside Drive) Connectivity Provides key connections to nodes and major destinations including Masonville Mall (via Richmond corridor), UWO, Cherryhill Village Mall, and the downtown Benefit to Transit Seven bus routes currently traverse portions of this corridor, with routes operating at 10 to 30 minute frequencies during the peaks. Overall, average headways for all routes on sections of this corridor range from 3 to 10 minutes. Ridership on this corridor is also relatively high due primarily to the attraction of Response to Growth Delay Reduction UWO. Intensification is planned for both West London and Central London. Opportunities provided for direct connection to UWO from population growth north of Fanshawe Park Road via the Richmond Street corridor. Existing capacity deficiency identified in the TMP on parts of Western Road (v/c greater than 1.00). Dillon Consulting Limited Page 43

54 Applicability of Corridor Western Road widening from 2 to 4 through lanes between Richmond Street and Elgin Road has received EA approval provides better opportunity for queue jump lanes or reserved bus lanes. 3. Dundas Street between Argyle Mall and downtown Connectivity Provides key connections between the Argyle Mall node and the downtown. Benefit to Four bus routes currently traverse portions of this corridor, with Transit routes operating at 10 to 30 minute frequencies during the peaks. Overall, average headways for all routes on sections of this corridor range from 5 to 10 minutes. There is a potential for future routes as the west is developed. Ridership on this Response to Growth Delay Reduction Applicability of Corridor corridor is also relatively high. A significant amount of residential development is not anticipated to occur in the east end of London along Dundas Street with the exception of some downtown intensification. However, some significant Industrial Development along the Airport Road corridor is expected which may increase transit ridership along this corridor if properly served. Existing capacity deficiency identified in the TMP between Highbury Street and Argyle Mall (v/c greater than 0.90). Buses in this section would benefit from transit priority. No network improvements planned on Dundas Street. Dundas Street is currently 4 lanes wide. 4. Oxford Street between Proposed Peripheral Freeway and Richmond Street Connectivity Provides key connections to nodes and major destinations including Oakridge Mall, downtown, and potential transfer points with the Western Road/Woodward Avenue and Richmond Street Corridors. Opportunity for HOV use with connection to proposed peripheral freeway west of Commissioners Road identified in London s Long-term Corridor Protection Study. Benefit to Transit Three bus routes currently traverse portions of this corridor, with routes operating at 20 to 30 minute frequencies during the peaks. Only a small portion of the existing corridor operates more than one bus, at an average headway of 9 minutes. Response to Growth Delay Reduction Ridership on this corridor is considered average. Intensification is planned for West London and Central London, as well as new population growth to the west in the River Bend, Woodhull and Byron Planning Districts. This should add to corridor ridership and increase service frequencies. Existing capacity deficiency identified in the TMP between Sanatorium Road and Richmond Street (v/c greater than 0.90) Dillon Consulting Limited Page 44

55 Applicability of Corridor An Oxford Street West widening from 2 to 4 lanes with centre turn lane between Wonderland Road and Sanatorium Road was approved by Council to be built by The TMP also recommends that Oxford Street be widened to 4 lanes between Sanatorium Road and Commissioners Road within years. The Long-term Corridor Protection Study recommends that Oxford Street between the proposed Western Expressway and Wharncliff Road be protected for 6 lanes, which could be protected for HOV or exclusive transit lane. 5. Oxford Street between Fanshawe College and downtown (via Richmond) Connectivity Provides key connection between Fanshawe College and the downtown via the Richmond Street corridor. Benefit to Three bus routes currently traverse portions of this corridor, Transit with routes operating at 10 to 30 minute frequencies during the peaks. Overall, average headways for all routes on sections of this corridor range from 5 to 7 minutes. Ridership on this Response to Growth Delay Reduction Applicability of Corridor corridor is relatively high. Intensification is planned for Central London, as well as new population growth in the north end of the Huron Heights planning district. Existing capacity deficiency identified in the TMP between Fanshawe College and Richmond Street (v/c greater than 0.90) No network improvements are planned on Oxford Street East. Oxford Street East is currently 4 lanes wide. 6. Wellington Road between White Oaks Mall and downtown Connectivity Provides key connections to nodes and major destinations including White Oaks Mall, Victoria Hospital, and the downtown. Provides an opportunity for HOV use with connection to area south of Highway 401. Benefit to Two bus routes currently traverse portions of this corridor, with Transit routes operating at 15 minute frequencies during the peaks. Overall, average headways for all routes on sections of this corridor range from 7.5 to 15 minutes. Ridership on this Response to Growth Delay Reduction corridor is moderate Intensification is planned for Central London, as well as new population growth to the south in the Longwoods, Bostwick, Lambeth and Talbot Planning Districts. Although not located right on the Wellington Corridor, feeder services could be provided to access a BRT corridor on either Wonderland Road or Wellington Road. Existing capacity deficiency identified in the TMP on most of the corridor (v/c greater than 0.90) Dillon Consulting Limited Page 45

56 Applicability of Corridor TMP recommends to widen/reconfigure Wellington Road to 6 through lanes, centre turn lane and southbound right turn lane Commissioners Road to Dingman Drive between 0 to 5 years. 7. Wonderland Road between Viscount Road and Sarnia Road Connectivity Provides key connection between the Westmount Shopping Center node and the downtown via Oxford Street or the University of Western Ontario via Sarnia Road. Provides an opportunity for HOV use with connection to southwest areas. Benefit to Two bus routes currently traverse portions of this corridor, with Transit routes operating at 30-minute frequencies during the peaks. Overall, average headways for all routes on sections of this corridor range from 15 to 30 minutes. Ridership on this Response to Growth Delay Reduction Applicability of Corridor corridor is low. Intensification is planned for Central London, as well as new population growth to the south in the Longwoods, Bostwick, Lambeth and Talbot Planning Districts. Although not located right on the Wellington Corridor, feeder services could be provided to access a BRT corridor on either Wonderland Road or Wellington Road. Wonderland may also serve some growth from the Byron Planning District. Existing capacity deficiency identified in the TMP on most of the corridor (v/c greater than 1.00) No network improvements planned on Wonderland Road. Wonderland Road is currently 4 lanes wide. 8. Fanshawe Park Road between Wal-Mart Power Centre and Masonville Mall Connectivity Provides key connections between the Wal-Mart Power Centre and Masonville Mall. Benefit to Services Route 34 operating at 30-minute frequencies during Transit the peaks between Pinnicale Parkway and Masonville Mall. There are currently no bus routes that traverse the entire length Response to Growth Delay Reduction Applicability of Corridor of the corridor. Rapid population growth is planned along the north end of this corridor in the Fox Hollow, Sunningdale, and Uplands Planning Districts, as well as the west end of this corridor in the Hyde Park Planning District. Existing capacity deficiency identified in the TMP between Hyde Park Road and Wonderland Road (v/c greater than 0.90) TMP recommends to widen Fanshawe Park Road from 2 to 4 through lanes with dedicated left turn lanes, between Hyde Park Road and Wonderland Road in 0 to 5 years, and to from 4 to 6 through lanes between Wonderland Road and Adelaide Street in 10 to 20 years. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 46

57 With a nodes and corridors network identified, several components of this strategy were examined and evaluated based on ease of implementation and ridership potential. These were grouped into the following categories and are discussed below: 1. Route structure and frequency; 2. Supporting network infrastructure; and 3. Supporting ancillary infrastructure. 4.5 BRT Service Delivery Options As stated above, the real benefit of BRT systems is its flexibility and ability to be phased in over time, with certain components implemented as ridership grows; as population or congestion warrants dictate; or as funding becomes available. This section of the report discusses the various components that should be considered in the Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Strategy using BRT as a servicing platform Route Structure and Frequency Increase Service Frequencies On identified BRT corridors, dedicated buses should operate at 10 minute headways or less during peak periods and at least every 15 to 20 minutes during off-peaks. BRT systems are identified corridors that provide passengers with high frequency service throughout the day, reducing passenger waiting time and eliminating the need for users to consult a trip schedule. Each BRT corridor should offer an appropriate combination of express, semi-express and local service, with some routes devoted exclusively to the corridor, and other feeder routes using parts of the corridor to connect to express routes and take advantage of faster travel times provided with BRT features. Depending on the demand, routes can be designed to stop at all stations, some stations, or no stations between their origin and destination. In London, it is recommended that routes along BRT corridors be identified as the first priority for service level improvements to encourage growth in demand. This should also coincide with population and employment growth in the corridor. Express Bus The City of London TMP recommends service enhancements to 7-8 minutes and express service between White Oaks Mall and downtown on the Wellington corridor. This would add approximately 19,000 additional annual revenue hours of service to the system and 6 buses including spares. Express services can be effective service delivery option in the Enhanced Corridors and Nodes strategy where there is a concentration of riders destined for a location far enough away to realize a significant travel time advantage (White Oaks to downtown being an example). However, express buses that are not full and that bypass riders at intermediate stops are inefficient and generate negative reactions. Also if transit is not receiving Dillon Consulting Limited Page 47

58 priority treatment in the corridor, there may be little travel time advantage to the express service. The considerations for introducing express services in London are high service frequency on the route; concentration of ridership at the boarding points sufficient for full bus loadings; and ability to generate meaningful trip time savings (i.e. priority measures are in place). Candidates for express or semi express service are White Oaks to downtown and Masonville to UWO/hospital to downtown. Introduction should be considered after priority treatments are applied to the associated corridors Supporting Network Infrastructure Transit Priority One of the primary sources of transit delay is congestion in mixed traffic. According to an Institute of Transportation Engineers report, a mixed flow traffic environment can comprise up to 50-60% of transit s total travel time 10. Buses in BRT corridors can take advantage of transit priority technologies to activate or extend turning signals or keep traffic lights green as the vehicle approaches an intersection, thus minimizing red light delays. Transit priority solutions are effective, often low-cost alternatives that typically make use of existing roadway infrastructure and traffic management systems, occasionally requiring modifications to portions of the right of way and the traffic signalling system. These measures will also minimize the need for LTC to put out extra buses and will allow LTC to extend coverage or better service existing and new areas. Transit priority is essential to increase the competitive position of transit and attract new riders. Transit priority installations at key intersections are visible, especially to motorists who perceive that their travel time is being prolonged because transit vehicles are given priority. Transit priority opportunities include: Transit-actuated left turn signal; Transit-actuated signal pre-emption; Transit-only queue jump lane; Transit priority signal indicator (white vertical bar); Reconfiguration of lane geometry and doubling turning lanes; Relocation of specific stops and appropriate stop spacing; Simple signal timing adjustments that benefit transit routes. These measures can be put in place with dedicated ROW, on roads where dedicated ROW is not physically feasible, or as a precursor to dedicated ROW operation and as a method to help build ridership. It is important to note that these benefits will only be achieved if priority measures are planned as a system. In many instances, isolated 10 Mucsi, Kornel, P.Eng., Transit Priority: Development of a Concept ; City of Ottawa. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 48

59 priority measures have a limited impact on transit performance and thus ridership potential. Transit priority should be planned so that buses operating on a common routing such as a BRT corridor can take advantage of several measures that will benefit the speed and reliability of the corridor. Areas where many routes converge (e.g. at nodes, sub terminals and in the downtown) are also major opportunities for adoption of priority measures. An important component is to adopt transit priority into the culture of the City of London. This will involve working with the Environmental and Engineering Services Department to identify methods to appropriately recognize transit routing in the design of the traffic management system. Signal timing will need to consider person delays instead of just vehicle delays to give transit an edge and achieve the modal split targets outlined in the TMP. Transit priority measures do not conflict with the design of emergency vehicle priority measures and when well designed, are compatible with overall traffic operations on the road network. Dedicated Bus Lanes One of the major benefits of BRT is that buses vehicles can operate in their own right-ofway (ROW), thus greatly increasing speed and reducing travel time. Unlike rail, which requires an exclusive ROW, the BRT ROW can also be used by emergency vehicles, and in the interim, shared with high occupancy vehicles (HOV s). Also unlike rail, BRT vehicles can move into and out of shared traffic lanes. This becomes an important feature in London to apply BRT service in corridors where the ROW does not have the physical ability to accommodate a dedicated lane for its entire length. Dedicated ROW also allows for all buses using parts of the corridor to benefit from the improved travel times and reliability while operating on the corridor. Exclusive ROWs can be limited to the weekday peak periods, and converted to either mixed traffic lanes or on-street parking lanes during the off-peaks. Short lengths of exclusive ROW operation in the vicinity of terminals and nodes can be very important and cost effective for enhancing transit services. While this is an important component of BRT, exclusive ROW s are typically seen as one of the last phases of BRT development. While not likely viable in London in the shortterm, there is a need to start the identification and assessment of corridors so that future opportunities are not precluded and low cost, staged priority measures are actioned. It is also recommended that any planned lane expansions on identified BRT corridors be considered for exclusive transit or HOV operation. Dedicated ROWs can also take the form of queue jump lanes near signalized intersections. Queue jump lanes extend existing right turn lanes to the far side of the intersection to allow buses to jump the queue and move through the intersection ahead of traffic. These are typically put in place as a precursor to dedicated ROW or in areas where it may not be physically feasible to install them such as parts of the road network. Queue jump lanes also work in conjunction with transit signal priority features. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 49

60 4.5.3 Supporting Ancillary Infrastructure Transit Stops BRT stops are convenient and easily accessible. They can range from clearly identifiable transit stops to enhanced bus shelters to complete rapid transit facilities. At high capacity locations, BRT can be the catalyst for intensification, mixed use development and pedestrian oriented design, which in turn will help increase ridership. These stations are typically located at major attractors and transfer points to generate the highest ridership potential. Well designed BRT stops and corridors will create a sense of permanence that attracts economic activity to the station area and along the transit corridors. This flexibility in BRT stop design will allow London to invest the appropriate amount in locations that fit their urban characteristics and land use objectives. In the long-term, major stations should be developed around London s existing transfer points and improved upon to include Park-and-Ride and Kiss and Ride, better bicycle and pedestrian access, passenger information systems, convenience facilities, and customer amenities. Sub area planning studies covering a radius of one kilometre around each transit node can be used to determine the appropriate interaction of transportation and land use objectives including intensification and mixed-use development. Along the BRT corridors, London can invest in simple shelters that provide protection for weather conditions, increased passenger amenities, and clearly identifiable signage and system information. Vehicles BRT vehicles can range from existing low-floor buses to hybrid vehicle technologies that look and feel like rapid transit vehicles and have expanded capacity. Generally, hybrid vehicles have the characteristics of being easy to board, comfortable to ride, and quiet. They may also have a unique brand that separates them from conventional, local bus service. Most vehicles are equipped with double-wide doors that make boarding easy and convenient. The most advanced vehicles use optical or magnetic guidance systems, which enhance safety, allow for increased operating speeds, and allow vehicles to pull within inches of a platform, similar to a subway. Vehicle capacities vary depending on the size and design of the vehicle. This ranges from 28-seated passengers using London s existing low-floor buses to over 150 passengers using a double and triple-section articulated vehicles. In London, it is recommended that London s low-floor bus fleet be used in the BRT corridors until sufficient demand warrants the expansion of bus carrying capacity. This is not anticipated to occur in the short- or medium-term. Fare Collection Fares can be collected on board the bus, or before entering the bus. BRT fare collection systems should be designed to minimize the amount of time a vehicle spends at the stop, thus reducing the overall trip time and making transit more competitive with the private automobile. Prior to implementing a specialized fare collection system, London could Dillon Consulting Limited Page 50

61 also look at opportunities to minimize their cash handling by encouraging more pass usage and new types of passes such as employee passes and smart cards. As well as stimulating ridership growth, these techniques will also help reduce waiting time for buses at stops and stations and help improve overall passenger travel time in line with the BRT objectives. Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) BRT can use ITS systems to track vehicle locations, control traffic signals, update passengers on travel times, as well as provide other important functions such as improved dispatching of vehicles and faster responses times in emergencies. ITS can also be a stand alone feature put in use system-wide, such as in St. John s to assist dispatching or used solely for the BRT corridors. BRT can function without some ITS features, such as GPS tracking technology. In London, each bus using the BRT corridor will need to be equipped with signal detection technology to promote transit priority along these corridors. As the system develops and ridership grows, other forms of technology such as GPS tracking technology should be explored to improve the quality of service to transit passengers Summary Several components of a BRT network has been explored that should form part of the overall Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Strategy. These components are not mutually exclusive. Solutions should look at a combination of these BRT components in each corridor that make sense in terms of corridor and ridership impact. Each of these BRT components are evaluated in the following section based on ease of implementation and impact on ridership. For reasons stated earlier in Section 4.3.1, rail based technology solutions are not considered appropriate in the long-term strategy for London. The options are summarized in the same format as described above: 1. Route structure and frequency 2. Supporting network infrastructure 3. Supporting ancillary infrastructure 4.6 Evaluation of BRT Components Given the need to drive the PM peak hour transit mode share from the current level of 7% to the target level of 10% by 2024, and the sensitivity of the choice rider to travel time, convenience and comfort, implementing a combination of BRT components on designated enhanced nodes and corridors would significantly benefit the City s objectives. We reviewed the applicable options described above and evaluated them based on a number of criteria: Dillon Consulting Limited Page 51

62 relative costs of implementation; change from existing conditions; legislative impediments; potential for community issues; and ability of the strategy to marginally contribute (i.e., contribute more than it currently contributes) to the goal of increasing transit ridership. It is important to note that this evaluation is not meant to exclude certain components of the long-term service strategy. The purpose of the evaluation was to identify components of the Corridors and Nodes BRT framework with the highest potential for increasing transit mode share and to identify barriers that may need to be overcome to permit their implementation. The evaluation criteria are described in Table 5. An evaluation of Low signifies the most positive result (i.e. fewest implementation barriers) with the exception of the Effectiveness to Improve Transit Ridership, where an evaluation of High is the most positive result. Table 6 summarizes the evaluation of the various BRT components available to LTC in its overall Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Strategy. Table 5 Evaluation Criteria Explanations Assessment Evaluation Criteria Variables Low Mod (Moderate) High Some capital costs Cost to Minimal capital and initially and minimal Implement operating costs operating costs Change from Existing Conditions Legislative Impediments Community Opposition (perceived) Effectiveness to Marginally Improve Transit Ridership Little or no change Existing Legislation in place Public and Business communities are supportive Transit Ridership growth similar to total travel growth, no change of mode share Noticeable change with little disruption Legislation required only at municipal level A split of support between the Public and Business communities Strong increase in transit ridership and noticeable increase in mode share Significant capital investment and ongoing operating costs Noticeable change requiring adjustment in behaviour No ability to legislate at any level of government Public and Business communities opposed Dramatic increase in transit ridership and significant increase in mode share Dillon Consulting Limited Page 52

63 Enhanced Transit Strategy Table 6 Assessment of Individual BRT Components Cost to Implement Implementation Issues Change from Existing Conditions Legislative Impediments Community Opposition (perceived) Effectiveness to Improve Transit Ridership ROUTE STRUCTURE AND FREQUENCY Corridor Frequency Low Low Low Low Mod Improvement Express Services Low Low Low Mod Low/Mod 11 SUPPORTING NETWORK INFRASTRUCTURE Transit Priority Mod Low/Mod Low Low/Mod Mod Semi- Exclusive Bus Corridors Mod/High High Mod/High Mod/High High SUPPORTING ANCILLARY INFRASTRUCTURE Transit Stops Low Low Low Low Low Vehicles Mod Low Low Low Low Fare Collection Mod Low/Mod Low Low Low/Mod ITS Low/Mod Low/Mod Low Low Low/Mod As Table 6 illustrates, each of the three basic components of BRT have different characteristics and the long-term strategy for LTC should be to effectively combine the appropriate elements of each to maximize ridership potential. For transit ridership growth to significantly outpace the growth in auto travel during the peak period there must be an investment in making transit more competitive and the key competitive factor is the reduction in travel time. Hence identification and protection of BRT corridors is essential now along with the staged implementation of cost effective features to enhance transit services operating in these corridors. It is important to note that some of these actions need to overcome moderate to high implementation barriers. Some of these deal with increasing the emphasis on transit priority and exclusive ROWs. The development of exclusive or semi-exclusive transit infrastructure will also likely involve going through a Municipal Class EA Process, which will involve participation and support from the community. Others involve overcoming some potential initial opposition by vehicle drivers regarding transit priority features. Some of this can be overcome by education campaigns that identify the benefits of transit priority to the overall transportation system and let drivers know that transit priority will not significantly impact their own travel times. Finally, there may be some 11 Express service will only have a moderate impact on corridor ridership when delivered with transit priority features to ensure buses are not stuck in traffic. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 53

64 initial opposition from staff at the City that will be required to look at traffic operations from a different perspective to see this plan to fruition. Constant cooperation and communication are vital in overcoming this barrier. There are three over-arching strategies that were considered in overcoming the identified barriers: 1. Proceed with a Phased Approach Higher order transit strategies should be phased in to help cost effectively build ridership on each corridor and on the system as a whole. This will ensure system resources are efficiently allocated and may help reduce some opposition from both City staff and the public on issues such as transit priority and exclusive bus lanes by phasing such changing in over the 20 year time frame. 2. Protect Now ultimate strategies that may have phased implementation should still be protected now so the opportunity is not lost in the future. London has a practice of acting on traffic congestion before it becomes a significant issue. To reach the 10% transit modal split, London must be forward thinking in its approach and protect corridors and nodes through policy, set aside capital for future transit expansion, and evaluate all future transportation and land use decisions based on its impact to meeting this mode split target. 3. Seize Opportunities - as the road network is expanded and intersection improvements initiated along identified BRT corridors or near existing or emerging nodes, insert in the design process an assessment of the benefits of advancing the transit priority measures that will one day be required. 4.7 Recommendations The City of London has set an aggressive goal of moving the City-wide PM peak hour transit mode share from 7% in 2004 to 10% in Failure to reach this mode share target will result in the need to increase the transportation infrastructure, namely the need for additional lanes of road network across London screenlines by 2024 as identified in the Transportation Master Plan and/or the Full Peripheral Freeway (Ring Road) as identified in the Long-term Transportation Corridor Protection Study. The City of London is doing a number of good things that will assist in the movement towards the stated goal; however, given the magnitude of the required increase (43% increase in PM peak hour mode share for transit) further actions are required. A number of actions were identified in developing the Long-term Transit Strategy using the various moderate and high impact components described above. Other high impact recommendations are presented as a support to the nodes and corridors strategy that are also essential to reaching London s mode split targets. It is important to emphasize that when discussing this strategy that this should be a made in London approach. There Dillon Consulting Limited Page 54

65 should be a base level of BRT components implemented in each identified corridor, however, it should also be phased in at a level that can be supported by the characteristics of the City, as well as its long-term vision. The steps required to develop the Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Strategy using BRT are: 1. Identify Ultimate BRT Vision and Phasing 2. Develop BRT/Transit Priority Triggers 3. Develop Servicing Strategy 4. Develop Park and Ride Strategy 5. Adopt Nodes and Corridors into Policy Documents 6. Determine Ancillary Support Features 7. Identify Complimentary High Impact Service Adjustments 8. Expand Long-term Planning and Marketing Capacity 9. Identify Land Use Planning and Parking Supports Each of these actions is discussed individually below Identify Ultimate BRT Vision and Phasing As demonstrated by the preliminary assessment of each corridor (Section 4.4), a number of corridors will warrant an exploration of BRT features in the near term, while others will warrant corridor protection for future service enhancements in the long-term as the surrounding population grows and conditions become more favourable to implement BRT components. Based on an initial assessment of current demands in each corridor, the following priorities are recommended: Short-term 1. Richmond Street 2. Western Road 3. Dundas Street East Medium-term 1. Oxford Street East 2. Wellington Road Long-term 1. Oxford Street West 2. Wonderland Road 3. Fanshawe Park Road The corridors should be planned now to determine the ultimate vision of the BRT network. Decisions must be made in terms of the level of capital investment appropriate in each corridor, and the corridors ability to generate ridership given the capital invested. In some cases, a corridor will be determined a transit priority corridor, with small and inexpensive measures in place to increase transit preference in the road system. In other Dillon Consulting Limited Page 55

66 corridors, the ultimate vision may be a continuous HOV/BRT lane. Some measures such as signal priority and increased service frequency should occur system wide, while others will be dependent on the characteristics of each segment of each corridor. The central area of London contains a number of physical constraints to BRT due to existing building forms, higher densities, heritage structures, narrower rights-of-way, sensitive residential communities, commercial access requirements and environmental features. In areas such as the downtown, BRT improvements will need to first focus on increased service frequency, signal priority, and queue jump lanes. Consideration of HOV operation without road widenings will require comprehensive cost benefit and traffic impact studies. Other alternatives may include conversions of some corridors to one-way streets to provide room for a dedicated bus lane and clearly such dramatic changes will require full impact analysis. However, achieving mode split targets without some dramatic improvement in transit service level on key corridors is problematic. The LTC must move beyond operation in mixed traffic conditions to achieve the City s objectives. On corridors such as Wonderland Road, Wellington Street and Fanshawe Park Road, better opportunities exist for such BRT features as exclusive lanes and express bus. HOV lanes along with Park and Ride lots should also be considered at major BRT stations to promote high-occupant vehicle use. In general, four types of corridors should be identified within the BRT plan: 1. Transit priority without infrastructure this involves the use of transit priority features such as extended green time during peak periods and signal pre-emption on BRT corridors; 2. Transit priority with infrastructure this involves the next level of transit priority such as queue jump lanes. 3. Semi-exclusive bus lanes this involves putting in place HOV lanes with transit priority features 4. Exclusive bus lanes this is the final step, which involves putting in place dedicated bus lanes. To undertake the phasing exercise of BRT components in each of the corridors, an approach similar to the one used to establish a Transit Priority Network in Ottawa is recommended. This requires evaluating each of the identified corridors based on the following criteria: 1. Problem Criteria the observed travel speed (higher is better) and variability in travel speed (lower is better) on affected routes (provided by data collection systems on buses that track vehicle location and speed, passenger volumes, and time spent at bus stops or other points of delay). Dillon Consulting Limited Page 56

67 2. Benefit Criteria the number of buses and passengers affected, the relative importance of the corridor within the overall transit system for both existing and future horizons and the potential for travel time or reliability improvements. 3. Feasibility Criteria cost, technology and space requirements, and impacts on other traffic. Each corridor should then ranked as a low, medium or high action priority for each BRT component, which leads to the ultimate designation of a single network for long-term implementation. Clearly, the level of difficulty and cost increases when moving from [implementing transit priority without infrastructure] to [converting mixed flow lanes to Reserved Bus Lanes (RBL)] BRT/Transit Priority Triggers Several industry-wide criteria are available to allow for a detailed assessment of corridors again based on the model used by Ottawa. Implementing BRT or transit priority based on meeting these criteria is dependent on appropriate funding being set aside by the City for fleet expansion, transit priority technology, minor reconstruction, roadway upgrades, and improvements to passenger amenities. In addition to planning and implementing transit priority projects, opportunities for transit improvements should be sought in conjunction with other roadway improvement projects. That is, transit priority opportunities should be discussed during the initial stages of any capital projects (e.g. intersection improvements, major road rehabilitation, stormwater, sewer or water projects) especially if the affected roadway is part of the established BRT Network. Other triggers would include progress the City is making in affecting transit supportive parking and land use practices. Implementing BRT components can be a way to encourage new development to be more transit supportive or to offset decreases in downtown parking supply. While recent ridership spikes have been very important, sustaining annual growth rates of this magnitude require more than an incremental approach to transit service improvement. Appropriate means need to be identified now and incorporated in planning so that the recommended BRT service improvements can be implemented as required. The following section describes the implementation of various Transit Priority improvements. Transit Priority without Infrastructure Transit priority both with and without infrastructure should be considered on all identified BRT corridors as an initial first step in improving the attractiveness of the service. In order to implement the most appropriate transit priority tool at the right location, a more detailed assessment of each corridor is needed. LTC will have to work Dillon Consulting Limited Page 57

68 in conjunction with traffic signal staff to identify roadway segments and/or intersections with high transit delay or high travel time variability, or both. The cost/ benefit assessment will have to consider impacts on mixed vehicle flow. This should be done on a person delay basis by weighting the number of passengers in the vehicles (e.g. a car carries 1.2 passengers on average whereas a bus carries up to 40 passengers). As an example, a 10-second delay to 30 cars carrying an average of 36 passengers is outweighed by a transit priority signal indicator installation that provides a 20-second queue jump to 40 passengers on one bus (i.e. 360 person seconds of delay to car occupants is much less than 800 person seconds of delay to bus occupants). It is also important to note that buses are fixed to routes and must bear whatever congestion impacts exist whereas car drivers have the flexibility to adjust travel path and departure times and therefore are not as severely impacted by congestion in a corridor as a bus. Based on an assessment of each corridor, a range of transit priority tools can be implemented to solve identified transit progression or delay issues. The toolbox of transit priority opportunities listed in Table 7 should be considered. Table 7 - Toolbox of Transit Priority Without Infrastructure Left Turn Improvements: bus-actuated signal preemption; bus-actuated protected left turn phase; signal timing modifications (e.g. left turn phase extension); bus-actuated lead left turn phase Through route segments: signal coordination with bias toward transit route movements; relocating bus stop locations to improve transit flow; transit queue jump with Transit Priority Signal Indicator (TPSI). TPSI Transit Priority measures should be considered at access points to bus lanes, transit terminals, and at locations where bus turning movements experience significant delays. As a rough gauge, locations with peak hour bus frequency of three to four buses per hour are good candidate locations. It should be noted that the cumulative effect of several transit priority measures along a given corridor is more beneficial than at isolated intersections. The implementation plan developed should take this into consideration. Transit Priority with Infrastructure At certain locations, physical roadway modifications will be required in order to implement Transit Priority measures. The following are examples: A queue jump with queue relocation may require the reconstruction of a curb or extension of a lane s length. A bus-only turning lane may be needed to improve access to/from a transit terminal. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 58

69 Transit Priority measures that require infrastructure improvements have a higher cost of implementation than traffic control measures. As such, a higher volume of passengers/ higher frequency of buses would be expected to benefit from Transit Priority measures that require infrastructure improvements. Physical modifications to roadway infrastructure can form part of a longer-term solution for a given corridor, for example an interim solution prior to full implementation of BRT. In each case, the specific transit operation problem addressed will have to be assessed to determine whether the modification will produce the desired effect for the anticipated cost (i.e. benefit/ cost ratio). The decision to implement a particular Transit Priority measure depends more on the opportunity to implement (e.g. roadway geometry is conducive to a particular solution) than it does on a specific frequency of buses. Semi-Exclusive Bus Lanes A common tool for transit operations is to make use of curb lanes during peak periods to improve travel time. This technique retains the use of parking or general purpose traffic in the curb lane during the off peak period or even during peak period in the non-peak direction. This can also be used as an incremental migration toward use of dedicated bus lanes. Extension of transit priority to semi-exclusive bus lane should be assessed based on a cost/benefit analysis. It is also recommended that bus frequency be in the range of buses per hour before this treatment is considered. Traffic enforcement, education and signage will be required to implement and maintain semi-exclusive bus lanes. In the case of HOV, additional enforcement efforts will be required. It is very difficult to distinguish a vehicle with 2 or 3 passengers (depending on the HOV definition) from a single occupant vehicle. As a consequence, HOV lanes are easily misused, especially when traffic congestion is high. Exclusive Lanes Exclusive bus lanes are the ultimate designation in terms of BRT/ Transit Priority tools. Signage, lane markings and use of other distinctive features are required to highlight exclusive lane use. As with semi-exclusive bus lanes, traffic enforcement, education and signage will be required to implement and maintain exclusive use of the lanes. Reserved Bus Lanes are typically easier to enforce and allow greater flexibility in terms of implementing Transit Priority measures, especially those requiring special transit-only signal phases Bus Service Strategy The service strategy on identified corridors will also need to be reassessed. The benefit of BRT is that routes can go off corridors to perform local area feeder services. On the other hand, BRT buses can be devoted exclusively to the corridors, providing direct and frequent access between transit nodes. Given the size of the City and the relatively short travel distances, it is recommended that in most of the BRT corridors, LTC continue to Dillon Consulting Limited Page 59

70 operate in a similar route structure with buses continuing to feed into neighbourhoods and use the BRT corridors to travel between nodes, thereby reducing travel time and trip variability. As ridership improvements and intensification around nodes occur, it may be worth exploring frequent semi express or express routes operating exclusively on the BRT corridors, with transfers provided by feeder routes at each node. Bus frequencies on routes that operate on BRT corridors should also be reviewed in detail. Route frequencies between 5 to 10 minutes during the peak periods and minimum 20 minutes during the off peaks should be achieved in the long-term as the corridors develop and population and employment continues to grow Park and Ride Strategy As mentioned in Section 4.4, Park and Ride and Kiss and Ride opportunities should be considered at any of the peripheral commercial nodes identified in the Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Strategy. These present an ideal location for Park and Ride lots, located between 5 and 8 kilometres away from the downtown, connected by a proposed BRT service along an accessible arterial road network, and also provide the opportunity to make multiple trips during the PM peak period to the shopping centre without moving their cars. Park and Ride lots at the White Oaks Mall could also serve trips from areas outside of London via Hwy 401, such as St. Thomas. Each of the shopping centre nodes contains a number of unused parking spaces during the AM peak period. The strategy would place increased emphasis on each node and would also be an efficient use of land by using existing unused parking spaces rather than creating new spaces on greenfield lands. Negotiations would need to take place with mall owners to determine the location and number of spaces reserved for Park and Ride lots. The benefits of Park and Ride lots at these nodes should be stressed to mall owners to sell them on the opportunity. These include increased retail sales from Park and Ride users making a secondary trip into the mall during the PM peak period, as well as improved transit services to each mall as part of the overall nodes and corridors strategy that will also bring in other patrons that are not parked at the mall. It is also important to stress that the peak period for Park and Ride users does not coincide with the peak shopping period. As a further encouragement, parking restrictions can be relaxed as each of these shopping areas intensify in exchange for putting in place Park and Ride facilities Adoption of Nodes and Corridors into Policy Documents To implement BRT, an ultimate vision needs to be established by both the City and LTC, and incorporated into LTC s capital planning budget, the Transportation Master Plan, the City s Official Plan, and the overall land use planning and transportation culture of the City. London must establish that this is the path it will use to reach its 10% modal split target and then put in place the actions required to support BRT development. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 60

71 The designation of Enhanced Transit Corridors and Nodes in the Official Plan should be based on a separate schedule. Land use policies around nodes and corridors should also be strengthened to focus future high-density development and employment in these areas. The long-term objective of achieving a 10% transit modal split should also be reflected in Official Plan, with appropriate policies developed to support that vision. This is discussed in more detail in Section Ancillary Support Features As mentioned above, a number of ancillary support features are required to support the higher level of service required in a BRT system. These include shelters/stations, ITS features, customer information systems, and advanced fare collection systems. Many of these are considered to be low impact on ridership, but are necessary to ensure the image of the system, comfort, and speed are improved. Some of these are easily done and should be pursued in the short-term. These include: 1. Improved Transit Stops In the short-term, there should be an increased focus of improving passenger amenities at key stops along short-term BRT corridors (i.e. Richmond Street and Dundas Street) and each of the identified transit nodes. This includes improved shelter design to minimize discomfort from inclement weather and the provision of passenger amenities such as benches, newspaper boxes and system information (i.e. route maps). Bike racks should be considered along key transit routes that meet with London s existing and proposed bicycle path network, particularly along the BRT corridors. 2. Vehicles To provide maximum accessibility, all routes operating primarily on the BRT corridor network connecting major nodes should be designated as lowfloor bus routes. Currently on these corridors, only Routes 6 and 7 are designated as low-floor bus routes. This strategy will require Routes 2, 10, 13, and 17 to also be designated as low-floor bus routes, along with any other routes that operate significantly on these corridors. In the long-term, as ridership reaches capacity along these corridors, consideration should be given to purchasing new vehicles with increased capacity, more comfortable seats, air conditioning, and extra-wide doors to increase boarding/alighting times. These would then be branded to the BRT corridors. In the short-term, an initial step would be to brand existing buses that operate primarily on these corridors once transit priority features or enhanced passenger amenities are in place. 3. Fare Collection For a system the size of London, it is recommended that fares continue to be collected onboard buses as opposed to platform fare collection methods used in some larger BRT systems. However, methods to reduce dwell time at stops through fare collection should be considered over the long-term period. This includes examining the potential of implementing Smart-Card technology, increasing the introduction of U-Pass to employers, and promoting further introduction of Employee Passes. This will reduce the cash handling Dillon Consulting Limited Page 61

72 requirements of bus drivers, and make travelling on the entire transit system more convenient. The application of Smart Cards would also allow London to experiment with various fare strategies that are beyond the scope of this report. These include reduced fares during off-peak periods, weekly passes, daily passes, etc. A review of Smart Card Technology to support the BRT network should be explored and evaluated in 2008/2009, as outlined in LTC s current Business Plan. 4. ITS Applications In the short-term, each bus using the BRT corridor will need to be equipped with signal detection technology to allow preemptive transit priority features. As the system develops and ridership grows, other forms of technology such as GPS tracking technology should be explored to improve the quality of service to transit passengers. This technology can monitor the location of buses in real time and transmit that information to passengers at key transit stops/terminals and over the internet to reduce the uncertainty of waiting for buses. A review of ITS infrastructure needs to support the BRT network should be explored and evaluated in more detail in 2006/2007, as outlined in LTC s current Business Plan Complimentary High Impact Service Adjustments The long-term enhanced service strategy will also require additional routes and route extensions in response to population and employment growth and to further support the Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Strategy. LTC currently does a good job in putting out new services in response to growth. It is recommended that LTC continue to operate under this philosophy of extending routes that make sense from a ridership and financial perspective while making sure that the overarching philosophy of the Enhanced Transit Corridors and Nodes Strategy is maintained. Some of suggested route extensions/new routes outlined in the City of London TMP should be considered based on these criteria. These are: 1. Improved Crosstown Service - The City of London TMP considered the provision of a better crosstown transit service between Fanshawe College and Westmount Shopping Centre operating at 15 minute peak frequencies and 30 minute off-peak frequencies via the Emery/Thomson/Egerton corridor. This would add approximately 30,000 additional annual revenue hours of service to the system and 10 buses including spares. LTC service planning staff should examine the modifications required to other routes and the possible intermediate stops associated with such a crosstown service. Clearly Fanshawe College is a major trip generator and Westmount Shopping Centre is an established node. The suggested routing would introduce service through several established neighbourhoods and greatly benefit users destined to these two locations. Other major attractors along the route are not evident and the route would require transfers to get to other major destinations. The magnitude of the resource commitment required and the difficulty in withdrawing service once introduced suggests that a detailed assessment of ridership potential be undertaken as well as Dillon Consulting Limited Page 62

73 the potential for transit supportive development along the selected route. In the short to medium term, the available resources might be better focused on other elements of the strategy. 2. Enhanced Services in the Downtown - The City of London TMP considers the provision of a downtown circulator service connecting the transfer points on Richmond Street to the main downtown destinations such as the City Hall, Central Library, Art Gallery and Museum, the main office buildings, the inter-city bus and rail stations, and entertainment venues. This proposal calls for 4 buses operating all day at 15 minute service. This would add approximately 15,000 additional annual revenue hours of service to the system and 4 buses (5 including a spare). A downtown circulator route is a strategy adopted in several cities with varying degrees of success. It would certainly enhance service in the inner city area which is targeted for service improvement and which already has more transit friendly development patterns. As well as service to the attractions mentioned such a circulator would be useful at high density residential locations and any senior s centres in the downtown. For residents outside the downtown, the circulator route will involve transfers from other routes and in serving many attractions there can be an indirectness in travel which is a disincentive for some users. Such a route would be supportive of downtown tourism and business interests and as such there may be some partnership opportunities to help offset operating costs. Unlike the crosstown route, the downtown circulator could be separately branded and introduced on a trial basis with minimal impacts on regular LTC routing. LTC service planning staff should design a trial application of this route on a partnership basis and with clear financial targets to sustain operation. 3. Enhanced Frequencies on Inner City Routes - As previously mentioned, the City of London TMP considered a long-term service option that would provide all inner-city routes with a standard 15 minute service frequency or better during the 7-hour weekday peak period and a standard 30-minute frequency or better during the off-peaks (including Saturday and Sunday). This would add approximately 86,000 revenue service hours to the system and 32 additional buses (38 including spares). Instead of increasing service frequencies on these routes based on a standard policy of 15-minute peak and 30-minute off-peak service, it is recommended that this option look at increasing the frequency on inner-city routes to this standard based on ridership projections as the population and employment areas grow. Financial performance standards on individual routes must be maintained. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 63

74 Other complimentary service extensions not mentioned in the TMP could include: 1. A link between Oakridge Mall and the Hyde Park node at Hyde Park Road and Fanshawe Park Road via Hyde Park Road. 2. Extension of services into the Lambeth Community as the area between Lambeth and Southdale Road develops. 3. A direct service between Westmount Shopping Centre node and the downtown using the Wonderland Road corridor. 4. New service on Fanshawe Park Road or an adjacent collector road between the Hyde Park node and the Masonville Mall node. These should be studied in further detail to assess long-term ridership and cost/revenue performance Service Planning and Marketing Capacity To reach a 10% mode split target, LTC will also need to devote more time to long-term service planning, marketing and promotion, as well as coordination with other municipal departments. In addition to operating staff increases due to service improvements, the responsibilities of an existing LTC transit planner(s) should be dedicated to the goals and strategies described in this report. The person would act as an advocate for transit, liaise with key city departments, review all development plans, actively market transit and spearhead the implementation of the BRT plan, pursue transit pass opportunities, and be the catalyst for heightening transit awareness and monitoring of progress toward long range targets. This individual would also represent transit in the City s SHIFT Program. The City may also require additional staff resources to manage the implementation of transit priority Land Use Planning and Parking Supports The final challenge in moving forward is to recognize the importance that land use and parking strategies will play in supporting not only the Enhanced Corridor Transit Strategy, but transit as a whole in moving forward. It must be recognized that without this focus on transit supportive land use and parking tools, reaching the City s transit modal split targets will not be possible, or will require excessive capital and operating resources beyond what is proposed in this report and the City of London TMP. These necessary inputs are discussed in more detail in Section 5.0 and 6.0 of this report. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 64

75 5.0 LAND USE PLANNING SUPPORT TO TRANSIT 5.1 Introduction Land use is a key determinant of transportation choices. Land use that is supportive of transit service will attract a much larger pool of potential riders without having to invest as high a cost in the level of service, as occurs in an area that is not transit supportive. Creating transit supportive development can be completed through a series of policies and practices that influence urban structure, mix of land uses, density of development, distances to transit facilities / services, corridors / ROW, and pedestrian amenities. This reflects the notion that encouraging transit-supportive development is not a matter that can be dealt with by focussing on one subject alone (e.g. density). Rather, it requires a system of policies working together to encourage high-quality, transit-supportive communities. 5.2 Framework There are four general land use policy areas, which if appropriately developed, can be used to promote effective transit services and increase ridership: Growth Management/Urban Structure Transit supportive growth management and urban structure policies include defining compact and phased urban development boundaries, promoting phased development, and defining a transit supportive structure within the urban development boundary that supports higher densities and mixed uses at logical corridors and nodes. Structured growth that is supportive of transit promotes logical extensions of transit routes without significant deadheading (the need to service leapfrog development) and a concentration of services in key areas within the urban boundary. Density Transit supportive density policies include encouraging higher overall densities, higher population and employment densities along or adjacent to transit corridors and nodes, and encouraging infill and intensification where appropriate. Densities supportive of transit will increase the number of potential riders within the catchment area of a transit route. This will, in turn, increase the cost effectiveness of the service, and help justify improved service levels (i.e. service frequencies). Mix of Land Uses Transit supportive land use policies promote a mix of compatible land uses and live/work opportunities, encourage balanced residential and employment growth within nodes and corridors, and provide a variety of housing opportunities. Mixed-use developments will increase opportunities for residents/employees to walk or cycle to activities, and reduce trip frequencies and/or distances. This promotes the type of market that is best served by transit. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 65

76 Urban Form Transit supportive design policies and guidelines include promoting pedestrian scale, safety, comfort and mobility; attractive buildings, landscaping and public streetscapes; appropriate building placement and orientation; and a fine grain grid network of streets. This will help promote the ease of access to transit, and effectiveness of transit routing. This section of the report provides a summary of what other jurisdictions are doing to encourage transit supportive development, and provides an overview of the process needed to "raise the bar" of transit-supportive land use policy in London based on the four broad policy and practice areas identified above. Additionally, this report also looks at specific design criteria related to transit supportive development, which is referred to as the City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines. These are detailed in Appendix A. It should be noted that while relevant to this section, policies regarding corridors and nodes were discussed in Section 4.0 of this report while parking related policies, By-laws and practices that support transit are discussed in the Section 6.0 of this report. 5.3 Review of Land Use Planning Policies and Practices A review of relevant practices from other municipalities on transit supportive land use policies was undertaken and is summarized below. The review involved a synopsis of municipal documents and interviews with key staff. A number of guidelines and handbooks which address transit-supportive development through the application of specific design criteria were also reviewed. These primarily address urban form, but also address some density and mix of land use policies that promote transit supportive development. These relevant practices were categorized into the following municipal tools that can be used to support transit: 1. Official Plan Policies York Region City of Ottawa City of Winnipeg City of Hamilton 2. Community Improvement Plans City of Hamilton City of Ottawa 3. Development Review Practices City of Mississauga York Region Dillon Consulting Limited Page 66

77 4. Transit Supportive Design Guidelines Transit and Land Use Planning, BC Transit; Transit-Oriented Development Best Practices Handbook and Transit Friendly Design Guide, City of Calgary and Calgary Transit; Model Urban Design Guidelines, Regional Municipality of Niagara; and, Transit-Supportive Land Use Planning Guidelines, Ministry of Transportation and Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Each of these tools are discussed in more detail below. Zoning By-laws from other municipalities were also reviewed, however, nothing notable other than parking strategies that support transit was found. Relevant parking policies that support transit are documented in Section of this report Official Plan Polices Official Plan policies were reviewed based on the four land use policy areas identified above. Due to the extent of transit supportive policies and practices in York Region s Official Plan, rather than review and comment on each policy or sub-section, Table 8 through Table 11 puts London's Official Plan policies in context with the Region of York's Official Plan Amendment (ROPA 43), and provides observations related to London's current land use planning policies for growth management/urban form, density, mix of use, and form. It is recognized that the scale of the municipality and the transit service characteristics is different between the two municipalities; however, York Region's land use policies are considered fairly modern and very transit-oriented, and serve an aggressive gauge to measure the adequacy of London's transit policies. Growth Management/Urban Structure All Official Plans reviewed promote an urban structure that focuses high density and mixed-use development around a series of nodes and corridors. The City of Hamilton Official Plan promotes a concentration of high density residential development in the immediate proximity of major transit corridors and transfer points in the transit system. A number of regional nodes and corridors are also identified in Hamilton s Official Plan, with policies that promote intensification and mixed-use development. This focus on nodes and corridors promotes a concentration of density and transit supportive development practices that support effective transit service. The City of Ottawa Official Plan also contains a number of transit supportive policies to support its Rapid Transit network. It states that approximately 90% of new growth should be accommodated within areas designated within its urban boundary. These are areas where services already exist and can be easily extended to service new communities. Concentrating services in the urban boundary also supports density targets that encourage transit, cycling and walking as viable and attractive alternatives to the private automobile. Within the designated urban area, growth will be directed to locations with significant development potential. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 67

78 York Region s Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA 43) - Centres and Corridors Strategy, was developed in conjunction with the VIVA Rapid Transit strategy as a Growth Management Policy to focus transit oriented development on nodes and corridors along the VIVA system. The plan states that transit and other sustainable measures are to be used to provide capacity for new growth. As such, a number of transit supportive policies are outlined in the plan. Table 8 identifies a number of growth management/urban structure policies in York Region s Official Plan that are supportive of transit, as well as what London is doing to achieve this same objective. Table 8 - Comparative Review of City of London and York Region Official Plan Growth Management/Urban Structure City of London York Region Observations on London's Policies Growth Strategies Compact urban form and efficient use of serviced land shall be encouraged. This pertains to the development or expansion of the urban area of the City in a manner that avoids a scattered or leap-frog development pattern, maximizes the use of existing services, minimizes the loss of productive agricultural land, is conducive to the provision of public transit High and medium density residential development shall be directed to appropriate areas within and adjacent to the Downtown, near periphery of Regional and Community Shopping Areas and in selected locations along major roads and near Open Space. Infill development and intensification of lands or buildings suitable for residential development shall be encouraged. Council supports the long-term development of compact transit oriented and pedestrian friendly activity centres as well as Growth management model encourages additional development within the existing urban area. Assurance that travel demand and transportation facilities with an emphasis on public transit are kept in balance over time through the planning and development review/approval process. The role of the development lands is supportive of an urban structure of centres and corridors with transit-supportive densities. Promote civic centres in locations with accessible public transit services. Secondary Plans: - Completion of a transit plan, for the planning area which includes how the area can and will be serviced by public transit and how transit service can and will be integrated with Regional Rapid Transit system - Provide opportunities for joint development between transit agency and land developers to encourage and facilitate transit-supportive development and/or infrastructure - Promote transit ridership Positive Aspect(s) of Current London Policy: Compact urban form is encouraged which is transit supportive and focused within the existing transit service area. Medium and high density development is encouraged in areas which are generally target areas for transit supported development. Opportunities for Improvement: Infill and intensification is broadly encouraged, however, additional policies should be developed that focus on transit supportive nodes and corridors. Require reduced parking standards where transit is encouraged Area Studies should Dillon Consulting Limited Page 68

79 City of London York Region Observations on London's Policies through controlled parking standards. transit friendly development pattern by encouraging high density, mixed use forms of development at major intersections and major corridors which support high frequency transit service. Area Studies: In the preparation and review of Area Studies, consideration shall be given to locating lands designated for the development of high density residential uses, office buildings, health care facilities, secondary schools, other community facilities and regional or community shopping facilities, in areas that have convenient access to existing transit routes, or that can be efficiently served through the extension of existing transit services. incorporate detailed consideration of transit as part of the study process. This will ensure that transit is appropriately addressed in these local planning studies. Policies for Local Centres No notable policies related to transit-supportive development in local centres Area Studies address: - Land use mix and compatibility, - road alignments, - municipal services, - residential densities and affordability, - road access points, - location of community facilities, etc. Secondary Plans address: - all centres serviced by transit within the period of the Plan Identification of Key Development Areas: - priority for rapid transit services and infrastructure Positive Aspect(s) of Current London Policy: Preparation of Area Studies may encourage transit supportive development. Opportunities for Improvement: Ensure transit service considered as part of the planning exercise. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 69

80 City of London York Region Observations on London's Policies Policies for Local Corridors No notable policies related to transit-supportive development in local corridors. Site-specific parking requirements that recognize level of planned public transit Concentrate new employment opportunities within 200 metres of transit stops Positive Aspect(s) of Current London Policy: n/a Opportunities for Improvement: Address parking and appropriate mix of uses along transit corridors. Density Promoting transit supportive densities, particularly in key corridors and nodes serviced by transit, is a key policy required to support London s transit modal split objectives. A number of density targets are promoted in key Official Plans reviewed. The City of Ottawa Official Plan contains a policy, which promotes increased land use density, walking and cycling connectivity, and access to transit service. Opportunities for intensification and infill are promoted in the following situations: lands that are within 600 metres of future or existing rapid-transit stations with potential to develop as compact, mixed-use and pedestrian-friendly cores; lands that are no longer viable for the purpose for which they were intended; lands where the present use is maintained but the addition of uses can be accomplished in a complementary manner, such as on under-utilized shopping centre sites; lands currently or formerly used as parking lots or other extensive storage purposes; and lands with existing contamination due to previous commercial or industrial use, but which can be made suitable for development if cleaned up. The City of Winnipeg also promotes intensified development around planned rapid transit corridors. York Region s Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA 43) identifies a minimum density of 2.5 FSI in nodes and corridors to support transit use. Additional policies in York Region s Official Plan that support transit supportive density are identified in Table 9. These were compared to existing policies in London, with some observations made between the two approaches. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 70

81 Table 9 - Comparative Review of City of London and York Region Official Plan - Density Policies City of London York Region Observations on London's Policies Growth Strategies High and medium density residential development shall be directed to appropriate areas within and adjacent to the Downtown, near periphery of Regional and Community Shopping Areas and in selected locations along major roads and near Open Space. Regional Centres and Corridors will be prime location for infill and intensification; most intensive directed to Regional Centres and locally defined Key Development Areas. Local Corridors are prime locations for infill and intensification, but at a smaller scale. Target 30% of Region s forecasted population increase to existing builtup portions of urban areas through the redevelopment of under-utilized areas and areas in transition. Positive Aspect(s) of Current London Policy: Medium and high density development is encouraged in areas which are generally target areas for transit supported development. Opportunities for Improvement: Additional policies related to in-fill and intensification Downtown Policies/Regional Centres Efficient utilization of lands and buildings within the Downtown will be encouraged through the redevelopment of vacant or under-utilized land and functionally obsolete buildings, and the rehabilitation, where feasible, of buildings that are functionally viable but substandard in appearance or condition Long-term density target of 2.5 Floor Space Index 12. Recognize infill and intensification occurs incrementally over time as land uses evolve. Initial phases of development do not preclude fuller achievement in the future of a compact, pedestrian-friendly and transit-supportive urban form. Employment targets long-term target resident-to-employee ratio 1:1. Positive Aspect(s) of Current London Policy: Encouragement of a vibrant downtown creates a node in London which creates a natural market for trips. Opportunities for Improvement: Strengthen policies to encourage vibrant downtowns and sub centres that can be effectively served by transit. 12 The relationship between the gross floor area of a building and the area of the lot. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 71

82 City of London York Region Observations on London's Policies Policies for Local Centres No notable policies related to transit-supportive development in local centres Identification of Key Development Areas: - support a long-term density target of 2.5 FSI Positive Aspect(s) of Current London Policy: n/a Opportunities for Improvement: Ensure that Area Studies/Secondary Plans consider transitsupportive development densities, and transit service as part of the planning exercise. Mix of Land Uses Mixed-use development is promoted in all Official Plans reviewed, particularly around identified transit nodes and corridors. The City of Ottawa Official Plan identifies a number of higher-density mixed-use centres. Mixed-use centres are accessible by all modes of transportation, are centred on rapid-transit stations and contain one or more arterial roads with all-day, frequent transit service. They also offer substantial opportunities for new development or redevelopment and represent a key location to accommodate and direct growth. The Centres encourage the development of transitsupportive land uses, such as offices, secondary and post-secondary schools, hotels, hospitals, large institutional buildings, community recreation and leisure centres, daycare centres, retail uses, entertainment uses, services (such as restaurants), high- and mediumdensity residential uses and mixed-use development containing combinations of the above. Employment targets of at least 5,000 to 10,000 jobs will be accommodated. A community design plan is required for each Mixed-Use Centre based on the criteria contained in the Official Plan that establishes the exact boundaries of each Mixed-Use Centre, facilitates a more intense development pattern that is oriented to the rapid-transit network, offers greater variety and enhanced choice, and promotes transit supportive design. To promote compact, mixed-use development, Ottawa has established policies that encourage: Investigation of financial incentives for residential development within mixed-use projects; A strategic review of the use of municipally-owned lands to facilitate compact and mixed-use development; Consideration of methods to reduce the amount of land used for parking, through such measures as reductions in parking standards and the creation of municipal parking structures; and Partnerships with others in building commercial and residential development over transit stations, municipal parking structures, and municipal offices and facilities. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 72

83 York Region s Regional Official Plan Amendment (ROPA 43) also identifies mixed-use development nodes (i.e., compact areas that include several land use types) supporting its Rapid Transit network. Some specific policies in York s Official Plan that support mixed use are illustrated in Table 10. This table also puts London's mixed-use development policies in context with the Region of York's Official Plan, and provides observations related to London's current land use planning policies. Table 10 - Comparative Review of City of London and York Region Official Plan - Mix of Land Use Policies City of London York Region Observations on London's Policies Growth Strategies No notable growth strategies related to mixed use developments Provision for efficient mixed-use and compact communities. Downtown Policies/Regional Centres The Downtown shall be Concentration of residents and jobs the primary business, at specific locations is important to office, institutional, provide opportunities to live and entertainment and cultural work in the same area, efficient and centre for the City of effective transit services, a variety of London. housing opportunities, specialized human services, and economic vitality. Balance of residential and employment growth within centres and corridors and managed growth in development areas. Balance employment and residential growth. Positive Aspect(s) of Current London Policy: n/a. Opportunities for Improvement: Additional policies related to location of mixed-use development Positive Aspect(s) of Current London Policy: Encouragement of a vibrant downtown creates a node in London which creates a natural market for trips. Opportunities for Improvement: Strengthen policies to encourage mixed-use downtowns and subcentres that are effectively served by transit. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 73

84 City of London York Region Observations on London's Policies Policies for Local Centres The Official Plan contains policies for specific residential areas which permit mixed use development. Area Studies address land use mix and compatibility Secondary Plans address: - mixed use development Identification of Key Development Areas: - greatest opportunity for compact and mixed-use development Positive Aspect(s) of Current London Policy: Mixed use development encouraged in Talbot Mixed Use Area, the Horton/Wellington Area, and the North London/Broughdale Neighbourhood. Opportunities for Improvement: Ensure Area Studies or Secondary Plans consider mixed-use development, and transit service as part of the planning exercise. Urban Form Transit supportive design policies and guidelines were promoted in all Official Plans Reviewed. The City of Winnipeg Official Plan includes a number of land use planning policies that look to minimize walking distance to transit in new developments, include transit routes and bicycle plans in the design of new developments, and promote on-street transit improvements and intensified development around planned rapid transit corridors. Transit planning in Winnipeg is proactive with new development applications. Discussions around new site plan applications look to achieve: places for turn-around loops and/or walking paths; and integration of transit with new format retail and appropriate development. The City of Hamilton Official Plan promotes the integration of transit plans in the design of neighbourhood and secondary plans to ensure the street layout is conducive of achieving a route coverage standard of 90% of residential units within a 400 metre or a five minute walk of a transit stop. York Region s Official Plan identifies: Six lane maximums for road widening; Requirement of a continuous collector road system in development approvals; Policy to ensure appropriate sidewalks and street lighting on transit routes; Development application reviews should look at street layout, transit capacity, impacts on transit demand for approval. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 74

85 Some specific policies that support transit supportive urban form policies are illustrated in Table 11, which puts London's Official Plan Urban Form policies in context of the Region of York's Official Plan, and provides observations related to London's current land use planning policies. Table 11 - Comparative Review of City of London and York Region Official Plan - Urban Design/Form Policies City of London York Region Observations on London's Policies Downtown Policies/Regional Centres Efficient utilization of lands and buildings within the Downtown will be encouraged through the redevelopment of vacant or under-utilized land and functionally obsolete buildings, and the rehabilitation, where feasible, of buildings that are functionally viable but substandard in appearance or condition Policies for Local Centres No notable policies related to transit-supportive development in local centres Recognize infill and intensification occurs incrementally over time as land uses evolve. Initial phases of development do not preclude fuller achievement in the future of a compact, pedestrian-friendly and transit-supportive urban form. Ground-floor uses of building should be provided to create direct access for pedestrians. Secondary Plans address: - transit facilities accessible to pedestrians - development promoted as focal points for current/future public transit services and infrastructure Positive Aspect(s) of Current London Policy: Encouragement of a vibrant downtown creates a node in London which creates a natural market for trips. Opportunities for Improvement: Strengthen policies to encourage vibrant downtowns and sub centres that can be effectively served by transit. Positive Aspect(s) of Current London Policy: n/a Opportunities for Improvement: Ensure that Secondary Plans consider transitsupportive design guidelines. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 75

86 City of London York Region Observations on London's Policies Road Network Promote land use planning and development that is conductive to the efficient operation and increased use of public transit system and alternative modes of transportation. In the preparation and review of Area Studies, consideration shall be given to: - The alignment of arterial, primary and secondary collectors to link adjacent development with direct transit routings - The establishment of sidewalks, walkways and/or other linkages, with appropriate lighting, to connect residential and employment areas to transit services - The provision of a sidewalk on both sides of a street designed to carry transit - The provision of temporary bus turnarounds at the end of partly constructed arterial, primary collector and secondary collector roads that have been identified as transit routes when phased development is proposed - Reducing pedestrian backtracking by developing street pattern designs and pedestrian circulation routes, which may include mid-bock connections, to reduce walking and travel distances to transit stops; and - Pedestrian safety in the design of streets designed to carry transit. Provide well lighted sidewalks on both sides of all arterial roads in urban areas Positive Aspect(s) of Current London Policy: Opportunities for Improvement: Ensure the provision of transit stop facilities is considered in all ROWs, with consideration for HOV lanes on higher order roads. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 76

87 City of London York Region Observations on London's Policies Urban Design Guidelines No mention of transit or transit supportive design criteria in Section 11 Urban Design Principles Pedestrian Traffic Areas new development should include street-oriented features that provide for the enhancement of the pedestrian environment, such as canopies, awnings, landscaped setbacks and sitting areas Preamble to Community Building Section: "The policies of this Plan are intended to promote communities that are diverse and self-contained with opportunities to work, enjoy recreation and be housed. They are designed so that costeffective and efficient transit systems can be operated and so that people have the choice of walking or bicycling throughout the community and beyond. Policies are also included to encourage well designed streets and building locations that create vibrant, pedestrian-friendly and transit-oriented streetscapes." Develop diverse, self-sufficient, accessible, safe, green, economically vibrant, pedestrian-oriented communities through excellence in planning and urban design. Urban Design criteria that promotes: - pedestrian scale, safety, comfort and mobility - enrichment of existing areas - attractive buildings, landscaping and public streetscapes - compatibility with and transition to surrounding land uses - appropriate building placement and orientation Downtown design guidelines: - fine grain grid network of streets - sidewalk connections directly to streets and transit routes Positive Aspect(s) of Current London Policy: A pedestrian-friendly environment in the downtown is conductive to transit use. Opportunities for Improvement: Transit-supportive design of sites and buildings. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 77

88 City of London York Region Observations on London's Policies - appropriate building massing and articulation - appropriate parking design and standards While Table 11 generally indicates that there are opportunities to improve the Official Plan policies related to transit-support development, it should be noted that London has been taking recent steps to encourage more transit-friendly development. In the Airport Road South Industrial Park, for example, design guidelines were developed that promote pedestrian connectivity to buildings, sidewalks, and policies that create commercial opportunities to service employees. This will allow transit to be more viable as the park develops Community Improvement Plans When promoting transit supportive development, Community Improvement Plans generally address density, mixed-use development and form, as three of the four main policy areas promoted above. Density and Mix of Land Use The City of Hamilton has developed a CIP for brownfield lands in the City s 3,400 acre older industrial area. This plan is known as the Environmental Remediation and Site Enhancement (ERASE) program, which provides financial and other incentives to promote the redevelopment and re-use of brownfield properties, which in turn promote increased densities and mixed use development adjacent to the downtown area. The program is managed by the City of Hamilton's Economic Development Department, which provides a single point of contact for ERASE application forms, guidance, brownfield information services, access to regulatory and planning contacts and serves as an advocate and liaison between City departments, other government agencies and participating brownfield partners. Some of the financial incentives available to property owners looking to redevelop brownfield sites include redevelopment grants, environmental study grants, and a planning and development fees program. The development of brownfield sites promotes intensification in existing built-up areas at densities that are typically supported by transit. Given these sites are typically in built up areas already served by transit, the development of these lands only strengthens the market for transit. Ottawa has initiated the development of a comprehensive Brownfield Strategy and Community Improvement Plan (CIP) to support the objectives of directing growth through infill and intensification in urban areas. Unlike other CIP s, Ottawa is Dillon Consulting Limited Page 78

89 implementing an area wide plan which has the potential to revitalize lands across the City, thereby increasing the overall density of development. This higher density development will help promote the use of transit. Urban Form The Downtown CIP in Hamilton waives parking requirements for commercial development and provides interest-free loans for conversion of non-residential space to residential and/or the rehabilitation of poor quality residential space to promote downtown intensification. It should be noted that several former municipalities of Hamilton adopted strategies and policies to increase the amount of pedestrian amenity and density of their core areas, and include spaces where transit might be included, should it become feasible. Ottawa has also initiated a number of other Community Design Plans for various districts around the City (e.g. Bayview, Somerset, Preston Street, South Nepean Activity Centre). All plans explicitly consider transit infrastructure needs for their areas Development Practices When promoting transit supportive development, development practices also generally address the design of the development as it relates to transit s ability to service the development and the suitability of the development to attract high transit ridership. The City of Mississauga typically requires area-wide or site-specific transportation studies as part of the review of development applications. The Transportation Department is circulated site plans for review and comment. Developers are required to incorporate transit facilities and passenger amenities, such as bus bays, bus loops, bus stop platforms and shelters where appropriate as part of the conditions of approval. The Traffic Impact Study Guidelines in York Region provide a good example of the inclusion of transit objectives in the development review process. Traffic Impact Assessments in York must evaluate existing transit services in terms of available capacity and need for increased service due to the development, as well as an evaluation of pedestrian access to transit services. Impacts on transit operations caused by site-generated traffic shall be identified and suitable remedial measures evaluated. As well, direct comments from the transit agency are sought on developments generating over 1000 peak hour trips Design Guidelines There is an extensive literature of guidelines and handbooks that address transitsupportive development through the application of specific design criteria. These primarily address the form of development, but also address some density and mix of Dillon Consulting Limited Page 79

90 land use policies that promote transit supportive communities. A number of industry documents that were reviewed are documented below: Summary of "Transit and Land Use Planning" The emphasis of this report by BC Transit is on integrating conventional bus service with land use planning practices. The report identifies six structural elements to transitfriendly design: density, land use mix, road network, street design, site design, and pedestrian amenity. The following conclusions/recommendations are noted: A higher development density is supportive of transit; Contiguous, rather than "leapfrog" development, is supportive of transit; Clustering businesses in a few areas of significant development increases the critical mass that transit requires to be cost-effective; It is difficult to serve business parks due to factors of cheap parking and employees wanting to drive to do errands at lunch; If a grid street pattern is not provided, a curvilinear street pattern can be made more amenable to pedestrian travel if direct pathways exist; Channellized right-turn lanes are discouraged; Main street and retail mall areas should be designed to be pedestrian friendly and the functional design of the roadway should help transit maintain schedules and speed of movement; and Continuity of roads in new subdivisions will maintain good access to transit. Summary of "Transit-Oriented Development Best Practices Handbook" This report for Calgary is intended as an information resources for Council, developers, builders, planners, urban designers, communities and the general public. The focus is on development around Calgary's light rail stations and high volume bus stops. The following conclusions/recommendations are noted: Using the "five-minute walk" as the radius around a station, there is the potential for 125 to 250 acres of land for transit-oriented development; Land uses should ensure transit supportive uses, a mix of uses, and place them as close to the station as possible; Density concentration, for both residential units and employees, is needed, as well as a phasing plan for intensification around transit stations; Pedestrian connections should be convenient (short, continuous, direct), with people at street level, and buffered from vehicular traffic; Good urban design, such as high quality streetscape, all-season design, lighting and signage is needed; A cluster around a transit station comprising a cluster of buildings and a compact street network with blocks of 100 to 150 metres is preferred; Only the minimum parking should be provided, in smaller parking lots, and with bicycle parking provided; and Dillon Consulting Limited Page 80

91 Development around the station needs to create a "place" with landmarks, sightlines for wayfinding, and small open spaces / plazas which can serve as comfortable waiting and drop-off areas for transit users. Calgary Transit published a Transit-Friendly Design Guide that provides for a number of specific design criteria under seven principles, as summarized below: Provide appropriate community densities; Minimize walking distances; Provide mixed land uses; Organize density, land use and buildings to benefit from transit; Create a pedestrian friendly environment; Route transit into the community; Reduce transit travel time; and Build quality, user-friendly transit facilities. Summary of "Model Urban Design Guidelines" These guidelines were prepared as a compendium of urban design guidelines as a reference point by the Regional Municipality of Niagara. It is hoped that over time, local municipalities within the Region will adopt some or all of the design guidelines. The guidelines include specific design considerations for transit as follows: Transit supportive design should incorporate elements of mixed use neighbourhoods, a neighbourhood centre which discourages auto-oriented uses, compact development, short-walking distance to transit, safety and comfort, and integration with bicycle and trails Good transit infrastructure and facility design includes, but is not limited to: - Bus stops located on the far side of intersections; - Bus stops located near building entrances; - Transit stops should include a shelter for up to 15 people with weather protection; - Transit stops should be designed with seating, trash receptacles, lighting and route information; - Shelters on a road should be located between 1.0 and 3.0 metres from the street curb; - Nearby land uses should be linked to a transit station by a walkway which crosses and connects sites; and - Bus stops within major development should be located at a central location, such as within the parking lot. Summary of "Transit-Supportive Land Use Planning Guidelines" The guidelines produced jointly by the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs are intended to provide ideas and guidance to a broad audience. The guidelines summarize the best available knowledge about moving towards more transitoriented communities. It should be noted that there is much similar policy direction Dillon Consulting Limited Page 81

92 between this document and the ones already reviewed in the previous subsections of this report. To minimize repetition, the following highlights the key technical information not referenced by the other guidelines summarized above: Minimum density of 7 units/acre to support a bus route with 1 km route spacing and half-hour service; Minimum density of 12 units/acre with higher densities at nodes to support transit with 5 minute headways during peak hours; Minimum 1.5 FSI for activity nodes in small municipalities, up to 5.0 FSI for larger activity nodes served by rapid transit in large urban centres; Transit routes should be spaced at 1,000 metre maximum intervals; Transit routes should penetrate into the interior of an activity node; Minimum paved surface width on roads that are used by buses should be 9.0 metres; Avoidance of one-way streets and bus bays, and provision of continuous left turn lanes; Avoid reverse lotting along arterials and collector roads; Provide a temporary bus turn-around at the end of partly constructed arterial/collector roads; Locate one building face or main entrance of a major shopping centre to an adjacent arterial road; Provide high-occupancy vehicle lanes; and Create transit malls Summary The review of relevant practices in other municipalities and industry standard design guidelines identified a number of policies, plans, and practices other municipalities are conducting that would lead to development practices that are more supportive of transit in London. The policies in the municipal plans which were reviewed address transit supportive development through matters of urban structure and growth management, mixed use development, density of development, and urban form (distances to transit facilities / services, corridors / ROW, and pedestrian amenities). This reflects the notion that encouraging transit-supportive development requires a system of policies working together to encourage high-quality, transit-supportive communities. Community Improvement Plans can be used to encourage redevelopment of lands in targeted areas using a series of financial and policy levers. These will form an important strategy in targeting transit supportive development in key transit nodes. Development review practices have a large impact on the translation of transit supportive land use policies into reality. All three components of this best practice review are Dillon Consulting Limited Page 82

93 considered in the recommendation of land use policies, plans, and practices in London to support increased transit use. The design guidelines provided by many of the municipality-level studies are generally policy based. While they provide some guidance regarding transit supportive design, the publication by the Province on Ontario addresses transit-support design in a somewhat more practical and direct way. Therefore, the City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines were written using the provincial publication as its primary foundation, drawing on other key aspects from recent municipal-level transit guidelines. The Draft City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines is provided in Appendix A to this report. 5.4 Land Use Policy Options that Support Transit The goal of the Long-term Transit Growth Strategy is to promote development within London that is supportive of transit, and in particular, supportive of the Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Strategy. To achieve this, recommendations have been made for modifications to key planning tools and practices based on the four broad land use policy areas referenced above as well as the review of relevant practices. These include: The Official Plan (addresses mixed use development, density and growth management /urban structure) Zoning By-law (addresses density and mixed use development) Community Improvement Plans (addresses density, mixed-use development and urban form) Development Review Practices (addresses density, mixed-use development and urban form) Urban Design Guidelines (addresses urban form, density and mixed-use development) Planning Framework The land use planning framework which includes development review practices, Zoning By-law regulations, and community improvement plans all rely on the Official Plan as the primary foundation to guide growth and development of the City. As soon as updated Official Plan policies are in place to provide greater emphasis on transitsupportive development, major changes to the land use planning framework can begin to occur, which should lead to more visible improvements in transit-supportive development. To assist in achieving this objective, it is recommended that this report be submitted to the Planning and Development Department to provide further guidance and coordination opportunities in achieving the 10% transit modal split objective. It should be noted that any updated Official Plan policies would be subject to changes in the Provincial Policy Statements (PPS), approved in November The new PPS places greater importance on sustainable transportation and transit use than the previous Dillon Consulting Limited Page 83

94 PPS. As such, municipalities, in the long-range planning exercises, are required to be consistent with a number of specific policies. In general, the direction provided in these policies is to: Encourage intensification close to transit corridors before expanding urban boundaries Promote densities which support public transit Promote land use patterns and mix of uses which supports public transit Promote public transit connections between residential and employment areas Focus major employment around current or emerging transit corridors/nodes The land use recommendations noted in the report are in support of the new PPS Official Plan Policy Recommendations This section of the report summarizes the policy recommendations (i.e. guidance for updates to the City's land use and transit policies in the City's Official Plan). In the case of the London Official Plan and this scope of this study, there is not a broad spectrum of land use planning options which need to be evaluated in detail. The best practices research indicates that land use plans from other jurisdictions are addressing transit-supportive development through policies which are more detailed than the City of London Official Plan. In some instances, policy subject matter from the best practices is non-existent in the City of London Official Plan. The findings represent more of a policy "gap analysis" than a survey of policy options, and the recommended land use policy changes are intended to close the transit policy gap that exists between the current Official Plan and an updated City of London Official Plan. It is anticipated that these policy updates will serve to better guide future development and create more compact, transit-supportive neighbourhoods in the City of London over the next 20 years. Area Studies should also incorporate detailed consideration of transit as part of the study process. This will ensure that transit is appropriately addressed in these local planning studies. If an Area Study transitions into a Secondary Plan, this will help ensure that transit and transit-supportive development forms a component of the Secondary Plan. Growth Management - Urban Structure Based on the best practises review of policies, the following growth management/urban structure policies need to be addressed through land use planning policy to help encourage transit-supportive development: Identify target areas for growth and provide a rational phasing for the build-out of these areas over the next 20 years Consider phasing out the UWRF and using traditional front-ending agreements under the Development Charges Act (refer to discussion below regarding Growth Management) Dillon Consulting Limited Page 84

95 Avoid pre-servicing areas outside of the urban area boundary Identify corridors and nodes in the Official Plan (possibly on a separate schedule) and put in place policies to support these corridors and nodes Encourage higher densities of development with a mix of uses, oriented at key nodes and corridors (refer to discussion below regarding planned densities) Some feedback received during this study suggested that the Urban Works Reserve Fund has contributed to leap frog development in the City of London. The argument is based on the concept that developers who are willing to up-front the servicing costs of leap frog development and assume the risk of being paid back over time have been able to establish new neighbourhoods and commercial developments which are not immediately adjacent to the existing built-up area of the City of London. This makes it difficult to cost-effectively offer transit service to these newly developed areas. Furthermore, it may take some time for development to fill in the vacant lands between the existing built-up area and the leapfrogged development, exacerbating the challenge of servicing these areas with transit. It has been noted in earlier sections of this report that the provision of transit service early in these newly developed areas is key to establishing the ridership base of the future. It should be noted, however, that the Development Charges Act does allow for frontending of servicing. This means that even if the UWRF is phased-out, a mechanism still exists for infrastructure to be extended beyond the existing built-up area to service noncontiguous development. Therefore, the issue of leapfrog development lies not with the UWRF, but with the long-term land use phasing of the City of London's Official Plan. What may help encourage contiguous development which can be cost-effectively serviced by transit is the identification of 5-year phasing envelopes for the City of London which define where and when grow should go. This will not only benefit transit service, but will also help London plan better for infrastructure and community services. The phasing-out of the UWRF should be considered and replaced with the use of traditional front-ending agreements under the Development Charges Act, but the effectiveness of this for improving overall ridership will be dependent on the City taking a stronger role in the phasing of greenfield areas. Planned Density and Employment Targets Based on the best practises review of policies, the following density policies and targets needs to be addressed through land use planning policy to help encourage transitsupportive development: Establish population and employment targets for a 1 km radius surrounding transit nodes (refer to discussion below regarding targets) Encourage intensification around regional facilities and transit corridors that connect those facilities (e.g. hospitals, universities, government buildings) to help create nodes that draw transit ridership Establish a Floor Space Index (FSI) target Dillon Consulting Limited Page 85

96 Establish an overall minimum density in employment areas which will help support transit The City of London's Official Plan already includes planned residential densities. Given that single-detached development is achieving approximately 20 units per hectare and the maximum planned density is 30 units per hectare, the challenge is not with establishing planned density figures, but encouraging development to approach the higher end of the planned density range. Land use policies and development will play a key role in reaching the 10% transit modal split target. Land use that is supportive of transit service will attract a much larger pool of potential riders without having to invest as high a cost in the level of service as occurs in an area that is not transit supportive. To illustrate this point, the density targets in each of residential land use designations in the City of London Official Plan were examined to determine the amount of transit ridership that could be attracted. This was translated into the number of trips produced based on the trip rate in the 2004 TMP and the number of transit trips based on the existing 7% transit modal split. This is illustrated in Table 12. Table 12 Transit Ridership Forecasts Based on Density Designation Official Plan Density Designations Max Density Density AM Peak AM Peak (Units/ha) (Person/ha) Trips Transit Trips Low Density Medium Density High Density (Outside Central London) High Density (Central London) High Density (Downtown) As seen in Table 12, one hectare of low density development at its maximum density would only generate 4 transit trips while one hectare of high density development in the downtown would generate 44 transit trips. This assumes everything is equal, including the persons per household, household income, and level of service. In reality, the transit modal split in the high density residential designation would be much higher than in the low density designation. The importance of this assessment in terms reaching the 10% modal split target is an understanding of the amount of funding required to get there. In the low density scenario, a bus would need to cover 11 hectares during the AM peak hour to pick up the same number of riders that a bus in the high density (downtown) designation could pick up in 1 hectare. This overall efficiency of transit operations will be an important factor in reaching transit modal targets considering the $16 million bus capital requirement quoted in the TMP to purchase new buses. While residential density is only one component in the equation, it paints a clear picture about the importance of transit supportive land use in cost effectively reaching London s Dillon Consulting Limited Page 86

97 transit modal split targets. A similar argument can be made for increasing employment density, measured as workers per hectare. The most recent discussion on residential and employment density is provided in the Province's Places to Grow growth plan for the Greater Golden Horseshoe. Central to the growth plan is the focus on building more compact, mixed-used, transit-supportive communities. While London is beyond the growth plan's focus, the growth plan provides some insight with respect to both residential and employment density targets which apply to municipalities which have similar urban from as London (i.e. Brampton, Whitby). There are three minimum density targets for urban growth centres in Places to Grow, as follows: 400 people and jobs per hectare in nodes such as Downtown Toronto, Scarborough Centre, etc.; 200 people and jobs per hectare in nodes such as Brampton City Centre, Downtown Milton, and the Vaughan Corporate Centre; and, 150 people and jobs per hectare in nodes such as Downtown Barrie, Guelph, Peterborough, etc. Given the urban form of London, it is expected that an appropriate minimum density target might be approximately 200 people and jobs per hectare in the existing built-up area. Further land use planning exercises might refine this target in certain areas of the City. The Places to Grow plan also discusses development in greenfield areas and suggests a density target of 50 people and jobs per hectare, which represents the minimum threshold for transit-supportive land use (i.e. basic level of bus service in newly-developed communities). The city is already experiencing development at 20 units per hectare, and assuming 2.5 persons per unit, it is likely already achieving 50 people per hectare in its newer development. Therefore, it is expected that an appropriate minimum density target should be at least 50 people and jobs per hectare for newly developing areas. Further land use planning exercises might provide higher minimums for certain future development areas of the City. Mix of Land Uses Based on the best practises review of policies, the following land use policies and targets need to be addressed through land use planning policy to help encourage transitsupportive development: Permit a wider variety of uses to locate along major transit routes and avoid single use designations Locate transit-oriented uses such as seniors' residences, schools, or social services near major transit routes (such as BRT nodes and corridors) Dillon Consulting Limited Page 87

98 Designate higher-order employment uses within business parks near a centralized transit facility Urban Form Based on the best practises review of policies, the following urban design policies and targets needs to be addressed through land use planning policy to help encourage transitsupportive development: Prepare a pedestrian plan to ensure pedestrian accessibility is maximized Discourage site-specific amendments that are not transit-supportive, or suggest lower intensity of use where a higher intensity of use is purposefully planned to support transit Provide for 90% of new development to be within an actual 5-minute walk (400 metres) to a transit route and 65% of new development to be within a 2-3 minute (250 metres) walk of a transit route Encourage pedestrian access from internal subdivisions to collector / arterial roads Ensure that secondary plans and traffic impact studies consider the design of the road network with direct links that are transit-supportive Identify road rights-of-way that can handle full size buses Discourage reverse lotting on arterial and collector roads Ensure that sidewalks are provided in all new development Encourage mid-block collector roads in new areas to connect these areas to adjacent neighbourhoods Bonus Provisions in Zoning By-laws Zoning is a method of regulating the use of land by designating properties for a specific range of permitted functions for example, residential, commercial or industrial areas. Regulations in the By-law are based on the City's policies for controlling land use and development as set out in the Official Plan. The Zoning By-law should be modified to reflect the transit supportive policies recommended in the 2006 Official Plan review. As noted in Section 3.2.1, the current Zoning By-law does not provide density bonuses for the provision of on-site transit facilities. The Site Plan By-law provides guidance on where transit routes on private development will be considered; however, there is little incentive for developers to provide these transit routes (or facilities). Density bonuses are offered in municipalities for community amenities (e.g. daycare) and given the benefit that transit offers to a municipality - in terms of accessible and affordable transportation - facilities for transit integrated with new development should receive a density bonus. For this to occur, the Zoning By-law would need to be updated to provide density bonuses for transit facilities Community Improvement Plans Dillon Consulting Limited Page 88

99 There are two types of Community Improvement Plans and both have a potential to support transit ridership. The first type - the traditional Community Improvement Plan can support transit through various incentive programs which are primarily aimed at revitalization/intensification, but have important spin-off benefits for transit (e.g. waiving development charges for new residential development encourages intensification, which increases density, which in turn may increase transit ridership). The second type the brownfield Community Improvement Plan can support transit through various incentive programs, which are primarily aimed at encouraging underutilized land and/or potentially contaminated land within the municipality to redevelop. For example, an abandoned factory may be redeveloped into a recreation centre, which would create a node that could be served by transit. Community Improvement Plans and the programs they enable act as tools to encourage revitalization (but they do not apply to entirely newly developing areas). In terms of updating the existing Downtown CIP and creating new CIP's, the emphasis would be on stimulating redevelopment, which would increase density in the City of London. These actions would include: update the Downtown CIP to encourage office development; update the Downtown CIP to encourage no new parking spaces; and create new CIP's for transit corridors and nodes. Detailed recommendations are provided in Section 7.3 of this report related to updating the Downtown CIP and putting in place new CIP's Development Review Practices Development review practices will vary from municipality to municipality based on resources and staff sophistication. While it should be expected that LTC would comment on any application which relates to transit service, providing a warrant such as in York Region (development proposals generating 1000 peak hour trips) appears to be useful. Establishing a warrant for LTC's comment would help maintain clear lines of accountability and manage expectations regarding when LTC will [not] comment on a development application. The warrant does not have to relate to trip generation only and it may involve geography (e.g. LTC might always comment on applications adjacent to a planned BRT route, irrespective of the scale or nature of development application). A suitable warrant would have to be considered through discussions between City Staff and LTC City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines One component of the planning framework that can be advanced, because it could fall entirely within the purview of the LTC, is the City of London Transit Supportive Design Dillon Consulting Limited Page 89

100 Guidelines. The draft guidelines presented in Appendix A are based a compendium of other similar documents and is intended to provide the LTC, the City of London, and the development industry with a tool to encourage transit-friendly design. While some of the subject matter in the City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines may already be touched upon in the City's Site Plan By-law, a user-friendly guide to transit-supportive design addressing specific design criteria does not currently exist and would benefit all stakeholders involved in the planning and development of the City of London. Working in conjunction with the City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines is a transit scorecard and recognition program. These provide a fair assessment of the transit-friendliness of development proposals and encourage continued long-term transitsupportive development. This mirrors an approach that municipalities have used to encourage good urban design through a municipal urban design awards program. Additional detail on moving forward with the City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines, policy updates, and other changes to the land use planning framework to encourage more transit-supportive development is provided in Section A Postscript on Policy Recommendations The following is a case example from the Calgary Transit Southland Station. Southland Station is located approximately 9 km south of downtown Calgary on the south leg of Calgary s light rail line. In addition to C-Train service, Southland Station is a terminus for eight different bus routes and includes a Park and Ride facility with 642 parking spaces. Calgary Transit officials constructed the station and Park and Ride lot over two decades ago in hopes that mixed-use, pedestrian oriented development would naturally develop around the station area in accordance with four policy documents that encourage this type of development in light rail transit areas. These policies, however, are simply guidelines and include no requirements. As a result, there has been minimal pressure to redevelop the existing Park and Ride lot. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 90

101 Calgary Transit sees their role in Park and Ride redevelopment projects as that of an advisor as opposed to an active participant in land development. This approach sets a vision, but does not ensure that the vision will be realized. There are two primary approaches to Calgary Transit s role in the development of the Southland Station. First, Calgary Transit provided a site analysis and formulated a vision of how they wanted the area to develop. Second, they relied on four policy documents to realize this vision but, these policies were merely guidelines and were largely ineffective. This case example underscores the need for LTC to be actively participating in land use planning. In future the BRT nodes will function as significantly as LRT stations. LTC can not rely on policy alone to encourage transit-supportive development. It needs to connect policy updates to priority actions and then work to implement these actions. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 91

102 (This page intentionally left blank) Dillon Consulting Limited Page 92

103 6.0 PARKING POLICY AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT 6.1 Introduction Parking is potentially the most significant driver of choice transit use as many aspects of parking management significantly influence the decision-making process of travelers when determining their mode of transportation, their trip destination choice, and their trip frequency. In order for the City of London to achieve a City-wide PM peak hour transit modal share of 10% by 2024, parking management will play a key role in influencing the shift from single occupant vehicles to more sustainable transportation modes including public transit. Parking management strategies, however, must take a balanced approach, recognizing that parking strategies also influence the economic and social health of the City. Cost prohibitive pricing, undersupply, and/or poorly designed and located parking areas can lead to avoidance of parking lots which can lead to infiltration on residential streets and, in extreme cases, deter downtown intensification through the developers perception of the marketability of lands. This would also negatively impact transit ridership by reducing the transit market to the affected area. Conversely, an overabundance of inexpensive and/or free parking encourages single occupant vehicles (SOVs), which can jeopardize the ability to achieve the desired modal split targets, the effectiveness of the City s SHIFT strategy, and emission reduction targets as established by the City of London. This in turn will significantly increase the roadway investment required to meet travel demands that would occur if the modal share remains constant. As stated above, the 2004 TMP confirmed that even with the implementation of existing Council approved road projects, if travel characteristics (i.e. mode share, auto occupancy, and travel time) remain the same over the next 20 years, the City s major roadway network would require added capacity equivalent to 22 more travel lanes per direction Scope of the Study The scope of review included an assessment of: Existing parking policies in London including the downtown CBD, the suburban areas and the arterial road network; Current parking stock; The relationship of parking to transit mode share; Park and Ride opportunities; Temporary parking facilities; Best practices appropriate to London; and Implementation Strategy. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 93

104 It should also be noted that recently, the City of London has issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to provide consulting services for downtown parking which identifies among their key objectives, the development of a business case for the construction of a parking structure with between 500 and 1,000 parking spaces in the downtown area. As a result of the issuance of the recent RFP, this report incorporates discussion relating this matter, and the potential impact to transit resulting from an increased parking supply in the downtown. 6.2 Review of Industry Parking Policies and Practices A review of available technical industry sources was completed, along with a review of best practices and lessons learned from a number of Canadian municipalities. A detailed summary of the policies and practices review is contained in Appendix B to this report. Key findings are discussed in this Chapter. Technical publications from industry sources included: The Canadian Urban Transportation Association (CUTA); The Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP); The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE); The Transit Research Board (TRB); and The Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Current policies practices from a number of Canadian municipalities were also reviewed, including: City of Ottawa; City of Kingston; City of Hamilton; City of Calgary; City of Mississauga; City of Vancouver; and City of Victoria Review of Municipal Parking Policy Options Long-Range Policies The municipal long-range transportation policies in Ottawa and Kingston (the Transportation Master Plans) are explicit in their recognition of the role of parking in supporting substantial growth targets for transit mode share (Ottawa from 17$ to 30%; Kingston from 3% to 6%). Specifically, both municipalities have identified the three key levers (control of the location, supply and/or fare structure) in the shift of mode choice. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 94

105 Furthermore, these documents acknowledge the need to provide sufficient short-term parking to support economic development objectives, particularly downtown, and specify a long-term parking supply that minimizes the potential for neighbourhood impacts from employment development while strongly supporting transit modal share objectives. Municipal By-Laws By-law options in other Canadian municipalities fell into one of two areas: Zoning By-law; and Cash-in-Lieu or Payment-in-Lieu of Parking Programs. The implementation of reduced minimum and/ or maximum parking ratios through Zoning By-laws are generally restricted to the urban downtown area of a community or to areas in close proximity to existing or proposed transit nodes and corridors. To be successful, these strategies require a number of supporting initiatives such as: Enforcement In locations where the parking supply has been reduced there will undoubtedly be attempts to find alternative parking locations in order to continue driving. Enforcement efforts must be sufficient to discourage illegal parking activity. On-street Pricing and Regulations At locations where on-street parking opportunities exist, pricing and/ or parking regulations will have to be implemented or adjusted to a level that will not undermine off-street parking restrictions. Access/Pricing Controls for Off-Street Parking Zoning By-law restrictions will not achieve their goals if an unlimited parking supply is available adjacent to the site. Public parking must only be supplied at levels consistent with maintaining the transit friendly environment. TDM Strategies A range of complementary TDM initiatives must be developed to reduce the demand for travel in the peak commuter hour. Non-Auto Infrastructure/Service Improvements Infrastructure and service/ program investments must be made in non-auto modes to provide for travel that will no longer be accommodated by private auto. Strict Controls on Zoning Zoning will need to be tightly controlled so that the spread of development to areas adjacent to the downtown core, similar to what is happening in Calgary, is prevented. It is also advantageous to have supportive urban and site design measures to improve the attractiveness of non-auto modes of transportation. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 95

106 These strategies, when implemented with the appropriate supportive initiatives and political support, can be effective in controlling the location and/or supply of parking and can assist in the implementation of more City-controlled parking. While some of the supporting initiatives exist or are becoming established in the City of London, several of these initiatives should be further studied for application in the City. The City s of Ottawa, Vancouver and Calgary have considered or implemented Zoning By-laws with maximum parking ratios in downtown areas to limit parking in key transit markets. This initiative has met with varying degrees of success. For instance, the City of Calgary has implemented a maximum parking By-law to achieve higher employment densities and employment generating development reacted by moving outside of the area, effectively moving demand further away from the rapid transit service. As a result, the City is currently amending the maximum parking By-law to incorporate a broader area of the downtown in an effort to control the parking supply and to level the playing field for development in the downtown. Many of the municipalities considered had typical, proponent-driven Cash-in-Lieu or Payment-in-Lieu (PIL) Parking Programs (the proponent submits an application for PIL to the Planning and Building Department along with an application fee). The City of Calgary s Cash-in-Lieu Program by contrast, is municipally-driven and works in conjunction with the Maximum Parking By-law. The City restricts the on-site parking supply in new office and commercial developments in the downtown area to 50% of the total parking required, and collects Cash-in-lieu of $18,400 per parking space for the remaining 50%. The Cash-in-Lieu payment is then invested by the City to build and operate public parking in the downtown Review of Industry Parking Practices The technical review undertaken on industry parking practices has been categorized as follows: Transportation Demand Management Initiatives; Downtown Parking Supply; Off-Street Parking Pricing in the Downtown Area; On-Street Parking; and Park and Ride. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Strategies Transit-supportive TDM strategies that are based on leveraging parking operations practices (separate from parking supply) are generally restricted to manipulating one of three levers- preferential location, targeted supply and pricing. Two example transit-supportive, parking-related TDM strategies were identified. The first is the Transit Pass and Parking Integration Program, which utilizes all the three levers of control (location, supply and price) to influence mode choice. The Toronto Dillon Consulting Limited Page 96

107 Transit Commission (TTC) has instituted reserved free parking, usually in a preferred location, on several of their gated Park and Ride lots, to which access is gained by swipecard of their monthly Metropass. A second TDM initiative is the reservation of parking spaces within heavily used Park and Ride lots for a fee. Recently, this initiative has been tried by Transit Authorities in some of the more heavily populated centres, such as the Greater Toronto Area (TTC, GO Transit and York Region), Ottawa, Vancouver and Montreal. Downtown Parking Supply TCRP Report 95 Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes (2003) and specifically, Chapter 18 Parking Management and Supply demonstrates a mathematical relationship between parking supply and transit mode share based on data from eight Canadian cities. The study concluded that there was a strong, inverse relationship between the supply of downtown parking per employee and the AM peakhour proportion of CBD commuters using transit (i.e. mode share). This relationship is fairly apparent when these data for the eight cities are plotted in Figure 4. Figure 4 Relationship between Downtown Parking Spaces per Employee Ratios and Transit Mode Share for Canadian Cities Source: Plot of data presented in Morrall and Bolger (1996). Off-Street Parking Pricing Table 13 summarizes hourly, daily and monthly parking pricing for various Canadian municipalities. The averages for the City of London have also been included for reference. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 97

108 Table 13 Downtown Parking Pricing in Typical Canadian Municipalities Municipality Average Hourly Rate ($) Average Daily Rate ($) 1 Average Monthly Rate ($) Ottawa $2.50 Vancouver $2.00 to $3.00 $130 to $160 Winnipeg (Surface Lots) $3.00 $85.00 Winnipeg (Parkades) $ Calgary (east side of downtown) $3.00 to $4.50 $110 to $140 Calgary (west side downtown) $225 and $275 Windsor $6.00 Kitchener $8.00 Kingston $7.00 Guelph $8.00 Halifax $10.00 LONDON $2.19 $5.43 $60.99 Notes: 1 (source: City of London TMP) On-Street Parking As is the case in London, parking prohibitions on major arterial roads during typical commuting hours (7:00 to 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 to 6:00 p.m.) are in effect in several municipalities across Canada including, Hamilton, Ottawa, Toronto, Montreal etc. in an effort to expedite traffic flow during peak periods. On-street parking on arterial roads adjacent to commercial areas is vital to success of many retailers. The objective of parking management policies in these areas is to provide restrictions for long-term parking and avoid penalties for short-term parking (shoppers). Park and Ride Lots There are few cities the size of London with Park and Ride lots. Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary, Vancouver, and GO Transit use Park and Ride and York Region is currently putting out a Request for Proposal to undertake a Park and Ride lot Study, to determine appropriate places to locate such facilities in conjunction with its VIVA rapid transit system. The Kingston TMP recommends the development of a network of Park and Ride lots to support their transit system, but implementation has not yet occurred. Chapter 3 Park and Ride / Pool of the TCRP Report 95 provides a list of factors that help determine the success of Park and Ride lots. These include: Direct transit service from the facility to a major workplace such as London s downtown; Express bus service and/or transit service with priority; Significant downtown parking costs or scarcity of downtown parking; Frequent bus service (15 minute intervals or closer) and bus travel times reasonably competitive with the automobile (for maximum effectiveness, Park Dillon Consulting Limited Page 98

109 and Ride lots should provide a time savings of over five minutes during the peak hour compared to the private automobile); Location in corridors with high road congestion (LOS E or worse during peak periods); Located between the urban fringe and the downtown, but not to either extreme. Ideal location between 8 and 16 kilometres (5 and 10 miles) from the CBD and the home origin; Visibility and ease of access from a major transportation corridor; Free parking provided at Park and Ride lot; Higher density surrounding facility to increase catchment area; and Safety and security (real or perceived) at Park and Ride lot. 6.3 Discussion of Policy and Practice Options Parking Policy Long Range Transportation Policies Although the City of London s recent TMP report has not dedicated a chapter of the report to parking, it does provide strategic direction, under the SHIFT Program, to develop a Comprehensive Parking Strategy that examines the following parking policies and practices: Parking management program; Parking rates; Parking stall taxes; TDM-friendly parking lots; and Parking requirements. The goals of such a Comprehensive Parking Strategy would include, but not be restricted to, the promotion of transit. The TMP further indicates that the control of parking supply and fare structure will be required to support the increase in the transit mode share. London has no long-term policy strategy related to parking in arterial corridors or at key transit nodes. The City of Ottawa and City of Kingston Transportation Master Plans have dedicated chapters of their study to the development, implementation and monitoring of a comprehensive parking plan for their respective municipalities recognizing that parking strategies, or lack thereof, can affect the overall effectiveness of the transportation network. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 99

110 Municipal By-laws Zoning By-laws - Minimum and Maximum Parking Ratios - The City of London has been prepared to waive its minimum parking requirements for residential developments in the downtown area on recent developments, but to date few developers have taken advantage of this opportunity. Maximum parking ratios have not been implemented in London. Reductions in parking minimums have been considered or implemented in a number of municipalities for commercial and residential developments to promote transit; however the literature shows that care should be taken to insure that such measures do not result in an undersupply of parking. Maximum parking ratios have been implemented in a few larger Canadian municipalities, with varying success. Lessons from other cities indicate that care needs to be taken in developing the implementation framework. Cash-in-Lieu - Based on the information available at the time of this report, the City of London s current Cash-in-Lieu Policy realizes a charge of approximately $10,600 per parking space, which is significantly less than the current typical cost of $25,000 to $30,000 per parking space within a parking structure. The City of London Planning Department has indicated that the waiving of the residential parking requirement and the obligation for Cash-in-Lieu is rarely being taken advantage of by recent major residential developments and in fact, developments are often providing more parking spaces then the By-law would require (if the exemption was not in place). The City s current Cash-in-Lieu program was not developed as a tool aimed at reducing parking; it is more intended for developments with constrained sites or where the cost to provide the minimum parking requirements was prohibitive to redevelopment. The City of London s existing approach to Cash-in-Lieu has not realized the desired reduction of parking supply in the residential areas, nor has it significantly influenced the promotion of transit. The City of Calgary approach is much more proactive to affect change since it continues to enhance their ownership of the parking in the downtown through policy and, thus, can maintain better control of the parking supply and planned land uses in the downtown area through the timing and placement of municipal parking structures Parking Practices Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Initiatives There are no current initiatives in place in London that attempt to use parking operations strategies to promote transit. SHIFT, being a fairly new organization, is implementing a number of measures that can promote transit, but have not yet turned their attention to Dillon Consulting Limited Page 100

111 developing a Comprehensive Parking Strategy or specific measures related to parking operations and transit. Once initiated, this should involve the participation of several City departments along with LTC. For the most part parking-related TDM measures have been implemented by transit authorities in other municipalities (TTC, GO, OC Transpo). Historically, measures have focused on providing preferential parking locations and/or portions of supply to transit pass holders. Downtown Parking Supply Short-term Parking - There is generally an adequate supply of short-term parking in downtown, although demand exceeds supply in the core of the Downtown Parking Area during the mid-day weekday peak. Other municipalities that were investigated emphasized the importance of meeting shortterm demand to support downtown businesses. Comprehensive implementation of parking meters on City streets has proven to be an effective strategy to limit the maximum duration at the meter and ensure maximum supply through turnover. Long-term Parking Supply - Available information suggests that the current long-term parking supply meets or exceeds existing demands, although there are also indicators that suggest that the current location of the parking is not optimal. For example, there is a significant imbalance in the parking utilization on a block by block basis with the central downtown area operating near or at-capacity in the peak periods while other outlying areas of the downtown are demonstrating significant underutilization during these same time periods. As the City controls less than 20% of the overall long-term parking supply in the downtown area, there are few mechanisms for the City to utilize in order to freeze, or potentially reduce the current parking supply. The requirement to apply for three year extensions of temporary Zoning for many surface parking lots in the City is one of the more effective levers the City has to control of the amount off-street parking supply. Based on our discussions with City staff, renewal of the temporary parking lot status does not appear to require any qualifications beyond the individuals desire to maintain the lot and the processing fees. Other Canadian municipalities are restricting the amount of long-term parking in their downtown areas in an effort to promote transit. Many are complimenting this policy direction with the development of municipally owned or controlled parking structures, which provide both supply and the opportunity to control operational practices. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 101

112 Off-Street Parking Pricing The City of London appears to have a low long-term (daily) and monthly parking fare structure in the downtown area when compared to other Canadian municipalities. Furthermore, the current parking fare structure is financially comparable, if not less expensive than an LTC monthly pass. As a result, there is currently no financial incentive to utilize transit to access the downtown area. Given the lack of City control/ ownership of downtown off-street parking, there are limited levers available to the City to influence the price of parking. The primary opportunity would seem to be parking supply; that is, reducing parking supply as a means of creating a premium demand for supply, setting market conditions to increase the price of parking. Arterial Corridor Parking Supply and Management The City of London, like most Canadian municipalities, uses time-based controls to limit or eliminate on-street parking in key arterial corridors during the peak commuter hours, while providing short-term parking for adjacent land uses during the off-peak hours. There are no discernable co-ordinated practices related to off-street parking in key corridors or at key transit nodes outside of the downtown. In December 2004, the Roads and Transportation Department submitted their recommendation to Council regarding a residential parking permit program to discourage non-residential parking on local streets adjacent to high demand facilities such as the University of Western, St. Joseph s Hospital, and Fanshawe College. At this time, the residential parking permit program has not been implemented by the City. Park and Ride Lots There are no formal Park and Ride facilities currently in place in London, although there are opportunities for informal Park and Ride lots that could be formalized in the future. For instance, the existing transit node at the Masonville Mall utilizes the circulation road of the mall for access/ egress and, while not officially designated, was observed to have ample free parking adjacent to the transit node although observations provided little evidence of this occurring. Discussions with the property owner of the Masonville Mall have not been favourable with respect to providing for long-term parking, pick-up and drop-off (Kiss and Ride) areas and/or intermodal transfers (e.g. taxi stands, bike lockers) at the mall; however, the opportunity to reach a mutually-beneficial arrangement may exist in the future. A number of larger municipalities with Rapid Transit systems have adopted a network of Park and Ride lots as a key component of their strategy to capture and serve riders. Kingston, which has no Rapid Transit system, has also concluded that a network of Park and Ride lots is key to their ability to capture suburban and rural transit riders and focus them into corridors that can be served with frequent and high quality transit. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 102

113 6.4 Development of a Parking Strategy Evaluation of Transit-Promoting Parking Mechanisms A number of parking-related policies are currently in use in London that, although they were not originally conceived to promote transit, are somewhat transit-supportive (commitment to a Comprehensive Parking Strategy, waiving of parking requirements for residential developments downtown, etc.). Existing parking practices in London (principally supply, pricing) are generally not transit-supportive. Given the need to drive the PM peak hour transit mode share from 7% to the target level of 10% by 2024, and the sensitivity of transit use to parking supply and pricing, additional mechanisms (policies and practices) would significantly benefit the City s objectives. Available options were reviewed and evaluated based on a number of criteria: relative costs of implementation; change from existing conditions; legislative impediments; potential for community issues; and ability of the strategy to marginally contribute (i.e., contribute more than it currently contributes) to increasing transit ridership. The purpose of the evaluation was to identify the parking-related policies and practices with the highest potential for increasing transit mode share and to identify barriers that may need to be overcome to permit their implementation. The evaluation criteria are described in Table 14. An evaluation of Low signifies the most positive result (i.e. fewest implementation barriers) with the exception of the Effectiveness to Improve Transit Ridership, where an evaluation of High is the most positive result. Table 14 Evaluation Criteria Explanations Assessment Evaluation Criteria Variables Low Mod (Moderate) High Cost to Implement Minimal capital and operating costs Some capital costs initially and minimal Significant capital investment and ongoing Change from Existing Conditions Legislative Impediments Community Opposition (perceived) Little or no change Existing Legislation in place Public and Business communities are supportive operating costs Noticeable change with little disruption Legislation required only at municipal level A split of support between the Public and Business communities operating costs Noticeable change requiring adjustment in behaviour No ability to legislate at any level of government Public and Business communities opposed Dillon Consulting Limited Page 103

114 Assessment Evaluation Criteria Variables Low Mod (Moderate) High Effectiveness to Marginally Improve Transit Ridership Transit Ridership growth similar to total travel growth, no change of mode share Strong increase in transit ridership and noticeable increase in mode share Dramatic increase in transit ridership and significant increase in mode share Table 14 summarizes the evaluation of the various parking management strategies available for the effective, transit-supportive, management of parking in the City of London. As Table 15 illustrates, there is no single parking strategy that is both effective, and free of implementation difficulties. In fact, the two strategies that have the greatest potential to improve transit ridership are also the two strategies that have the lowest (expected) community support and the highest change in existing conditions. Table 15 Assessment of Individual Transit-Supportive Parking Strategies Parking Strategy Strengthen long range parking policies Develop a Comprehensive Parking Management Strategy Zoning By-law Changes to implement reduced minimum and/ or maximum parking ratios Increase the Cashin-lieu rates Implement a proactive Cash-in-Lieu program Implement parkingoperations related TDM initiatives, such as preferential location and pricing Cost to Implement Implementation Issues Change Legislative from Impediments Existing Conditions Community Opposition (perceived) Effectiveness to Improve Transit Ridership Low Low/Mod Low Mod Low/Mod Low Mod Low Mod/High High Low High Mod Mod/High Low/Mod Low Low Low Mod Low High High Low Mod Low Low Low Low Low Low Dillon Consulting Limited Page 104

115 Parking Strategy Convert Long-Term Off-Street Parking to Short-Term Parking Reduce Long-term Parking Supply Increase Off-Street Parking Pricing Cost to Implement Implementation Issues Change Legislative from Impediments Existing Conditions Community Opposition (perceived) Effectiveness to Improve Transit Ridership Low Mod Low Mod Mod High/Mod Mod/High Mod Mod/High High Low High High High High Park and Ride Lots Mod Low Low Mod Mod Long-Range Policies Parking is not really a long-term policy issue; it is more appropriately dealt with at the By-law stage and through practices. London s long-range policies are moderately strong the TMP commitment to the development of a Comprehensive Parking Strategy. The contents of this strategy will be the key determinant of the strength of the policy. London will need to add the Long-Range Ridership Growth Strategy s recommended transit facilities to TMP and OP (key arterial corridors, nodes, and Park and Ride lots) and develop appropriate policies (including parking) to strongly promote transit around these facilities. Comprehensive Parking Strategy The development of a Comprehensive Parking Strategy is the key to developing parking practices that support transit. As identified through the TMP, this strategy will consider parking supply, price, and practices. This strategy needs to be started soon, and promote practices that promote transit, given the consequences of not meeting the City s mode share target Zoning By-law Changes Zoning By-law changes could help, but the London market has not shown an appetite for them. The willingness to waive parking requirements for residential developments has not been accepted by developers in downtown. Reduced minimums may be more effective in commercial properties, where the market pressures are lower. Maximum parking ratios are inappropriate for a city the size of London. All other municipalities that have tried it are much larger and restricted it to areas around Rapid Transit stations Cash-in-Lieu By-law Changes Increasing the Cash-in-Lieu rate is a two-edged sword. Raising the Cash-in-Lieu amount would provide the City with additional funds that it could use to construct its own parking facilities in downtown, providing greater control over the operating practices. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 105

116 Raising the cash-in-lieu amount may also result in fewer people taking advantage of the opportunity, although staff have indicated that this is currently not a well-used policy and do not foresee significant demand for this opportunity. Moving to a more pro-active cash-in-lieu framework, similar to Calgary s, is essentially the same as implementing parking ratio maximums. It is not appropriate for a City the size of London. It would also require significant municipal investment in parking infrastructure. Parking Operations-based TDM Initiatives The range of opportunities in this small sub-set of TDM is limited to City-owned and/or operated parking facilities in high transit market areas, such as downtown. While a good idea that would face no significant implementation barriers, there is no real opportunity to significantly impact the mode share. Convert Long-Term Off-Street Parking to Short-Term Parking (Downtown) The survey of existing parking demands in downtown London showed a shortfall in the short-term parking supply in the core of the Downtown Parking Area during the weekday mid-day peak. It also showed an overall surplus of long-term parking in the Downtown Parking Area, albeit not in the core (area bounded by Ridout Street, Fullarton Street, Clarence Street and King Street). Given the sensitivity of short-term parking to location, and the role of short-term parking in supporting downtown commercial businesses, it would be appropriate to specifically dedicate a portion of the off-street parking supply to short-term use. This may be difficult to implement given the lack of City control over the parking supply. The Comprehensive Parking Strategy could look for opportunities in the City-owned supply, or at legal mechanisms that can be used when new downtown parking area are approved. Reduce the Long-term Parking Supply (Downtown) Two of the biggest drivers of mode choice for commuters are parking supply and price at the employment end of the trip; therefore, the long-term parking supply in downtown London is a significant lever to increase transit mode share. The survey of existing conditions in downtown London show that there is a surplus of parking in the Downtown Parking Area (i.e., the peak utilization rate of 73% is well below practical capacity of 85%). In other words, based on a supply of approximately 12,300 long-term parking spaces, the demand is approximately 1,500 parking spaces below the practical capacity at its peak. Increase Cost of Off-Street Parking The survey of existing conditions showed that off-street parking prices in London are the lowest among those reviewed, considering both daily and monthly rates. It also showed that monthly parking rates in London are lower than the price of an LTC monthly pass, Dillon Consulting Limited Page 106

117 which presents no financial incentive to the traveler to take transit. Moderate price increases in daily and monthly parking rates could be accommodated. Implement a Network of Park and Ride Lots A key to the ridership growth strategy is the capture of rural and suburban commuters destined to downtown. Fundamental to this objective is the provision of frequent service in key corridors, suggesting that Park and Ride lots located at the suburban and/or rural ends of these corridors would be of great benefit. Capital investment in such facilities could be phased as ridership grows Summary The City of London has set an aggressive goal of moving the City-wide PM peak hour transit mode share from 7% in 2004 to 10% in Failure to reach this mode share target will result in the need to invest heavily in the road infrastructure, namely the need for 22 additional lanes per direction of road network across London screenlines by 2024 as identified in the Transportation Master Plan and/or the Full Peripheral Freeway (Ring Road) as identified in the Long Term Transportation Corridor Protection Study. The City of London is doing a number of good things that will assist in the movement towards the stated goal; however, given the magnitude of the required increase (43% increase in PM peak hour mode share) further actions are required. Parking policies and practices will be an important component to the strategy to achieve this objective, including long range planning policies, by-laws, and actual parking practices. A number of potential actions were identified that could potentially assist in effecting the change, including three with high potential and one with moderate potential to marginally impact the transit mode share (i.e., they have the potential to help increase the mode share beyond the existing level): 1. Develop a Comprehensive Parking Strategy for the City of London; 2. Reduce the downtown parking supply; 3. Increase the price for off-street parking in the downtown; and 4. Implement Park and Ride lots at strategic locations around the suburban areas of London. Each of these actions is discussed individually below. It is important to note that some of these actions need to overcome moderate to significant implementation barriers, particularly the actions involving the downtown parking supply. While there is time to defeat the barriers the 10% mode share is a 2024 objective work to reduce the opposition to the actions should begin as soon as possible, as it may take some time to come to fruition. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 107

118 There are two over-arching strategies that were considered in developing approaches to overcoming the identified barriers: 1. Make the changes gradual Phase the recommended actions in over time to reduce immediate opposition and develop momentum; and 2. Increase the amount of City-ownership in and/ or control over the downtown parking supply The key actions are related to supply and pricing of parking and increased City ownership would assist the City in controlling key parameters related to downtown parking. Comprehensive Parking Strategy for the City Of London The 2004 City of London Transportation Master Plan commits to the development of a Comprehensive Parking Strategy for the City. This document is the key first action required to promote transit through parking policies and operational practices, as many of the current practices are not strongly support of transit. The TMP has made a policy commitment; what is missing is the day-to-day decision making framework to implement the policy commitment. The TMP commitment to making this a dynamic, or living, document, also supports its on-going management over time, which will allow it to be adjusted as conditions in the City of London require. There are no perceived barriers to the development of the Strategy per se, but there could be some opposition to its recommendations, depending on what they are. Downtown Parking Supply The second recommended action for the City of London is to reduce the downtown parking supply. It is likely that there will be significant barriers to this potentially even active opposition. The recent parking utilization studies undertaken as part of the City of London s downtown parking study indicate that the current parking supply is adequate for the demand; however, there results of the surveys also demonstrate that there is an imbalance in the distribution of the supply with localized areas operating near or at capacity while other areas are significantly underutilized.. This would help explain why some downtown stakeholders have clearly identified themselves as supporting an increase in the parking supply. The rationale for reducing the downtown long-term parking supply would be: 1. It would support downtown retail businesses (mid-day weekday); 2. It would be an effective direct lever for promoting transit (technical research indicates almost a 1% increase in transit mode share for every 1% decrease in parking/cbd employee); and 3. It would be an indirect lever for influencing the price of long-term off-street parking in the downtown. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 108

119 The implementation strategy for a supply reduction in downtown would also have to be sensitive to needs of downtown stakeholders, who are the prospective transit patrons. Several implementation options exist: 1. Stage one of this strategy could be a philosophy of No Net Gain ; as in, do not permit the existing supply to increase as development downtown increases; 2. The City of London could significantly increase the rationale required for extending temporary Zoning for surface parking lots, recognizing their impact on the transportation network, not just the business needs of the applicant; 3. The City of London could modify its approach to its Cash-in-Lieu of Parking Bylaw, moving towards a model similar to the one used by the City of Calgary, taking control of the timing and location of the provision of downtown parking; 4. Independent of changes to the structure of its Cash-in-Lieu of Parking By-law, the City of London could move to increase its ownership and control of the downtown parking supply, allowing it to making operational decisions that are consistent with its long-term policy objectives. Given the sensitivity of this issue, further consultation with Senior City staff on implementation mechanisms is required. The City of London Comprehensive Parking Strategy would be an appropriate tool to consider such strategies and select the preferred approaches to implementation. Price for Long-Term Off-Street Parking in the Downtown The third major parking-related transit-supportive activity for the City of London to undertake is to increase the price of long-term off-street parking in the downtown. Current rates are below average rates for other Canadian municipalities and, more importantly, average monthly parking rates are below the current cost of a monthly bus pass. Without a cost advantage it is highly unlikely that transit use for downtown employees will increase enough to support the movement of the City-wide PM peak hour transit rate from 7% to 10%. Increasing the price of long-term off-street parking will be difficult to do. The City has insufficient control of the supply to set market conditions and is unable to tax or otherwise apply surcharges to the cost of parking. Two options exist to accomplish the objective, both of which the City should consider pursuing: 1. Increase the City participation in ownership and control of the downtown parking supply, so that it can control operational elements to support its long-term planning objectives; and/or 2. Reduce the downtown off-street parking supply through policy mechanisms (primarily the Zoning-By-law) to influence price indirectly by setting market conditions (supply/ demand) to put upward pressure on price. Actions aimed at increasing the price of long-term off-street parking in the downtown are obviously inter-related with those aimed at decreasing the parking supply and will be as Dillon Consulting Limited Page 109

120 sensitive to stakeholders. Further consultation with Senior City staff on implementation mechanisms is required. The City of London Comprehensive Parking Strategy would be an appropriate tool to consider such strategies and select the preferred approaches to implementation. The short-term off-street parking fees should be controlled so that the fees do not deter trips to the retail areas and/or so that parking infiltration in adjacent residential areas does not become an issue. That being said, it is acknowledged that the current hourly pricing strategy is lower than that of other Canadian municipalities and may be able to accommodate slight to moderate increases in support of other transit-supportive parking strategies. Park and Ride Lots Implementation of Park and Ride lots has proven to be useful in promoting transit to growing suburban and rural markets, when combined with appropriate transit servicing strategies. In London, it is anticipated that Park and Ride lots could be a particularly useful tool to overcome challenges presented by the current development strategy that permits developers to significantly influence timing and location of development staging. Locations for Park and Ride lots should be determined through the Long-term Service Strategy Review, as Park and Ride lots are integral with staging higher order transit service to key markets and/or in key corridors. Implementation of Park and Ride lots should be combined with transit-supportive parking TDM strategies, such as the Transit Pass and Parking Integration Program used by the TTC, Go Transit, and OC Transpo. Additional Supportive Actions Although not a key driver for increasing the mode share, the City of London should continue to use parking meters to control turnover and pricing of the on-street parking supply to support its use as short-term parking supply. The City should also consider implementing preferential parking opportunities at City-owned parking lots for regular transit users. Known examples of preferential parking use include Sacramento, California and Vancouver, British Columbia. In addition, the continuation of the Business Travel Wise Program and discussions with parking management companies are also valuable tools that can lead to TDM initiatives on privately owned lots. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 110

121 7.0 IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY 7.1 Recommended Plan The implementation plan for the Long-term Transit Growth Strategy outlines recommended strategies and actions over the next 18 years to help London reach its 10% modal split target by The plan itself relies on a three-tiered approach to achieve success. As emphasized throughout this report, meeting the 10% transit modal split target can not be achieved by LTC alone. Achieving this target will require the strong support of the City of London, including a re-examination of existing land use and parking policies and practices that influence transit usage. This inter-linked relationship between transit, land use and parking is re-emphasized here by repeating Figure 1 in Section 2.4 of this report. One strategy cannot occur without the other. Relationship between Land Use Policies, Parking Policies/Practices and the Long - term Network Strategy in Promoting Transit Use As such, the first step in implementing this strategy is to ensure continued acceptance and coordination between the LTC and City Departments that will participate in the implementation of this strategy. The following sections outline the required steps required based on the recommendations in this report. Recommendations are summarized in Table 16 at the end of this report, Dillon Consulting Limited Page 111

122 outlining expected timing of each action, as well as the primary City department/ Commission responsible for implementation. 7.2 Implementation of the Long-term Transit Strategy It is recommended that the LTC pursue an Enhanced Nodes and Corridors service strategy based on BRT components. There should be a base level of BRT components implemented in each identified corridor, however, it should also be phased in at a level that can be supported by the characteristics of the City, as well as its long-term vision. To support the development of the Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Strategy, it is recommended that the LTC implement the following actions: 1. Develop Immediately an Implementation Strategy for the BRT Network The corridors identified in Figure 3 should be planned now to determine the ultimate vision of the BRT network. A number of corridors will warrant an exploration of BRT features in the near term, while others will warrant corridor protection for future service enhancements in the long-term, as conditions become more favourable to implement BRT components. Based on a strategic review of ridership potential in each corridor, the following general phasing was identified: 1. Short-term Richmond Street Western Road Dundas Street East 2. Medium-term Oxford Street East Wellington Road 3. Long-term Oxford Street West Wonderland Road Fanshawe Park Road To confirm this phasing and develop an implementation strategy for the BRT network, LTC and the City of London will need to undertake the following steps: Complete a more detailed implementation strategy that considers a wider range of factors, including property availability, cost, development potential adjacent to the corridor, as well as ridership potential. Consider an evaluation framework similar Dillon Consulting Limited Page 112

123 to the approach used in Ottawa, looking at problem, benefit, and feasibility criteria. Develop triggers and a policy direction for phasing BRT priority infrastructure in each corridor based on the following four levels of investment: o Transit Priority without infrastructure o Transit Priority with infrastructure o Semi-exclusive bus lanes o Exclusive bus lanes Develop a bus service (routes and frequencies) strategy for each of the BRT corridors. In the short-term, bus routes should continue to feed into neighbourhoods and use the BRT corridors to travel between nodes, thereby reducing travel time and trip variability. In the long-term, semi express or express routes operating exclusively on the BRT corridors should be considered, along with route frequencies of 5 to 10 minutes during the peak periods and 20 minutes during the off peaks. Develop detailed capital cost estimates for the implementation of this transit strategy, including road network improvements, transit priority implementation, transit fleet and facilities, and other transit capital. 2. Prepare and Maintain a Design Manual for BRT Corridors LTC should prepare and maintain a design manual for BRT corridors to establish London s preferred approach to a number of design issues, independent of specific corridors. The manual would address a number of issues, including lane width, spacing of stations and stops, preferred design for stations and stops, ITS requirements, and a number of other elements. Specific recommendations that should be included in the Design Manual should include the following: Improved Transit Stops In the short-term, passenger amenities at key stops along the first phase of BRT corridors and each of transit nodes should be improved, including enhanced shelter design to minimize discomfort from inclement weather and the provision of passenger amenities such as benches, newspaper boxes and system information (i.e. route maps). Bike racks should at BRT stops that connect with London s existing and proposed bicycle path network. Vehicles All routes operating primarily on the BRT corridor network should be designated as low-floor bus routes. In the long-term, consideration should be given to purchasing new vehicles with increased capacity, more comfortable seats, air conditioning, and extra-wide doors to increase boarding/alighting times. These would then be branded to the BRT corridors. In the short-term, an initial step would be to brand existing buses that operate primarily on these corridors once transit priority features and/or enhanced passenger amenities are in place. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 113

124 Fare Collection fares should continue to be collected onboard buses as opposed to platform fare collection methods used in some larger BRT systems. Methods to reduce dwell time at stops through fare collection should be considered over the long-term, including the introduction of U-Pass to employers, and further promotion of Employee Passes. A review of Smart Card Technology to support the BRT network should be explored and evaluated in 2008/2009, as outlined in LTC s current Business Plan. ITS Applications In the short-term, each bus using the BRT corridor will need to be equipped with signal detection technology to allow preemptive transit priority features. As the system develops and ridership grows, other forms of technology such as GPS tracking technology should be explored to improve the quality of service to transit passengers. A review of ITS infrastructure needs to support the BRT network should be explored and evaluated in more detail in 2006/2007, as outlined in LTC s current Business Plan. 3. Develop Transit Priority Triggers for Areas outside of BRT Corridors LTC should prepare general triggers for Transit Priority measures outside of the BRT corridors, and a policy direction regarding where such measures might be considered. Traffic signal control hardware requirements to support Transit Priority both in and outside of the BRT corridors should be identified. 4. Implement Complimentary High Impact Service Adjustments The long-term enhanced service strategy will also require additional routes and route extensions in response to population and employment growth, and to further support the Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Transit Strategy. It is recommended that LTC continue to operate under this philosophy of extending routes that make sense from a ridership and financial perspective while making sure that the overarching philosophy of the Enhanced Transit Corridors and Nodes Strategy is maintained. 5. Identify Personnel Required to Implement the Strategy In addition to operating staff increases due to service improvements, LTC transit planning resources should be dedicated to the goals and strategies described in this report. The person would act as an advocate for transit, liaise with key city departments, review all development plans, actively market transit and spearhead the implementation of the BRT plan, pursue transit pass opportunities, and be the catalyst for heightening transit awareness and monitoring of progress toward long range targets. This individual would also represent transit in the City s SHIFT Program. It should also be recognized that resources from the City of London staff will be required to assist in the implementation of this strategy. This includes a staff member from the Environmental and Engineering Services Department to implement the transit priority system and oversee required corridor Environmental Assessment Studies. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 114

125 7.3 Implementation of the Land use Strategy to Support Transit The implementation framework identifies certain tasks which LTC can undertake, and certain tasks which it can undertake in partnership with the City of London to encourage transit-supportive development. It should be noted that four of the eight implementation items can be entirely undertaken by LTC. The other four implementation items related to the City's Official Plan, Community Improvement Plan(s), and Zoning By-law require a partnership between the City of London and LTC. 1. Submit Formal Comments to the City During the 2006 Official Plan Review The results and recommendations in this document should be formally submitted to the City of London during the 2006 Official Plan Review, to ensure that LTC s policy recommendations are on the public record. The recommendations in Section 5.4 report which would feed into the Official Plan update process include: land use policies, densities, and phasing; warrant for comments on development applications; and enabling policies for CIP's and bonusing. 2. Adopt Nodes and Corridors into Policy Documents The long-term Enhanced Corridors and Nodes Strategy should be incorporated into LTC s capital planning budget, the Transportation Master Plan, the City s Official Plan, and the overall land use planning and transportation culture of the City. The designation of Enhanced Transit Corridors and Nodes in the Official Plan should be based on a separate schedule. Land use policies around nodes and corridors should also be strengthened to focus future high-density, mixed use development and employment. The long-term objective of achieving a 10% transit modal split should also be reflected in Official Plan, with appropriate policies developed to support that vision. 3. Publish the City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines as a Standalone Document The City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines should be published as a stand-alone publication to be an effective reference document for City of London staff and the development industry. A hard copy version should be made available from LTC s office and the City of London. An electronic copy should be made available on the City s and LTC s website for download. Once the document has been published, LTC should undertake the necessary outreach to ensure that the development community is provided with a copy of the guidelines. 4. Implement a "Transit Scorecard" for Development Review Upon the completion of the City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines, the LTC and city planners should prepare a Transit Scorecard (TSC) to help evaluate whether Dillon Consulting Limited Page 115

126 a particular project is advancing the long-term viability of a community or creating more impacts with little overall benefit to existing and new citizens. Working in conjunction with the City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines, it could also be used to help a developer decide where to best locate particular uses, or to determine what uses are most appropriate over the long-term for a particular parcel of land. 5. Establish a Recognition Program The "Good Transit" Award LTC should implement a "Good Transit Award" program, which recognizes a specific development that has exceeded the minimum requirements for transit-supportive development. The identification of an award winner would be enabled through the use of the transit scorecard, as noted above. At the outset of the program, the award may not be given out annually since there will be a transition period for the development industry to incorporate the City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines. Over time, it is anticipated that the award would be offered on an annual basis and perhaps extended through CUTA to other communities. 6. Update the Bonus Provisions in the Zoning By-law The bonus provisions in the Zoning By-law are silent on bonusing for transit. Offering height and/or density bonuses for transit is a common practice. The development increase which is offered can range from 5% to 20%, depending on the level of investment in the transit facilities by the developer. The bonus provisions should clearly identify what transit infrastructure beyond the minimum would be acceptable for a density bonus (i.e., a bonus would not be granted for the provision of a bus shelter). Most municipalities undertake updates to their Zoning By-laws once they have completed an update to their Official Plan, and the updated bonus provisions can be incorporated after the City's Official Plan update. 7. Update the Downtown Community Improvement Plan and Programs The Downtown CIP is an important tool for encouraging good development in the City of London's core. Continued investment in residential and non-residential development by landowners is important to transit because the downtown is such a major destination for transit riders. Two important factors to transit-supportive downtown development office space and parking can be addressed through the programs in the downtown CIP. With respect to office space, the CIP can provide for rebates on a variety of fees and payments, which can reduce the cost of developing new office space and make developing office space in downtown London as price-competitive as developing office space in suburban locations. With respect to parking, there are a variety of waivers and rebates which can be provided to eliminate parking requirements or cash-in-lieu payments. Since the purpose of a CIP is to encourage general good development, the design of the programs will have to balance the interest of transit-supportive development with other development priorities. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 116

127 8. Create Community Improvement Plans for Transit Corridors and Nodes The City should create a CIP for identified Enhanced Transit Corridors and Nodes that are intended to be revitalized for transit-supportive uses. The municipality would be able to provide a suite of incentives for development that met certain criteria such as conformity to urban design guidelines and/or the City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines. It should also be noted that by designating an area for community improvement, this also helps the municipality focus its capital resources, such as upgraded streetscaping, which forms part of a transit-supportive environment. Since the purpose of a CIP is to encourage general good development, the design of the programs (rebates, grants, and waivers) will have to balance the interest of transit-supportive development with other development priorities. 7.4 Implementation of the Parking Strategy to Support Transit To provide every opportunity to achieve the transit mode share target of 10% by 2024, the following recommendations should be implemented by the City: 1. Develop a Comprehensive Parking Strategy The City, in cooperation with LTC should immediately develop a Comprehensive Parking Strategy, as committed to through the 2004 Transportation Master Plan, to consider such issues as parking supply, design, pricing, funding sources and By-law policy tools in the context of balancing modal shift objectives and business and community interests. The Strategy should recognize that there are strong arguments for reducing the supply and increasing the price of off-street parking in the downtown as key drivers for increasing the transit mode share in LTC s most important transit market. Without an increase in the downtown transit mode the TMP target of a City-wide PM Peak Hour transit mode share mode share of 10% will not be achieved. Implementation mechanisms that should be considered by the Comprehensive Parking Strategy include: a strategy of No Net Gain in the downtown parking supply should be adopted; significantly increase the rationale required for extending temporary Zoning for surface parking lots, recognizing their impact on the transportation network, not just the business needs of the applicant; modifying the current approach to the City s Cash-in-Lieu of Parking By-law, moving towards a model similar to the one used by the City of Calgary, taking control of the timing and location of the provision of downtown parking; and increasing its ownership and control of the downtown parking supply, allowing it to making operational decisions that are consistent with its long-term policy objectives. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 117

128 2. Prepare a Park and Ride Strategy Develop and implement Park and Ride lots at any of the peripheral commercial nodes identified in the Enhanced Corridor and Nodes Transit Strategy. Park and Ride lots should also serve as a staging measure for transit expansion in suburban/ rural transit markets. 3. Develop a Preferential Pricing, Location and Supply Strategy LTC/ the City of London should look to provide preferential pricing, location, and supply strategies at City-owned parking lots and Park and Ride lots for transit patrons, particularly transit pass holders. 4. On-Street Parking Strategy Although not a key driver for increasing the mode share, the City of London should continue to use parking meters to control turnover and pricing of the on-street parking supply to support its use as short-term parking supply. Dillon Consulting Limited Page 118

129 Transportation Demand Management Study Long-term Transit Growth Strategy Technical Report Table 16 - Long-term Ridership Growth Strategy Implementation Plan Long-term Initiatives Lead* Implementation Schedule Transit Service Strategy 1 Develop an Implementation Strategy for the BRT Network LTC 2 Prepare and Maintain a Design Manual for BRT Corridors LTC / Transportation 3 Develop Transit Priority Triggers for Areas outside of BRT Corridors LTC 4 Implement Complimentary High Impact Service Adjustments LTC 5 Identify Personnel Required to Implement the Strategy LTC Land Use Strategy 1 Adopt Nodes and Corridors into Policy Documents Planning 2 Submit Formal Comments to the City during the Next Official Plan Update LTC 3 Publish the Transit "101" Technical Guidelines as a Standalone Document LTC 4 Implement a "Transit Scorecard" for Development Review LTC 5 Establish a Recognition Program The "Good Transit" Award LTC 6 Update the Bonus Provisions in the Zoning By-law Planning 7 Update the Downtown Community Improvement Plan and Programs Planning 8 Create Community Improvement Plans for Transit Corridors and Nodes Planning Parking Strategy 1 Develop a Comprehensive Parking Strategy Transportation 2 Prepare a Park and Ride Strategy LTC 3 Develop a Preferential Pricing, Location and Supply Strategy LTC 4 On-Street Parking Strategy Transportation * Note LTC - London Transit Commission Planning - City of London Planning and Development Department Transportation - City of London Roads and Transportation Department Dillon Consulting Limited Page 119

130

131 APPENDIX A City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines

132

133 Transportation Demand Management Study Long-term Transit Growth Strategy Technical Report Appendix A City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines The City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines is intended to be the functional companion to the other recommended policies and approaches to help encourage good development in the City of London. While the guidelines have been designed with transit in mind, many of the guidelines can also have a positive impact on the general urban design of communities. This draft version of the guidelines is presented here in a simple format. The final version should be produced with appropriate illustrations and be designed as a userfriendly, brochure-style document. It should be noted that the illustrations provided are examples and it is anticipated that LTC would provide illustrations, which more accurately depict their standards. It should be noted that many transit design criteria overlap with good urban design principles. For the purposes of the City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines, it is anticipated that urban design guidelines or policies will be in place for newly developing or regeneration areas. Therefore, the City of London Transit Supportive Design Guidelines are focussed on those matters which are specific to transit and less on general good urban design practises. Transit-Friendly Residential Subdivision Design Criteria Grid or modified grid street pattern is preferred For subdivisions with curvilinear street patterns, provide lighted pedestrian pathways to reduce internal walking distances to transit stops Higher density uses are oriented towards the transit route Reverse lotting of residential development on collector and arterial roads is avoided 90% of residents are within a 5-minute (400 metre) actual walk of a bus stop Bus stops located approximately metres apart Bus stops located on the far side of intersections Transit service can be routed through centre of development, rather than at the periphery Neighbourhood commercial, schools, and community facility uses within a residential area can be served by transit Phasing plan provides for acceptable routing of transit service through all phases of development Bus stops are designed with signage, shelter, bench, and route map Shelters are illuminated and use clear glazing Transit facilities are designed for use in all weather conditions Collector roads spaced between 600 to 1000 metres apart Mid-block collector roads in new areas should connects these areas to adjacent neighbourhoods Sidewalks provided on both sides of the street Dillon Consulting Limited Page i

134 Transportation Demand Management Study Long-term Transit Growth Strategy Technical Report Transit-Friendly Business Park Design Criteria A key intersection has buildings clustered to the corner Walls, berms and steep slopes are avoided between building entrances and transit stops Convenience commercial within the business park can be served by transit Phasing plan provides for acceptable routing of transit service through all phases of development Transit facilities are designed for use in all weather conditions 90% of employees should be within a 5 minute actual walk of a transit stop Collector roads spaced between 600 to 1000 metres apart Sidewalks provided on both sides of the street Negotiations undertaken to provide targeted transit services to nearest LTC node. Transit Node and Corridor Design Criteria Bus stops located approximately metres apart Major arterial road has a designated HOV or transit priority lane Transit facilities are designed for use in all weather conditions On-site facilities are designed to accommodate bus turning movements Dedicated transit lanes provided to bypass mixed traffic at transit nodes Transit stops located near building entrances Transit corridors should be planned and developed to a minimum of 2.5 FSI Transit nodes should include an architectural feature that assists wayfinding Transit nodes should include an open space area for pick up / drop off Transit priority measures are incorporated on high traffic arterials and at entrance/egress to transit nodes Sub area study to cover area within 1 km of designated transit node General Site Planning Design Criteria Medium- and large-scale land uses provide on-site transit facilities (e.g. bus bay and sheltered waiting area) In low density business/industrial parks negotiate between developer and LTC for transit service from nearest node Transit facilities are designed for use in all weather conditions On-site facilities are designed to accommodate bus turning movements, where appropriate Transit stops located near building entrances Major retail uses should have one façade or main entrance fronting an arterial road served by transit Major parking areas should be penetrated by transit, with transit stops adjacent to the building Dillon Consulting Limited Page ii

135 Transportation Demand Management Study Long-term Transit Growth Strategy Technical Report Source: BC Transit EXAMPLE Bus Stop Technical Considerations Bus stop shelter located minimum of 1.0 metres from curb edge Bus stops are designed with signage, shelter, bench, and route map Shelters are illuminated and use clear glazing Shelter Diagram Source: City of Calgary EXAMPLE Dillon Consulting Limited Page iii