2030 London Transportation Master Plan
DOWNTOWN LONDON BRT ROUTING OPTIONS June 1, 2011
60114661-6945_App C_2012-02-06_Londondowntownroutes_V7.Docx
Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1
2. Background ................................................................................................................... 2
3. Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 2
4. Principles of Routing / Criteria ..................................................................................... 3
5. Transit Service Routing Options .................................................................................. 4
5.1 Base Case ........................................................................................................................... 4 5.2 Option 1 ............................................................................................................................... 5 5.3 Option 2 ............................................................................................................................... 6 5.4 Option 3 ............................................................................................................................... 7 5.5 Option 4 ............................................................................................................................... 8 5.6 Option 5 ............................................................................................................................... 9
6. Option Comparison ..................................................................................................... 10
6.1 Benefits ............................................................................................................................. 10 6.2 Costs ................................................................................................................................. 11
7. Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 11
2030 London Transportation Master Plan
DOWNTOWN LONDON BRT ROUTING OPTIONS June 1, 2011
60114661-6945_App C_2012-02-06_Londondowntownroutes_V7.Docx 1
1. Introduction
As part of the 2030 Transportation Master Plan for the City of London, two BRT routes are proposed in
the near term to help the City achieve a transit mode share of 15% to 20%. Based on an analysis of the
various corridors of the City, a north-south route using Wellington Street to the south of Downtown and
Richmond Street to the north of Downtown was identified for the first BRT route, and an east-west route
using Dundas Street to the east of Downtown and Oxford Street to the west of Downtown was identified
as a second BRT route (see map below). Both routes would support City objectives for revitalization and
continued growth in the Downtown.
Stop/Station Locations in Preferred Transit Corridors
Source: Interim Report #2 : Towards a More Sustainable Transportation System
in London, 2030 Transportation Master Plan
March 2011
The Downtown routing of the BRT routes is important because it will have an impact on the perceived
quality and convenience of the new BRT routes and overall transit network. The Downtown is one of the
largest transit trip generators (the University of Western Ontario being the other), and so extensive BRT
coverage will be important for making these services convenient and useful to passengers, and for
achieving transit modal splits considerably higher than the current 11% . The Downtown will be the
meeting point of the proposed first two BRT routes. With investment in the supporting infrastructure for
BRT in terms of transit priority measures, enhanced shelters, sidewalks, etc., BRT may also have an
impact on urban development and, thus, attention to design will also be important.
2030 London Transportation Master Plan
DOWNTOWN LONDON BRT ROUTING OPTIONS June 1, 2011
60114661-6945_App C_2012-02-06_Londondowntownroutes_V7.Docx 2
2. Background
This memo addresses the question of what the best routings for the future BRT routes will be downtown.
Background information for this analysis came from:
Second interim report for the TMP update: Towards a More Sustainable Transportation
System in London;
Draft Downtown Plan documents;
Existing bus maps and schedules from London Transit Commission website;
Bicycle Master Plan: A Guideline Document for Bicycle Infrastructure In the City of London
March 2005;
Downtown Terminal report by Dillon Consulting; and
City of London staff review of the Dillon report.
3. Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in the development of the options and in comparing them:
Pedestrian-focus corridors are most likely to be located on Carling and Clarence, as these
streets have relatively little automobile traffic now and so the impacts on the overall
Downtown traffic network would be minimal.
Bicycle lanes are reserved on York, Colburne, Ridout, and Dufferin around Downtown.
Richmond Street will have full-time exclusive bus lanes in the curb lanes along its entire
length in the Downtown due to the number of buses projected to use it.
A new traffic signal phase for bus-only left turns from the curb lane will be needed. This will
impact any routings in which buses traveling southbound on Richmond Street and turning
left onto King, York, or Dundas; any buses traveling north on Wellington and turning left
onto York, Dundas, or Queens; or any buses traveling east on York or King and turning left
on Wellington, Waterloo or Colborne.
Routes 6, 13, and 2 are the routes most likely to be replaced by the first two new BRT
routes. The north-south route would likely replace much of routes 6 and 13 while the east-
west route would replace much of route 2.
Total transit fleet needs are the same in all options.
Operating costs of all options will be the same. While some route options may have shorter
travel times within the downtown, there would be longer travel times outside of the
downtown.
There is less congestion within the downtown core itself than on the primary arteries
leading into and out of the Downtown.
An off-street exchange is not assumed, but is evaluated for comparison purposes.
2030 London Transportation Master Plan
DOWNTOWN LONDON BRT ROUTING OPTIONS June 1, 2011
60114661-6945_App C_2012-02-06_Londondowntownroutes_V7.Docx 3
4. Principles of Routing / Criteria
The routing should create at transit presence in the Downtown, meaning that the streets designated for
transit should appear well used, and the services should be visible to as many people as possible. The
rationale behind this principle is that the more people who see the BRT services in their day-to-day
activities downtown, the more people who will use them. A related principle is that the stations should be
placed close to the trip generators and inter-city bus and rail services, the overall objective being to
maximize transit ridership and modal split for Downtown travel.
To that end, the following criteria are considered to be the most important for evaluating the
attractiveness of a routing option. Convenience, attractiveness, and safety for transit passengers is
considered the most important area, and adaptability to near- and long-term transportation plans are also
considered to be important. Traffic and parking operations, and operators’ amenities are considered to be
less important. Elements of the routing options that would have an impact on cost will also be noted. The
ability to convert the BRT routes to LRT routes in the future was not listed as a criterion because it is
believed that this option lies too far into the future to have an impact on a choice that must be made in the
near term.
Convenient, attractive, accessible and safe for transit passengers:
Proximity of stops to trip generators
Ease of transfers between BRT routes
Proximity of stops to inter-city bus and rail stations
No “splits” in route; stations serving same route in opposite directions are across the
street
Adaptable to long-term transportation needs:
Permanent pedestrian-only zones: assume that sections of Carling and/or Clarence
will become closed to motorized traffic in the long-term
Supportive of Downtown Plan and Transportation Goals:
Wider sidewalks
Temporary pedestrian-only zones; assume that Dundas will be closed to motorized
traffic several times per year for special events
BRT routes compatible with bicycle lanes
Traffic/Parking Operations
Driveway access to businesses, residences and parking
Roadway capacity for automobiles
On-street parking
Operator Amenities
Rest facilities
Capital Costs
Off-street exchange
Number of BRT stations and bus stops
New controlled intersection
Intersections with new transit signal priority
2030 London Transportation Master Plan
DOWNTOWN LONDON BRT ROUTING OPTIONS June 1, 2011
60114661-6945_App C_2012-02-06_Londondowntownroutes_V7.Docx 4
5. Transit Service Routing Options
Many of the options below are different than those presented in earlier periods of the study in that they
consider service along Oxford going west from Downtown, stop locations (shown by red and blue dots),
the use of transit signal priority (TSP), coverage provided by stations (shown by circles drawn around the
stops that indicate how far a person might be able to walk in a few minutes), and new information from
the draft downtown plan.
The Base Case is similar to the option that was presented in the Second Interim Report for the TMP
Update and which was used for estimating transit ridership through the study transportation model. Three
alternative approaches have been taken to try to improve upon this Base Case. The first approach is to
make the transit routes more direct, the second uses the one-way streets to get more space for operation
and bus stops, and the third and fourth consider refinements to better serve off-street exchange options.
5.1 Base Case
In the Base Case, the two BRT routes share two sets of stops, one near Dundas and Richmond, and the
second at Front and Wellington (close to the VIA station, which could potentially serve any future high-
speed rail station). A special traffic signal phase is needed at Richmond and York to allow for
southbound buses in the curb lane to turn left onto York and at Wellington and York to allow northbound
buses in the curb lane to turn left onto York.
Base Case Routing Pros: BRT routes avoid traffic congestion on Dundas Street
Less bus traffic on Dundas Street
Maximizes use of BRT on Richmond and the new exclusive bus lanes
There is a stop in front of the proposed high speed rail line
Good coverage of key destinations Cons: The routes are not very visible because they do not travel on the more
pedestrian-friendly streets
2030 London Transportation Master Plan
DOWNTOWN LONDON BRT ROUTING OPTIONS June 1, 2011
60114661-6945_App C_2012-02-06_Londondowntownroutes_V7.Docx 5
5.2 Option 1
This option makes the east-west BRT route more direct. There are still two shared sets of stations, one at
Richmond and Fullarton and on Dundas Street. This option may result in less free-flowing movement
because of the use of Dundas, but would gain greater directness and customer convenience. A special
traffic signal phase is needed at Richmond and Dundas to give priority for buses turning from the
southbound curb lane onto Dundas so that there is no conflict with other southbound vehicles. A special
traffic signal phase would also be needed at Wellington and Dundas to assist northbound buses turning
left onto Dundas.
Option 1 Routing Pros: There is a greater transit presence than the Base Option because the routes
use Dundas, which has more pedestrian traffic.
This options is more direct than the Base Option which makes the routing
pattern more intuitive to passengers
This option minimizes interference with bicycle routes
Cons: There may be more congestion on Dundas
There is no station that can be integrated with the inter-city bus or rail
terminals.
2030 London Transportation Master Plan
DOWNTOWN LONDON BRT ROUTING OPTIONS June 1, 2011
60114661-6945_App C_2012-02-06_Londondowntownroutes_V7.Docx 6
5.3 Option 2
Option 2 makes use of the one-way streets on King and Queens, increasing the options for wider
sidewalks and minimizing station area crowding. Many stops are still shared, but the route is “split”,
meaning that many passengers will not be able to make his or her return trip by going to the same stop
he or she got off the bus. This can create some confusion for transit passengers. In this option, transit
signal priority is needed at Richmond and King and perhaps at Wellington and Queen to assist with the
left turns.
Option 2 Routing Pros: The use of King and Queens allows for more space for bus stops
Cons: This route provides less transit presence because it is split and because it uses
less active streets
While coverage may appear to be very extensive, there may be situations
when the coverage is not ideal (e.g., when someone from City Hall wants to
travel south on the north-south line, the walk is quite long).
2030 London Transportation Master Plan
DOWNTOWN LONDON BRT ROUTING OPTIONS June 1, 2011
60114661-6945_App C_2012-02-06_Londondowntownroutes_V7.Docx 7
5.4 Option 3
In this option, an off-street exchange is located in a new north-south transit-only roadway between King
and York between Richmond and Clarence. This location allows for some proximity to the VIA station as
well as to the retail core. New transit signal priority would be needed at the intersections at Queens and
Clarence, at Richmond and King, at Wellington and York, and at Wellington and Dundas. A new
controlled intersection would also be needed at York at the southern end of the transit exchange to assist
buses exiting the transit exchange.
Option 3 Routing Pros: Close proximity to both the inter-city bus terminal and train station
Cons: Route is “split” and indirect which may create some confusion for transit
passengers
Less transit presence than a route using Dundas Street or using Richmond in
both directions
Clarence would no longer be available to become a pedestrian-only street
2030 London Transportation Master Plan
DOWNTOWN LONDON BRT ROUTING OPTIONS June 1, 2011
60114661-6945_App C_2012-02-06_Londondowntownroutes_V7.Docx 8
5.5 Option 4
In this option, an off-street exchange is placed between Carling and Queens west of Richmond. This
location is more central than the off-street exchange location in Option 3a. Transit signal priority would be
needed at Richmond and Dundas to assist with the left turns from Richmond to Dundas, as well as at
Queens and Clarence and at Wellington and Dundas, and a new controlled intersection would be needed
at Carling and Richmond.
Option 4 Routing Pros: This option provides fairly high transit presence because of its intense use of
Dundas and Richmond.
This option serves the central retail core well
This option offers direct routing and easy transfers
Cons: This option does not serve inter-city train station directly
2030 London Transportation Master Plan
DOWNTOWN LONDON BRT ROUTING OPTIONS June 1, 2011
60114661-6945_App C_2012-02-06_Londondowntownroutes_V7.Docx 9
5.6 Option 5
This option would move the north/south route and east/west route through the Downtown from Richmond
Street to Clarence Street between Central Avenue and York Street. This would require a Queue jump
lane/signal priority to the intersection of Richmond Street, Clarence Street and Central Avenue to access
Clarence Street. Clarence Street would also need to be reconnected to Richmond Street at this corner.
The east/west line would also be shifted west to Wellington Street, rather than Waterloo Street to make its
connection to York Street. This option would also require some changes to the signals/access from the
VIA Station at York and Clarence Streets.
The primary transfer points between both BRT lines and the regular service routes could occur at the
Dundas and Clarence intersection if the regular routes are not shifted to a one-way pair system using
Queens Avenue and King Street in the Downtown, or two transfer points could be established at Clarence
and Queens and Clarence and King is a one-way pair system is implemented for the regular service routes.
An additional BRT to BRT transfer point could be located on the York Street block between Clarence and
Wellington, in addition to the transfer points noted above to provide a connection to the VIA Station.
Option 5 Routing Pros: BRT routes avoid traffic congestion on Dundas Street
Less bus traffic on Dundas Street
Alignment would work with a one-way pair system for the regular routes
Would allow Richmond Street and Dundas Street to be closed for street events
without affecting service or requiring route alteration
Proposed stop at VIA Station
Good coverage of key employment destinations
Potential for future development of numerous underused parcels on the east
and west sides of Clarence Street
2030 London Transportation Master Plan
DOWNTOWN LONDON BRT ROUTING OPTIONS June 1, 2011
60114661-6945_App C_2012-02-06_Londondowntownroutes_V7.Docx 10
Cons: Routing is less visible through the Downtown, as Clarence Street not presently
as active as Richmond Street
Does not provide full coverage to entertainment designations on the wwest
side of Downtown (JLC, Market, Forks)
The geometric design of Richmond Street and Central Avenue intersection and
potentially Clarence Street is a challenge. Clarence Street is a north/south
road parallel to Richmond Street and currently does not connect to Richmond
Street but ends at a sharp angle.
6. Option Comparison
6.1 Benefits
The following chart suggests that the Base Option is the best in terms of customer convenience and safety,
followed closely by Option 5. Option 2 is the best in terms of meeting the transportation goals and needs of
the Downtown, followed by Options 1 and 5. Option 1 and Option 4 are slightly better at supporting traffic
and parking needs, and only the off-street options provide rest facilities for drivers. Given the high cost of an
off-street exchange, and the fact that they do not provide significant customer benefits over the other
options, they are not recommended for the short term. Option 2 is also discounted because of its poor
performance in terms of customer benefits. This leaves the Base Option, Option 1 and Option 5 are the best
candidates. They could be further refined to address any short-comings (e.g., further refine the stop
locations to improve proximity to trip generators) and to help select a preferred routing scheme.
Criteria
Approaches
Initially
Assumed
Routing in
Modelling
Use of
More Direct
Routing
Use of
One-way
Streets
Use of an
Off-street
Exchange
Avoid
Dundas
and
Richmond
Base Option Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Convenient, Attractive
and Safe for Transit
Passengers
Proximity of stops to trip
generators
Ease of transfers between
BRT routes
Proximity of stops to inter-
city transit services
No "splits" in route; stations
together
Adaptable to Long Term
Transportation Needs
Permanent pedestrian
focus corridors
Supportive of Downtown
Goals
Wider sidewalks
Temporary pedestrian
focus corridors (Dundas)
Compatible wth downtown
bicycle routes
Traffic / Parking Driveway access for
businesses, residential, etc.
Roadway capacity for
automobiles
On-street parking
Operator Amenities Rest facilities
Overall Score 20 20 18 17 18 20
Legend: Strongly meets criterion .................. 3 points Somewhat meets criterion ............. 1 point
Meets criterion ................................ 2 points Does not meet criterion .................. 0 points
2030 London Transportation Master Plan
DOWNTOWN LONDON BRT ROUTING OPTIONS June 1, 2011
60114661-6945_App C_2012-02-06_Londondowntownroutes_V7.Docx 11
6.2 Costs
Criteria
Approaches
Initially
Assumed
Routing in
Modelling
Use of
More Direct
Routing
Use of
One-way
Streets
Use of an
Off-street
Exchange
Avoid
Dundas
and
Richmond
Base Option Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Capital Cost
Off-street exchange 0 0 0 1 1 0
Number of 2-way stations 5 4 4 4 4 5
New signal controlled
intersections 0 0 0 1 1 0
Intersections with new
transit signal priority 3 2 2 4 2 4
7. Conclusion
There was no obvious routing choice that satisfied all of the desired attributes. However, the Base Option,
Option 1 and Option 5 performed best in this analysis, and they could be further refined through future
planning work to undergo a more rigorous assessment, which could be part of an Environmental
Assessment.