University Drive Bridge

[jammer139]

This spring there is a planning meeting to discuss design concepts for the bridge.


https://uwo.ca/fm/projects/capital_p...ud_bridge.html

[jammer139]

CBC update piece on options for the bridge.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...sing-1.7287399

UWO site - https://uwo.ca/fm/projects/capital_p...ud_bridge.html

[Djeffery]

Whatever they want to do as long as city taxpayers aren't paying for it, like the ransom demand under BRT. I've never found the university to be a good cut through. I only ever go through the university for work when I deliver there. And I almost always go up Richmond to Windermere, as 9 out of 10 times, I'm going to the hospital first. Not sure how they would go about preventing cut through though unless they outright banned non transit, service and university vehicles altogether, which will still require a new bridge for that traffic anyway. Plus closing the campus to cars will I'm sure cost a serious amount of money in lost parking revenue.

[Nintentario]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Whatever they want to do as long as city taxpayers aren't paying for it, like the ransom demand under BRT.

London's downtown would generate immense tax revenue by enabling their student population to access downtown and Masonville more readily. I can't understand that a University's insistence to not cover municipal projects (which is not the purpose of publicly funded universities) to be inappropriate - in fact insisting London pay for London's BRT (of which London benefits via increased tax revenue) seems quite appropriate, no?

Originally Posted by Djeffery

I've never found the university to be a good cut through.

Okay, true, however, a counterpoint: your personal experience doesn't negate the objective fact that there's immense cut-through traffic. I've been honked at and nearly hit by folks clearly coming home from work (work uniforms, toolboxes in back seats, etc) and it makes cycling into/out of campus much more difficult and frustrating than it would be without the cut-throughers. The cut-through traffic has even been identified as a problem by many of the folks in the article and exists.

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Not sure how they would go about preventing cut through

Have windshield tags and a bollard that raises/lowers, like they have at the Ambassador Bridge toll booths - are you familiar with them Djeffery? Wouldn't this be an easy solution? If non-tagged vehicles go through, they get a ticket the same way speeding cameras work. This solution would be automatic and cost-effective.

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Plus closing the campus to cars will I'm sure cost a serious amount of money in lost parking revenue.

Are you certain, though? I think the provincial Conservative government and their constant reduction in university funding is more of a threat than parking revenue. That's all besides the point that Western Parking's finances operates independently of many of the departments and faculties, and so many of the actual valuable sections of the University will have their funding unaffected. Western can absolutely bear the loss of parking revenue, as many parts of the university don't see that money anyways.

We've got to move past private vehicle ownership in a significant way (see: the country on fire, Jasper specifically this year), and allowing Western to become filled with non-Western folk during rush hour holds the campus back from becoming more friendly to active transit - the type of transit students can afford and likely benefit from. If these students are exposed to active transit solutions in their formative college years, they'll be more likely to be advocates for these solutions when/if they leave the Western and London area after graduation.


~~~~~~

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Nintentario

London's downtown would generate immense tax revenue by enabling their student population to access downtown and Masonville more readily. I can't understand that a University's insistence to not cover municipal projects (which is not the purpose of publicly funded universities) to be inappropriate - in fact insisting London pay for London's BRT (of which London benefits via increased tax revenue) seems quite appropriate, no?


Okay, true, however, a counterpoint: your personal experience doesn't negate the objective fact that there's immense cut-through traffic. I've been honked at and nearly hit by folks clearly coming home from work (work uniforms, toolboxes in back seats, etc) and it makes cycling into/out of campus much more difficult and frustrating than it would be without the cut-throughers. The cut-through traffic has even been identified as a problem by many of the folks in the article and exists.


Have windshield tags and a bollard that raises/lowers, like they have at the Ambassador Bridge toll booths - are you familiar with them Djeffery? Wouldn't this be an easy solution? If non-tagged vehicles go through, they get a ticket the same way speeding cameras work. This solution would be automatic and cost-effective.


Are you certain, though? I think the provincial Conservative government and their constant reduction in university funding is more of a threat than parking revenue. That's all besides the point that Western Parking's finances operates independently of many of the departments and faculties, and so many of the actual valuable sections of the University will have their funding unaffected. Western can absolutely bear the loss of parking revenue, as many parts of the university don't see that money anyways.

We've got to move past private vehicle ownership in a significant way (see: the country on fire, Jasper specifically this year), and allowing Western to become filled with non-Western folk during rush hour holds the campus back from becoming more friendly to active transit - the type of transit students can afford and likely benefit from. If these students are exposed to active transit solutions in their formative college years, they'll be more likely to be advocates for these solutions when/if they leave the Western and London area after graduation.


~~~~~~

Sorry, not inclined to break down my reply to each sentence. Yes I'm familiar with window stickers and gates and I thought of that. However they would need to supply every single service company with those or staff the entrances. Every single courier truck, food service truck, construction vehicle, the entire university fleet, all the LTC buses, and countless other vehicles I'm not listing. I don't care if they want to ban cars as like I said, I don't go that way so it doesn't bother me, and my work truck gets me in anywhere I need to go for my job, including already pedestrian only areas. I don't know where the parking money goes, but I'm sure the university uses it for something and it must be significant enough to spend the money staffing several parking gates that aren't automated and generally operating the parking program. Otherwise they just wouldn't do it.

BRT, I have already said many times that I think any BRT program excluding the university is silly. I did however say and still think the university's demand that in exchange for access to campus, London had to pay for the new bridge was silly. I have also said I preferred routing the BRT up Wharncliffe and Western instead of Richmond, through campus and onto Western. I've heard arguments why that isn't a good route but nothing so convincing of why Richmond is so much better, considering the obstacles that are the CPR and UWO.

[Nintentario]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

every single service company with those

Where is this black/white thinking coming from when there's four entrances to campus, and only one is being closed to cars?

Trucks can simply... go around.

Or, if frequent visitors, get a pass. I'm confused why you think this is so difficult, and also why you're speaking in absolutes... this is one of four entrances to campus. A new truck courier without a sticker would just approach the campus from another direction. Huh?

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Nintentario

Where is this black/white thinking coming from when there's four entrances to campus, and only one is being closed to cars?

Trucks can simply... go around.

Or, if frequent visitors, get a pass. I'm confused why you think this is so difficult, and also why you're speaking in absolutes... this is one of four entrances to campus. A new truck courier without a sticker would just approach the campus from another direction. Huh?

Well, ok, I thought we were talking about closing campus to cars. Which would require all entrances to be closed. And as I said, in my truck, I do already go around in the vast majority of times I go there.

[haljackey]

I am surprised a bridge connecting Sarnia/Philip Aziz to Huron Street still hasn't been seriously considered. Reroute vehicles to this so University Drive can be car free.

[Nintentario]

Originally Posted by haljackey

I am surprised a bridge connecting Sarnia/Philip Aziz to Huron Street still hasn't been seriously considered. Reroute vehicles to this so University Drive can be car free.

I'm not surprised, considering it's an objectively poor idea if you value the environment, health, and economic growth of the immediate area. The municipal land allotted for the possible bridge (on the UWO campus plans) doesn't seem to be big enough for such a bridge, either.

To make an entirely new bridge for private vehicles would in principle be foolish most places, but this site specifically would require a major part of the Thames Valley Parkway to be retrofitted for private vehicle traffic - it's currently the beginning of the route from Huron St., and it would have to pass through pristine environmental land that's currently enjoyed by active transit users. A bridge for private vehicles would damage all that.

The more routes you build for private vehicles to travel on, the more Londoners will be incentivized to drive than more economically beneficial methods. We should not encourage induced demand of private vehicles in London. Yes we should build a bridge for active transit - a safe and protected active transit route from Sarnia & Hyde Park through to Huron/ the TVP is desperately needed, for youth mobility and those that can't afford a car - but absolutely not for private vehicles.

How about this - we make it HARDER for private vehicles to get around London? It'd make the city safer, and more economically vibrant as poor working class folks won't be burdened with excessive insurance car payments, and youth could get around the city safer and more accessibly.

~~~~~~

[haljackey]

Originally Posted by Nintentario

How about this - we make it HARDER for private vehicles to get around London? It'd make the city safer, and more economically vibrant as poor working class folks won't be burdened with excessive insurance car payments, and youth could get around the city safer and more accessibly.

~~~~~~

Actually bridge like this would make it harder for private vehicles to get through the university as they would use Huron/Sarnia instead of going through campus.

It would also be beneficial for transit for those who go on the bus routes that go through the university but the university is not their destination. The road would also address one of the many missing links in London's grid (good for bus routing) and promote intensification which benefits transit. It could overpass the TVP and provide connections here as well, inducing demand for active transportation.

If we're going to build a completely new bridge in this area, I think this is a better spot for it compared to simply paralleling the existing one. Obviously an extensive environmental assessment and careful construction planning would be needed for it.

Heck, we could even rough in some LRT tracks on the bridge for some day in the future...

[Nintentario]

Originally Posted by haljackey

they would use Huron/Sarnia instead of going through campus.

I'm confused.. I'm following Sarnia east, into Philip Aziz Road, and then over the river to Huron.

This literally intersects campus, no?

~~~~~~