University Drive Bridge

[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.