The 'R' stands for Reliable

If you haven't checked your mailbox since Friday, make sure you do so before the weekend finishes. You will find a pamphlet outlining some open houses coming up over the next week to learn more about the options being considered for London's bus rapid transit (BRT) system.

Back of the brochure delivered to households this past Friday.

On a personal note, I had the pleasant surprise to discover comments that I had made at a public information meeting in December about the need for rapid transit appear on the back of the pamphlet! Seeing this inspired me to further explain the importance of implementing this method of mass transit, and I'll use our household as an example.

Our family has one car for two working adults, and we have a child in daycare. My wife takes London Transit to and from work most of the time and drops our daughter off in the morning, and I drive to and from work most of the time and pick our daughter up in the afternoon. While both of our workplaces are near a bus route, transfers downtown create long waits and only worsens during rush-hour traffic.  

It normally takes my wife 50 to 60 minutes to get home on a roughly 10 km journey, when it shouldn't be more than a 30-minute bus trip; however, heavier traffic and a meandering bus route through neighbourhoods double her commute home. She finishes work at five o'clock, but would have to leave work a few minutes early to catch a bus and get home by quarter to six, and typically has to wait 20 minutes after work to catch her bus to get home shortly after six. My commute of about 6.5 km would take 30 minutes by bus (it's typically 12 to 15 minutes by car), but I would either arrive at work 20 minutes early or 5 minutes late; on the way home (I finish at four o'clock), I would leave 5 minutes early or have to wait 20 minutes for a bus, getting home at about ten to five.

Map of where people reported to live, work, and go to school at the December 2017 public information centre for Shift.

We both have the goal of getting to and from work without the use of a single-occupied vehicle, and having dedicated lanes for bus rapid transit (therefore making the system "rapid") will ensure that schedules remain punctual and reliable. People who want to take public transit only really ask for comfort and reliability: the major problem that has plagued London's transit system for decades has been unreliable schedules -- a bus that arrives early and leaves early at transfer points, for example, so in essence doesn't arrive at all -- and is a deciding factor for people to drive their car instead of using public transit, myself included. Not being assured that I would be home in time to pick up our daughter from daycare is a huge reason why I still drive to and from work.

Having the backbone of the system in rapid/reliable transit will speed up commute times and increase the efficiency of the feeder routes that cover the rest of the city.  Since the rapid lines will be every 5 minutes (during peak hours) or 10 minutes and feeders being no more than double the rapid line, people will be able to get around much quicker and with minimal transfer times.

Getting home earlier from work would allow us to spend more quality time as a family, and in my wife's case would give her about three more hours at home in a normal week. A more reliable transit system will allow us to continue as a single-vehicle family; otherwise, we would have to explore adding to London's congestion with a second vehicle, while also greatly increasing our household expenditures. We are only one family: multiply our situation by thousands, and the impact of having better transit will easily help young families reduce their need for a second vehicle -- not to mention empty-nesters who want to downsize, single folks who would rather not own (or perhaps can't afford) a vehicle, and a multitude of other family situations where reducing vehicle use is beneficial for them both financially and socially.

When we consider moving forward with the BRT, we already know that it will:

• improve our local economy by getting more people to more places quicker and easier;
• be better for the environment by reducing the number of single-occupied vehicles and directing higher-density development along transit routes; and
• enhance our social lives by giving us more time with the people we love. 

It's a sustainable solution that we can't pass up.

Ward 6 candidate Mike Bloxam proposes changes to overnight parking

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Tuesday, October 14, 2014

Ward 6 candidate Mike Bloxam proposes changes to overnight parking

When August ended, so did your right to park overnight on city streets for another year. That’s a pain, especially for those who hosted overnight guests during Thanksgiving weekend.

It doesn’t have to be that way, says one candidate for city council in Ward 6. Ending the parking ban that runs from 3 AM until 5 AM for most of the year could actually increase road safety according to Mike Bloxam.

“We spend a lot of effort educating people not to drive when you’ve been drinking, not to drive when you’re exhausted. One of the things we can do to discourage people from getting behind the wheel is to remove that fear of a parking ticket,” Bloxam said. “It also means people will have one less thing to worry about when friends and relatives visit.”

That doesn’t mean it’s a parking free-for-all, Bloxam explained.

“Of course we need the streets clear when snow plows are coming through. We also don’t want to see people owning more vehicles than their home can support with parking spaces; however, some other jurisdictions have creative solutions for overnight parking that I’d like to see London consider.”

For example, overnight parking on the street could be allowed except when the forecast says a significant snow event is on the way. Then, all cars would have to be off the street for 24 hours. The City of Kitchener uses this approach. While overnight parking is more relaxed, any vehicle impeding a snow plow can be towed.

Another approach is to keep the ban on overnight parking, but give residents a batch of exemptions (the City of Waterloo allows 15) they can use at any time throughout the year. Vehicle owners would register the licence plate online, via a smart phone app, or by phone the night they plan to park to receive an exemption. This approach allows overnight visitors without much hassle.  The City of London is currently considering this, but it will be up to the next council to enact such an initiative.

“If elected, I’d ask city staff to take a good hard look at these programs and how they could be implemented in London,” Bloxam said. “If we’re asking people to accept something that’s inconvenient, it should be for a good reason. In this case, I think there are better alternatives.”

- 30 -

Mike Bloxam is running to be your next councillor for Ward 6 in London, Ontario. He aspires for a better London that is an ideal place to live, work, play, and stay.

Campaign hotline: 519-518-2273 | E-mail: mike@bloxam.ca | Web site: www.bloxam.ca | Twitter: @Mike_Bloxam

About Mike Bloxam:

Ø       Mike Bloxam is a born-and-raised Londoner running to be the next councillor for Ward 6.

Ø       He is the owner of a small business – Sun Tap Technologies – and serves on City Hall’s Advisory Committee on the Environment.

Ø       Bloxam has proposed several other ideas that are resonating with Londoners:

Ø       A web-based citizen dashboard to make city data more accessible to the public

Ø       Improved collaboration with Western University and Fanshawe College

Ø       Supporting small business with resources and start-up grants

Ø       Making childcare more accessible for parents

Ø       Improved waste diversion, including serious consideration for an organics program

Ø       Bloxam’s platform includes further proposals to increase integrity, prosperity, and sustainability in London The full platform can be found at www.bloxam.ca/platform

A moving experience

The experience of our city is a collection of places: where we live, where we work, where we play, and where we learn. Each one demands an important part of our time. Getting between these places takes time, too, and that time can often be frustrating.

We need to increase safe and efficient options to get around our city. Making it easy for both people and goods to get where they’re going will improve quality of life for Londoners and help business and culture flourish.

To make sure our transportation network functions well, we need to consider all modes of travel and the people who use them: walking and using mobility aides; cycling and active transportation; local and regional public transit; and commercial and passenger vehicle traffic. The more single-occupancy vehicles we get off the road, the better it is for all travellers: reduced traffic congestion benefits everybody on the move, so that those who still need to drive can get around efficiently, too.

Each of these is a huge topic on its own, and the subject of all kinds of study. I’ll get to a few specifics below, but the most important thing when approaching transportation is a philosophy of giving weight to each. The London Plan does this well: pedestrians can’t be just an afterthought, and neither can cars. Each system needs to work well for the ones who use it.

Here are just a few of the ways for London to improve transportation. 

Walking and mobility devices

• Plan new neighbourhoods to be walkable. We know that walkable neighbourhoods lead to healthier and more engaged residents. The city’s planning process should favour grid patterns and mixed uses (i.e. some commercial spots in residential neighbourhoods) for new areas.
• Give people more time to cross the street. Extending signal times at busy pedestrian crossings by just a few seconds can make a big difference in how safe people feel crossing busy streets, especially elders and people with physical disabilities. It can also help people catch their bus on time. I’ve heard from Ward 6 residents time and time again about trouble crossing at Oxford St. and Cherryhill Blvd. and at Sarnia Rd. and Sleightholme Ave., and this is an unacceptable situation.
• Increase accessibility on our streets and sidewalks. Add more accessible pedestrian signals and cut curbs. This allows people to more easily cross roadways, particularly if using a stroller, a walker, or a mobility device.

Cycling and active transportation

• Increase dedicated space for cycling, to increase safety. Properly-designed cycling lanes, in a planned network, will increase safety and comfort for both cyclists and drivers. New cycling lanes can either be segregated from vehicle traffic, or along parallel routes where traffic volumes or space on the main road make that a better option.

Local and regional public transit

• Overhaul London’s bus routes. The radial pattern we have now makes it easy to get to and from downtown, but hard to get anywhere else. We need a grid system with express cross-town routes and connections that service neighbourhoods. This will make it easier to connect between routes and get to all corners of the city, including commercial and industrial areas so that workers can get to their job quickly and on time. (Don't miss out on London Transit's survey, closing October 12th:  https://www.surveymonkey.com/s/letstalktransit)
• Invest in rapid transit. Yes, this will mean a serious investment, whether it’s bus rapid transit or some other system. This is crucial if London wants to be a functional mid-size city in the 21^st century. We need to plan not only for where we are today, but where we will be in the future. The provincial government is partially funding rapid transit in Waterloo Region, Hamilton, and Ottawa. London should present a solid, comprehensive rapid transit plan as soon it is feasible to seek this kind of investment in our own community.
• Foster regional transit. Right now, all trains and busses lead to Toronto. The city should work with the province and with other municipalities to establish regional connections, making people have options to travel to nearby cities and towns. As the major city in Southwestern Ontario, London can and should play a lead role.

Vehicles

• Scrap the overnight parking ban. Londoners should be able to have family and friends visit without worrying about parking. This will require further discussion with city maintenance staff, but it’s doable. Several other communities of comparable size ban overnight parking during declared snow events only.
• Establish more carpool and park-and-ride lots near our major highways, at the edges of the city, and on the edges of the core.
• Improve road safety. Adding facilities for pedestrians and cyclist will help improve security for drivers, too. Other ways to increase safety include: restricting right turns on red lights in areas with high pedestrian and bicycle traffic; adding advanced-left signals when entering or exiting a major artery (such as needed at Wonderland  Rd. and Beaverbrook Ave.); and considering pedestrian bridges across wide, high-traffic roads.

Of course, these aren’t the only things to consider when it comes to London mobility and transportation. As I said, it’s a huge topic. Most importantly, we need to make sure people can get around using multiple modes of traffic, and that they can get to any corner of the city efficiently. As your councillor, I will make it a priority to keep London connected. 

Changing how London moves

In a couple of months, a significant change to the way Londoners get around the city will arrive.  While the first choice for people to move from point A to point B should be "active" transportation (walking, cycling, etc.), followed closely by public transit (the city bus in London's case), most elect to hop into their personal vehicle and drive to their destination.  Starting in April, drivers will have a new option when it comes to automobiles:  Community CarShare has announced they will open in London.  (Read their announcement)

Haven't heard of Community CarShare?  Ontario's first non-profit co-operative car-share service started in Kitchener-Waterloo in 1998, and essentially enhances the traditional car rental with the flexibility of using (and therefore paying for) the use of a vehicle only when you need it.

At the December meeting of the Advisory Committee on the Environment (ACE), we received a presentation from one of the co-op's representatives.  He told us that a car-share vehicle removes 5 to 15 cars from the road.  This means less traffic congestion and lower pollution levels as a city adopts the concept.  In addition, he informed us that the average car-share member drives 50% less with a shared vehicle versus owning one (they will choose to walk or take other transportation for close trips), translating into more exercise and improved health.

Many families will debate how "big" they should go:  purchasing the "largest" vehicle possible to suit all needs means having to take a mini-van or SUV everywhere, while its main purpose in size serves to deliver children to their activities (such as hockey, with all the equipment that needs transporting along with the player!), yet proves overkill for most other tasks.  A car-share program allows a family to choose the best vehicle to fit the needs of the day:  perhaps a sedan for groceries on Tuesday, a mini-van to transport to the arena or the performance venue on the weekends, or an extended-cab pick-up truck to move furniture for the university-bound student twice a year.

The average annual cost of owning and operating a vehicle in Ontario sits at about $10 500, while the average CarShare member will spend $1200 per year, including gasoline, insurance, and other incidentals.  Instead of purchasing that "second vehicle" that rarely gets used or exceeds the majority of a family's needs, a household can spend a tenth of the yearly costs for the same service and convenience with a shared vehicle.

The Community CarShare representative informed those of us at ACE that they only ask from the City of London a $150 000 line of credit for the next five to ten years (as a fallback: there is no plan to use the money unless necessary), and some subsidized or in-kind public parking spots.

Think your neighbourhood could use a shared vehicle?  Get in contact and flood them with requests:  you will put your street on their radar and may get your very own community-owned vehicle.

Concerns on cycling

What a packed month for activities at London City Hall!  Monday saw the approval to exempt Rockin' New Year's Eve from the fine for exceeding the maximum noise level, and Tuesday's decision to continue the study for the Blackfriars-Petersville heritage conservation district met (mostly) happy agreement.

This coming Monday, December 16th, the Strategic Priorities and Policy Committee meets at 4:00 PM (16h00) and the gallery should be packed:  a group of London cyclists have a delegation to encourage City Council to form a Cycling Advisory Committee (or "CAC").  

Photo courtesy of London Cycle Link

The City currently has 12 advisory committees.  These committees consist of community members who volunteer their time to give direction to the the standing committees - made up of city councillors - on items that fall into their purview.  (As an aside, I sit on the Advisory Committee on the Environment.)

Currently, many topics relating to cycling get discussed by the Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC).  Of course, TAC also covers traffic, roadways, public transit, and so forth, and many feel that cycling gets lost in the mix and cyclists have requirements that differ from motor vehicles.

Most other cities of comparable size in Ontario have a CAC.  London has made great strides toward endorsing active transportation (walking, cycling, etc.) and having a CAC created will help greatly to achieve the established goals.  In essence, the City must embrace the idea of prioritizing transportation in the following order:

1. walking
2. cycling
3. public/mass transit
4. commercial vehicles
5. commuter traffic

Using this order of precedence reduces the number of commuter vehicles (normally single-occupancy travellers), which alleviates traffic congestion.  Less traffic means less wear and tear on the roads, eliminates the need to expand/add lanes (which only causes more traffic), lower pollution levels, and more room on the road for cyclists and busses.  It also means more money in the pockets of the everyday citizen:  33% of our energy costs in London (that's everybody who lives and works here) go toward powering vehicles at a cost of $433 million per year, and the vast majority of that money flows out of the city.

Young people also tend to avoid purchasing a vehicle - and who can blame them with thousands in student debt and trouble finding a job?  The need for a car to get around provides one of the biggest problems for London as a whole.  Students will choose to go to another city with adequate transit and access to safe cycling.

With cycling at #2 on the list above, the approval to create the Cycling Advisory Committee should receive unanimous consent on Monday.  Anyone voting against will require a darned convincing counter-argument (and it had better not contain the words "zero percent").

New blog, first post

Good morning, London!  Instead of "shouting into the darkness" of Twitter or Facebook, I have taken it upon myself to express opinions about the happenings and events in our great city via a blog, which will hopefully attract a good readership and interactive feedback along the way.

This may be cheating a bit, but as the first "post" I shall reprint a letter to the editor that I submitted to London Community News back in February of this year (not published in its entirety, but gets the point across).

Forget increasing highway speed: build high-speed rail instead

Dear editor,

This is a response to the letter to the editor entitled, Ontario highway speeds are lagging behind many countries, published on Jan. 31. 

While Mr. Peper has some interesting statistics about other countries, I do believe that the speed limits on our roadways (all of them, not just the 401) are there for a reason: safety. We need to ensure that roads are safe before all other considerations. 

If it takes you five fewer minutes to get from London to Toronto or Windsor because you’re doing 120 kph instead of 100 kph, what are you really gaining? Not to mention that for most small- and medium-size cars, the faster they drive over 80 kph, the lower their fuel efficiency.

If we truly want a fast, efficient, and safe mode of transport, reduce the number of single-occupancy vehicles and instate a high-speed rail service from Windsor to Québec City. At 200 kph, you can be in downtown Toronto in an hour. How amazing would that be? No traffic to fight, no parking to find, and you can use that time to read a book or just relax.

Reviving rail service for passenger travel and moving freight should be the top priority when it comes to province-wide transportation.

Mike Bloxam

London

Until next time!

... Mike.